I side with the employer here. Employers can have a multitude of reasons for wanting employees in the office and they have no obligation to justify them with employee.

infinity ag said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Jamie Dimon is an out of touch "let them have cake" type of moron.

I don't necessarily disagree with the RTO mandate, but this clueless boomer needs to realize that work in 2025 is international. In my previous job, we were asked to work from the office, but we all came in after 1.5 hours of commute only to get on calls all day with people in different parts of the US and the world. I never even talked to anyone in the office so what was the point of coming in? Everyone is on calls and shouting over each other. Meeting rooms were scarce as well.

I think he is on his way out anyway so he doesn't care. He's managed the company well for 20 years but he is now losing it. Does he think people can't waste time in the office? Dumbo.

Boomers like him who are stuck in the 70s need to be put to pasture.

---

Is it the employer's fault that your commute was 1.5 hours long?

---

The discussion is not about "fault". If you are looking for CEO faults, I can tell you many of them.
The discussion is whether it is a good idea or not. It's the same when we complained about Biden last year. He was the President who won the election. But he did so many stupid things.

Yes, the CEO can run the company as he/she desires. But is what Dimon doing the best way? No. He is a great CEO turned an out of touch old man who is living off his past glory.

Like many football coaches.

---

This is your opinion. Seems like the company is doing pretty well, which is the only thing he should judged on. If people don't want to go to the office and they actually are that productive they'll have no problem finding work elsewhere. My assumption is that given how far he's gotten, Dimon isn't doing this without being confident it'll increase productivity and weed out the lazy ones logging in for an hour each day. And he probably knows a little more about his company than random texags posters.

---

Of course it is my opinion. Isn't that what we do on TA? We give our opinions on how Biden sucks, how Dimon sucks, etc etc.
I think Dimon was awesome for decades. He is on the way down because he doesn't understand today's and tomorrow's employees.

---

Sure, you just tend to frame yours in a way that sounds like there's no debate or as if it's a fact. And as mentioned if we're evaluating opinions I think I'll stick with the person who knows what's happening in his company vs a random texags poster.

dBoy99 said:

---

I side with the employer here. Employers can have a multitude of reasons for wanting employees in the office and they have no obligation to justify them with employee.

---

Well sure an employer can. It is obvious that it is not in the best interest of most (especially large) employers to require full RTO. Nor is it in the best interest of employees to be required.

Using authority ("no obligation to justify") is one of the weakest and worst ways to enforce something you want by the way.

It's not obvious.

And if things are obvious then why does the employer need to explain it to the employees?

dBoy99 said:

---

It's not obvious.

And if things are obvious then why does the employer need to explain it to the employees?

---

If RTO was accepted as being best then people would default to coming in. Clearly people value wfh at least some days a week. So that is why people (with financially biased motives) are trying to argue why full RTO is best.

Your second statemen6 doesn't make sense. They are trying to prove why RTO is actually in the employees best interest. So either the employees are wrong or he is.

texagbeliever said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

It's not obvious.

And if things are obvious then why does the employer need to explain it to the employees?

---

If RTO was accepted as being best then people would default to coming in. Clearly people value wfh at least some days a week. So that is why people (with financially biased motives) are trying to argue why full RTO is best.

Your second statemen6 doesn't make sense. They are trying to prove why RTO is actually in the employees best interest. So either the employees are wrong or he is.

---

Your first sentence is misleading in its generality and/or incredibly naive...arguing that people would automatically default to returning to the office if that was "accepted as being best." You're implying that employees are automatically going to do what's best for their employer or their work.

My argument is simple - most employees are not gonna do what's best for their work, they're gonna do what's best for them.

And what's best for most people is not having to drive to work, not having to get dressed up for work, being able to do chores around the house like laundry during their workday, setting up their work App on their phone so they can look like they're actively working while they drop off or pick up Timmy from school during their normal work hours, and being able to claim they were working 8-10 hours a day when actually they were only working 4-6.

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

J. Walter Weatherman said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Jamie Dimon is an out of touch "let them have cake" type of moron.

I don't necessarily disagree with the RTO mandate, but this clueless boomer needs to realize that work in 2025 is international. In my previous job, we were asked to work from the office, but we all came in after 1.5 hours of commute only to get on calls all day with people in different parts of the US and the world. I never even talked to anyone in the office so what was the point of coming in? Everyone is on calls and shouting over each other. Meeting rooms were scarce as well.

I think he is on his way out anyway so he doesn't care. He's managed the company well for 20 years but he is now losing it. Does he think people can't waste time in the office? Dumbo.

Boomers like him who are stuck in the 70s need to be put to pasture.

---

Is it the employer's fault that your commute was 1.5 hours long?

---

The discussion is not about "fault". If you are looking for CEO faults, I can tell you many of them.
The discussion is whether it is a good idea or not. It's the same when we complained about Biden last year. He was the President who won the election. But he did so many stupid things.

Yes, the CEO can run the company as he/she desires. But is what Dimon doing the best way? No. He is a great CEO turned an out of touch old man who is living off his past glory.

Like many football coaches.

---

This is your opinion. Seems like the company is doing pretty well, which is the only thing he should judged on. If people don't want to go to the office and they actually are that productive they'll have no problem finding work elsewhere. My assumption is that given how far he's gotten, Dimon isn't doing this without being confident it'll increase productivity and weed out the lazy ones logging in for an hour each day. And he probably knows a little more about his company than random texags posters.

---

Of course it is my opinion. Isn't that what we do on TA? We give our opinions on how Biden sucks, how Dimon sucks, etc etc.
I think Dimon was awesome for decades. He is on the way down because he doesn't understand today's and tomorrow's employees.

---

Sure, you just tend to frame yours in a way that sounds like there's no debate or as if it's a fact. And as mentioned if we're evaluating opinions I think I'll stick with the person who knows what's happening in his company vs a random texags poster.

---

You are free to stick to your view and I am free to stick to mine.
No problem there.

Quote:

---

Boomers love their SS

---

Give me back what I paid in right now and you'll never hear me complain.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

dBoy99 said:

---

It's not obvious.

And if things are obvious then why does the employer need to explain it to the employees?

---

If RTO was accepted as being best then people would default to coming in. Clearly people value wfh at least some days a week. So that is why people (with financially biased motives) are trying to argue why full RTO is best.

Your second statemen6 doesn't make sense. They are trying to prove why RTO is actually in the employees best interest. So either the employees are wrong or he is.

---

Your first sentence is misleading in its generality and/or incredibly naive...arguing that people would automatically default to returning to the office if that was "accepted as being best." You're implying that employees are automatically going to do what's best for their employer or their work.

My argument is simple - most employees are not gonna do what's best for their work, they're gonna do what's best for them.

And what's best for most people is not having to drive to work, not having to get dressed up for work, being able to do chores around the house like laundry during their workday, setting up their work App on their phone so they can look like they're actively working while they drop off or pick up Timmy from school during their normal work hours, and being able to claim they were working 8-10 hours a day when actually they were only working 4-6.

---

So if the employee is skipping work and not hitting deadlines and deliverable quality then a manager takes action to correct the behavior or fires them. This is a problem with managers not setting clear goals and expectations and then getting mad they don't have the arbitrary butt in seat metric to confirm hard work or not.

infinity ag said:

---

Jamie Dimon is an out of touch "let them have cake" type of moron.

I don't necessarily disagree with the RTO mandate, but this clueless boomer needs to realize that work in 2025 is international. In my previous job, we were asked to work from the office, but we all came in after 1.5 hours of commute only to get on calls all day with people in different parts of the US and the world. I never even talked to anyone in the office so what was the point of coming in? Everyone is on calls and shouting over each other. Meeting rooms were scarce as well.

I think he is on his way out anyway so he doesn't care. He's managed the company well for 20 years but he is now losing it. Does he think people can't waste time in the office? Dumbo.

Boomers like him who are stuck in the 70s need to be put to pasture.

---

Calling lifelong successful legends "Boomers" is a lazy ass way to excuse one's own problems.

Because these people have gotten spoiled. And I guarantee you some people work well at home, but a lot of them screw off most of the time.

These bosses and companies need to just take the simplest route. You show up to the office for work or you're fired. It's really simple.

Quit coddling these people.

annie88 said:

---

Because these people have gotten spoiled. And I guarantee you some people work well at home, but a lot of them screw off most of the time.

These bosses and companies need to just take the simplest route. You show up to the office for work or you're fired. It's really simple.

Quit coddling these people.

---

annie88 said:

---

Because these people have gotten spoiled. And I guarantee you some people work well at home, but a lot of them screw off most of the time.

These bosses and companies need to just take the simplest route. You show up to the office for work or you're fired. It's really simple.

Quit coddling these people.

---

Yeah then you lose 3-5 key people. Cost the company millions. And ask yourself what went wrong.

How hard is it to not get that the top contributors can find work elsewhere?

Now we know why US corporations are so poorly managed and so toxic.

These kinds of clueless management is tolerated, encouraged and even rewarded.

texagbeliever said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Because these people have gotten spoiled. And I guarantee you some people work well at home, but a lot of them screw off most of the time.

These bosses and companies need to just take the simplest route. You show up to the office for work or you're fired. It's really simple.

Quit coddling these people.

---

Yeah then you lose 3-5 key people. Cost the company millions. And ask yourself what went wrong.

How hard is it to not get that the top contributors can find work elsewhere?

---

Except we're not seeing that anywhere to that degree, or companies would reverse course.

Look, I get it. Working from home was nice when we could during covid. We proved we could do it. I also noticed as time passed that there was large abuse of it.

There's also millions of people who work in the field (farmers, foresters, oil workers, seamen, truck drivers, etc.) and in factories who never get to work at home. They roll on with it like they've always done.

The WFH crowd got spoiled and thought it would last forever. Well, it won't. A lot of people have accepted that and moved on, while some are still trying to cling to it and are bitter about return-to-office policies.

My current employer is work-in-the-office Monday thru Thursday and work remotely Friday. Works really well. Everybody's together and remote at the same time. Some type of hybrid model will probably last for many office-based roles, but a heavy WFH model will be a dinosaur with the exception of unique, individual contributor roles that can be successful in WFH... not as deemed by the employee, but by their boss. Don't be surprised if those in the heavy WFH roles that remain get passed over for promotions... out of sight, out of mind. Just the way it is.

I like my remote Fridays for my office-based role. I really do, but I also understand it's at my employer's discretion.

texagbeliever said:

---

annie88 said:

---

Because these people have gotten spoiled. And I guarantee you some people work well at home, but a lot of them screw off most of the time.

These bosses and companies need to just take the simplest route. You show up to the office for work or you're fired. It's really simple.

Quit coddling these people.

---

Yeah then you lose 3-5 key people. Cost the company millions. And ask yourself what went wrong.

How hard is it to not get that the top contributors can find work elsewhere?

---

Well, if they're not willing to do what their employer wants them to I wouldn't call them key people. People have gotten too entitled to think that they can do it the way they want to. If you work for yourself have at it. But as I said above, some people work well at home and others don't. It's the employer's call. Period.

Could you imagine growing up as a kid and your parents told you what to do and you told him screw you I don't have to. This is the same thing just on just on a larger scale.

As many others and I have mentioned WFH can be doable for some jobs and for some employees in those jobs. I see so many people arguing that it's a one-size-fits-all solution which should be a mandatory requirement for all jobs going forward.

The reality is that it's just not suitable for junior employees in most businesses because they have so much to learn, about their tasks and also about interacting with coworkers. And even for seasoned employees it really is a reward that should be earned on an employee by employee basis.

But to simply state that WFH slackers are the manager's fault is just not true and tells me you've never been a manager. Slackers want to work from home precisely because it's harder for their management to gauge their productivity. So now managing WFH slackers just becomes one more task that a manager has to scrutinize even harder than normal, in a world where corporations are asking managers to do increasingly more with increasingly less staff.

And let's not pretend like its just a breeze to document a bad employee and fire someone in today's corporate world.