Google and JPMorgan have each told staff that office attendance will be factored into performance evaluations. The US law firm Davis Polk informed employees that fewer days in the office would result in lower bonuses. And Meta and Amazon both told employees they’re now monitoring badge swipes, with potential consequences for workers who don’t comply with attendance policies – including job loss. Increasingly, workers across many jobs and sectors appear to be barrelling towards the same fate.

In some ways, it’s unsurprising bosses are turning back to attendance as a standard. After all, we’ve long been conditioned to believe showing up is vital to success, from some of our earliest days. In school, perfect attendance is often still seen a badge of honour. The obsession with attendance has also been a mainstay of workplace culture for decades; pre-pandemic, remote work was largely unheard of, and employees were expected to be physically present at their desks throughout the workday.

Yet after the success of flexible arrangements during the pandemic, attendance is still entrenched as a core metric. What’s the point?

  • BradleyUffner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This reason doesn’t really make sense to me. The company pays the same for the office whether there are people in it or not. Forcing people into the office isn’t saving them any money, in fact they probably pay more when you factor in utilities.

    • greenskye@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      They do pay more. The issue comes in because many executives are really doing two jobs. Job one is the company exec. They want to save money and downsizing office space is kosher with that job. But their second job is being landlords for commercial office space. Their portfolios will be negatively affected by companies (including their own) getting rid of office space.

      They are choosing to prioritize their personal wealth (commercial real estate investments) over the health of their company.

      Modern business is full of this type of stuff. The priority is always personal benefits over the health of the company. Run it into the ground while extracting as much as you possibly can and walking away from any consequences.

      • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The great Neo-liberal grift.

        42 years and the only thing to trickle down were two skyscrapers and half the smaller bridges in the country.

        And the middle class down the social ladder

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I fucking hate neoliberalism.

          It’s responsible for the vast majority of society’s problems at this point.

            • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Neoliberalism is trickle down. It’s believing that tax cuts benefit society more than collectively investing in that society, usually in direct opposition to any actual tabulated, factual data.

              If you don’t remember the world before January 1981, and you live in a western nation, than you havent experienced anything other than neoliberalism.

              Nixon was more of a leftist than Clinton or Obama. All we’ve known is the Center-right (Democrats) and the right/far-right.

              Conservativism is dead in America. You’re average conservative now would look at Dubya’s “Compassionate Conservativism” push for Medicare Part D and shriek until their owners finally came and put them into bed.

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

      If you pay for a building that can house 100 workers, but only 20 come into the office and the other 80 work from home, you have way more space than what you need. You could probably rent a place half as big for half the price and still have room.

      Would you rent a 5 bedroom, 4 bathroom house with a 3-car garage as a bachelor? I mean you can but you’re paying for way more than what you actually need.

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s an interconnected issue where the value of real estate is dependent on people having a use for it.