• penguin@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I disagree. It has nothing to do with real estate. CEOs simply prefer working in an office with all their underlings around.

    It’s cheaper to run a company if you need less office space. Even if you already have a ton of office space and it’s going unused, it’s cheaper to have an empty office than a full one.

    Following the money leads to embracing a WFH-first mentality. So if it was just money, then these companies wouldn’t be forcing people back.

    But besides money, people also enjoy power and they feel more powerful in a full office than working from home. So that’s what they pursue even if it costs more.

    Just like how rich people will spend money on big houses and nice cars, not everything they do is to save more. They send money on things they like.

    • Stoneykins [any]@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      “It’s cheaper to run a company if you need less office space” unless you are the company that rents out office space. That is who is creating all this anti-WFH propaganda, people with property real estate investments. Business offices are wildly valuable assets and WFH becoming the default operations method for most businesses would see the value of those assets depreciate

    • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      That’s true for small to medium-sized companies. For large and very large companies, you should consider than many OWN A LOT OF THEIR OFFICE REAL ESTATE, internationally, often in the billions of dollars worth. A large chunk of their assets are in the office buildings they own, and if they become worthless the company stands to lose a lot. Not to mention that they will often borrow against the value of the buildings, and as a collateral if the value drops significantly the banks might decide that they have to pay back the excess portion of their loan immediately or put up more collateral (margin call).

      • penguin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I still think WFH is more profitable in that sense. You could try to lease out the space, for example. Or just sit on the space while it’s empty. Less electricity, water, coffee, toilet paper, etc etc.

        Forcing your employees back to an office doesn’t get you any more money unless it’s some very strange situation.

        • Hacksaw@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think it’s a tragedy of the commons type scenario. If they all act together and force everyone back to the office, then the real estate will be used and have value. If they all don’t then all the real estate becomes worthless.

          You’re right though, each of them individually could sell the property, or lease it and come out ahead. As soon as that starts though, it becomes a game of hot potato, who holds the buildings when they lose their value?

          • penguin@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Very true. I also believe though that CEOs essentially never do anything for the common good of other companies or even the entire planet. If they can earn 0.00001% more revenue by firing a bunch of people, or polluting, they won’t think twice about it.

            So if they could earn more by leasing their office space to another company, they would do the same thing (if they were acting equally logically/pragmatically) but I believe it’s different in this case because of my personal opinion that it’s simply the preference of the upper management types for various reasons.

            But not every CEO has forced people back. Many have embraced how it’s the future of office work.

    • new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s also a non zero amount of people that don’t like being home. Whether it’s the spouse or the kids they’re avoiding, WFH makes it harder to avoid whatever is going on at home.

      Just my gut feeling, but I’m gonna guess lots of c suite rich dudes would rather have a reason to be away from their wives and kids than being at home working. And there’s no cute coworkers to creep on either if everyone is home!

      I’ve had regular co-workers not leave the office early when everyone else was because they didn’t want to “have to watch the kid(s) alone”.

    • ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeh the real estate argument only accounts for part of the issue I think. The majority is, as you say, the psychological gratification of management and executives. They feel more power when they can see their ‘kingdom’.

      • kanzalibrary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Agree, minor upper position tend to feel like “commanding” their below with a reason ‘they have position on that’ when working on office. WFH is the best alternative here for ‘many’ people to enjoy life and work with their own pace in peace without dictated by emotional impact from upper position that they will carry it wherever they are in certain circumstances and times, why we need to argue about this again? Covid time already proof this argument that productivitive has increased as people work in WFH environment. But this is just my opinion, of course everybody has their own view related this issue.

    • WhipTheLlama@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      CEOs simply prefer working in an office with all their underlings around.

      If CEOs want people to work at the office, they’d be working at the office. Articles trying to polarize people by categorizing us into “elites want x, everyone else wants y” just make people angry for no reason.

      Lots and lots of CEOs are really happy to have people working from home. That’s why working from home is still a popular thing. There are also CEOs who think working from home hurts productivity or culture. They can order everyone back to the office whenever they want and short of wide-scale quitting, which rarely happens, they’ll get what they want.

      • penguin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure. I should’ve added that nuance to my argument that it only applies to the companies that are forcing people back.

        Many CEOs out there have embraced WFH regardless of their personal preference.

    • valveman@lemmy.eco.br
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I disagree in parts. Yes, I agree this “back to office” movement has something to do with CEOs power rush, but what about the investors? They don’t care about power hierarchies, only about profits and dividends. If they have enough shares and decide to make people work from home, company’s costs with office rent could be turned into investments (like better equipment or help develop new products), or turned into dividends to the investors (more likely IMO). Either way, the investors will make more money from it.

      Honestly, I think office renting is a real problem, and could get catastrophic if not handled appropriately. This massive propaganda we see about “get back to office” is more likely to be a landlord’s move than anything else IMO, and CEOs decisions are just “aftershocks”

      • penguin@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Investors don’t care one way or the other about where employees work and I imagine most are content to leave that as a decision made by the CEO.