How could defending the indefensible become harder?
At my job it seemed like they might attempt this, but I think they realized there’s no way to extract as much labor out of people if you have them come into an office.
Practically speaking, when you work from an office you leave your work there. When you work from home, there’s 12 or 18 hour shifts with no bio — or other — breaks.
THANKS BUSH FOR THE END OF OVERTIME. /s
It wasn’t Bush. He just extended an already-abused loophole a bit. I started work when Reagan was president, had a middle-management job, worked lots of overtime and never got paid for it. And “middle management” didn’t mean I had any direct reports. It just meant I had technical oversight over the work of some developers. It’s been a racket for a very long time.
They have never been defendable, and that was always kind of the point. Those in favor of them were really just in favor of showing they could do their own equivalent of shoot someone on 5th avenue and getaway with it because no one could do anything to them.
Bosses will absolutely not give a shit about workers having to pay more
And then they’ll exclaim full of surprise when nobody wants to work for them, for a wage that’s below minimum wage when substracting commuting.
Then they’ll want more H1-Bs because “no qualified Americans are applying.”
BECAUSE THE PAY AND WORKING CONDITIONS ARE SHIT.
And even the number of H1-Bs is going down
In fact, the worst of the worst LOVE that you’re making Exxon richer
They were always hard to defend.
If they weren’t, the headline probably wouldn’t have used the comparative
I’m still waiting for a company to justify why I have to go in the office, I request +25% salary raise to go in.
