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?

  • pgp@lemmy.pt
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s a game that has nothing to do with workers, but real estate instead. If workers don’t go to the office, there will be no need for the company to rent an office the size it does, making it “lose” money. If they cut on their offices, real estate starts losing value (as we can see in some articles that start popping up), and that’s something that bothers a lot of big players.

    • the post of tom joad@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the real estate thing is big, but also they’ll be god-damned if we get a benefit for free.

      Once it’s a benefit they have control over, they can use it as leverage for those that want it back. They can cut our pay, increase our hours, both.

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      But then people will start clamoring about retrofitting the empty skyscrapers into housing and then all the NIMBYs houses lose value, and that’d make tax revenue decrease.

      THAT is why.

      • Tigbitties@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        retrofitting the empty skyscrapers into housing

        “Too expensive. Too difficult” they say… it’s fucking bullshit. Those are stalling words. They’re waiting on a plan to maximize the investment. My guess, money and/or tax credit from the government.

        • Sodis@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          To be honest, that’s most likely a valid concern. Office buildings don’t meet the criteria for normal housing. If you look at the distribution of bathrooms and kitchens in these skyscrapers, you need to do quite some construction work to meet the requirements of apartments for housing.

            • Sodis@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes, they are starting with buildings, that are more suited to refurbish them as residential area. Smaller buildings are better suited, because you can actually get light into them. The center rooms in one of these giant skyscrapers would be without windows. Just to name another reason, why it is not that simple.

                • Sodis@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  How does this in any way counter my points? They even get subsidized to do it, meaning, that it is too expensive else. And I already stated, that there are buildings, that are more suitable than others. Just look at the absolute numbers, they are talking about 20k units in the next decade. That’s literally nothing.

          • Tigbitties@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s a consern buy it’s not impossible. Take greed out if the picture and it wouldn’t be an issue. We’ve got to stop encouraging this maximi return on investment shit.

            • Sodis@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              If the developers, that attempt this, all go bankrupt, it does not help at all. If you want to push private companies into doing something unprofitable, you need to subsidize it or the government to do it on its own. For some of these buildings its cheaper to just build a new apartment complex instead of retrofitting them.

              • girlfreddy@sh.itjust.worksOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                A while back someone in the know said how it could be done at a reasonable cost: each floor has small apartments built on the outside walls (one bedroom, two bedroom and family units … possibly different floors for each) with the interior centre section as a common space with a large kitchen, rec room, small kids area, etc. Bathrooms should already be on each floor, just need to tie in showers (and add more stalls if required).

                There are towers doing this in a few areas, but the naysayers yell loudly when riled.

                • Sodis@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Would still be nicer to have sunlight for the communal areas, but that sounds like a working solution. Probably profit goes into the drain though, because you get less units you can rent out and people will pay less for apartments with only a shared bathroom and kitchen.

                  • girlfreddy@sh.itjust.worksOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    If it’s a choice between not having a place to live or apartments like that, which would you choose?

                    I mean Canada is accepting refugees who end up on the streets because there’s no housing for them!

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a game that has nothing to do with workers, but real estate instead.

      Don’t forget tax incentives offered by cities and states to locate lots of office workers in those taxable areas. No workers there, no payroll/sales taxes collected. No revenue derived from workers forced to go there where they will eat, shop, and consume services. Those cities and states what their money.

    • 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.