
Reverse Ferret
This might be enough to shift the various Tufton simps' narrative from "WFH: good!" to "WFH: terrible!"
As TikTok becomes the latest tech biz to demand employees return to the office, deploying an app to monitor this, research indicates that working from home is good for the planet, in addition to staff morale. The ByteDance owned entity recently told staff on the US payroll they'll be expected in the office three days a week – …
During the middle ages the importance given to any nobleman arriving on a battlefield was very much related to the number of armed men he arrived with, the lord arriving with the biggest crew gets to stand beside the King.
Modern office politics is the same process, just with the stabby staby being mostly metaphorical.
I'm not sure about the "mostly metaphorical" part.
Some years ago, I realised that we had an entire team of five people doing an elaborately pointless set of manual processes duplicating data entry something like 8 times in a mix of handwritten forms, labels and computer data entry to different systems.
I spent a few days and came up with a solution that reduced these 5 jobs down to something that one person is currently managing, while socialising etc in the office. (so not absurdly overworked) by entering the information onto the one system that was required, and then creating letters and emails from that, and spitting out labels to label printers etc.
The team manager responsible for that lot was utterly livid at their underlings being redeployed to do something productive that benefitted the business, and never forgave me for their little empire being broken up because their number of direct reports fell, despite departmental productivity going up by ~500%, costs falling by about the same margin and input errors being reduced to practically zero as a result of some input validation and things like postcode finder being integrated for checking addresses. If they'd have had so much as a pair of scissors then stabby stabby would have probably been practical rather than metaphorical.
Bad managers do still like to count the size of their empire, rather than it's productivity.
Peter2: "The team manager responsible for that lot was utterly livid at their underlings being redeployed to do something productive that benefitted the business, and never forgave me for their little empire being broken up because their number of direct reports fell"
I suspect that it was more the fact that you had showed him up for being so incompetent that he had not thought of and implemented your idea first. As Douglas Adams noted in the Hitch-Hikers' Guide to the Galaxy: "The one thing respectable physicists really couldn't stand was a smart-arse."
It was probably both.
And number of underlings isn't always just an ego thing for bad managers. Long ago in my one stint as a manager I worked for a university and had a few full time professional sysadmins under me, along with over a half dozen part time students (who I pawned off scheduling/hires/etc. of to one of the guys working for me so I didn't have to deal with them) who were basically computer lab supervisors.
There were some changes and the overall university IT took over the student labs and those part time students were now under their management. When my next review happened the assistant Dean I reported to told me he could not give me the regular yearly salary increase, because my number of direct reports going from >10 to <5 put me in a different management band where I was now paid more than I was eligible for!
Thankfully they didn't cut my salary to fit, but I didn't get a raise that year or the following year. I don't know if I would have finally "caught up" the year after that because I'd left to do consulting full time (not because of that silliness but it didn't help)
"Bad managers do still like to count the size of their empire, rather than it's productivity."
If you read the Dogbert training manuals, you will understand that in the corporate world, it's all about headcount. This is also the case for many government jobs where salaries can top out but having a larger headcount leads to higher department budgets for increasingly posh offices and importance. There has to be some way to keep score in the game if salary can only be used to a certain point.
The idea behind these "perks" is a sort set of golden handcuffs. The idea isn't that different from casinos that create an environment designed to stimulate your senses and keep you from feeling tired, or how your average brick and mortar store will strategically place staple items all the way in the back of the store so you have to walk by all the other things on your way. It's all about keeping you in the office for longer periods of time than you're required to be there per your contract. While you're sitting around waiting for a haircut, maybe you decide to kill some time checking emails, as just one example.
Personally, I'm still a bit salty over how the lunch hour used to 1) actually be an hour, not 45 minutes, and 2) was paid. Used to be we worked 9am-5pm and that included an hour for lunch, now it's 9am-6pm because the lunch hour doesn't count.
As much as I'd like to justify reasons for WFH, I'm not sure it being "Good for the planet" is one of them. At least, not in any significant sense.
Here's why. It's a bit long, but well worth a read. I'd love to hear someone refute this, because it seems pretty solid to my layman eyes. Also, using similar arguments to El Reg USED to make.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/a-climate-of-climate-censorship
Please provide detailed arguments as to why you disagree, or if you can't be bothered just don't even bother reading it and give it a thumbs down... because "stupid denier".
That article reads like it was written 10-15 years ago - That time when the actual science really did take a back seat to the political evangelising and name-calling and dubious "facts" that were endlessly repeated as absolute gospel (by both sides, I should add). Since then things have calmed down a lot in that regard, and actual science has been allowed to feature a lot more in the debate, to the point where it's no longer about the old Climate Change yes/no question, but the details.
TLDR - I couldn't get to the end of the article. Too much hyperbole, opinion, and unnecessary "flowery fluff" around the actual facts it is trying to get across. There may be a cohesive argument in there somewhere, but it's buried too deep for me.
> TLDR - I couldn't get to the end of the article.
Read first couple of paragraphs. Lack of capitalisation and grammar was a barrier. But the tone coming over as if written by someone who has found, and wants to publicise, their latest conspiracy means it is not worth my time.
If you want to use an article to support your position then reference something that is well written in something close to proper English and makes its points calmly,
I would love to provide a reference to an article in a distinguished scientific journal, but it seems they have all been captured by the religion that is Climate Science and refuse to publish anything which goes against the orthodoxy. This is not science. It was the same for Covid lockdowns and masks for a time, but that's changed since then as enough people have seen through the BS modelling. Or at least it's starting to change. Perhaps that will also happen for Climate Science, hopefully before we all become completely impoverished. Well, all the proles anyway. I'm sure Leonardo DiCaprio will still have enough money to take a luxury yacht or private jet whilst telling the rest of us we need to travel less. (to give just one example).
I would love to provide a reference to an article in a distinguished scientific journal, but it seems they have all been captured by the religion that is Climate Science and refuse to publish anything which goes against theorthodoxyevidence.
Science doesn't care about your opinions. It cares about evidence.
Would you go jump out of a tall building? Gravity is just a theory, after all.
I've jumped out of many tall buildings, and survived with no damage. From the ground floor. I've never attempted to jump off a tall building though.
Unfortunately Climate Science doesn't care about *evidence* unless it backs up the existing beliefs. Go and read the WCD, it's not that long. https://clintel.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/WCD-version-081423.pdf or even particularly radical. It's not denial, just calling for us to tap the brakes a bit.
"Science doesn't care about your opinions. It cares about evidence."
No doubt you think that this sounds smart, but it completely misses the point.
Nobody is saying that "science" cares about options. The people who do care about opinions are the editors of scientific journals, the owners of the publishing houses which own them, and the universities who heavily influence them. It is absolutely the case that there are 'approved' opinions on many things - climate change being one. Others include Covidian subjects (lockdowns, face nappies, clotshots, etc), and the whole Trans debate, Anyone wanting to publish research which contradicts the 'approved' viewpoint on any of these, no matter how thorough the research, is likely to face an uphill struggle and/or vilification.
Yeah, it's a bit long. And El Gato refuses to use capital letters, which grates some people I think. I can summarise.
Climate Science has been captured, and they refuse to even hear any dissenting arguments. Even when Nobel laureates try to put forward arguments, they are denied a platform.
Much of the media has also been captured, and simply buys this story wholesale. The IPCC is not going to play down the "emergency" and the voices that shout the loudest that there's a global catastrophe get more funding. Those who suggest that yes, it's happening but it's almost certainly not going to be as bad as the models suggest, so we could probably mitigate are shut down.
There are some scientists who are bravely willing to stand up and say "There is no climate emergency" under the World Climate Declaration. It's really not that controversial or radical.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
Warming is slower than predicted.
Climate Policy relies on inadequate models.
CO2 is plant food, the basis for all life on Earth.
Global Warming has not increased natural disasters.
Climate Policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
There's more. If you can get past the flowery fluff. Considering how important this topic is, I think it's worth spending a little time reading both sides. If you just read The Guardian and The BBC, you'll probably believe that our children won't survive (literally) because of "global heating" or "global boiling" or whatever they are calling it next.
Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
Just muddying the waters. Anthropogenic factors are making a measurable difference in outcome
Warming is slower than predicted, Climate Policy relies on inadequate models.
Yes, the exact prediction is difficult. So let's stick our heads in the sand and not do anything until the models are perfect, yeah???
CO2 is plant food, the basis for all life on Earth.
There is far far more to Earth's ecosystems than 'more plants'. Significantly, the amount of CO2 and related other changes isn't itself the issue, it's how quick it's happening so life can't adapt fast enough.
Global Warming has not increased natural disasters.
Pull the other one
Climate Policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
Absolutely. Current climate policy in theory is a lot of bleating about how much we need to do. In practice, global policy is still far too friendly to fossil fuels, and much care is being taken not to upset too many economic applecarts
No! What we're doing currently is "running around like headless chickens".
We're switching to all electric cars in the next decade (roughly) without putting the infrastructure in place to cope with it. We need to build a shed load of nuclear reactors, and upgrade the grid substantially BEFORE we stop using petrol/diesel cars (or at least in parallel to phase across to more electric and less fossil). Same thing for heat pumps instead of gas boilers. Although I'm not convinced they are the future for many dwellings.
The exact predictions are actually not that bad, however the press often seem to pick up on the very worst case scenarios and catastrophise about that. It does appear we still have plenty of time to act, and we can do it in a calm and controlled way... without everyone becoming poorer and colder. Without giving up meat. Without causing massive blackouts in December because it's cold and everyone wants to heat their homes, but the wind isn't blowing and the sun isn't shining (this does happen for a couple of weeks sometimes) and we've shut down all the gas fired power stations and rely on wind/solar.
"We need to build a shed load of nuclear reactors, and upgrade the grid substantially BEFORE we stop using petrol/diesel cars (or at least in parallel to phase across to more electric and less fossil"
You haven't seen how much electricity goes into each gallon/liter of petrol, have you? Just in refining, it's enough energy to send an EV about 25 miles down the road.
I agree that if government pushes bans on ICEV's in too short of a time, there will be an issue with distribution since the power not needed at a refinery frees it up to be sent elsewhere, but there has to be the infrastructure to get it there. If people are encouraged through lower rates to charge up at night when demand has been historically low, that will buy a lot of time for upgrading infrastructure. The faster the push to make those changes, the exponentially more money it will cost. For one thing, having to strip out lines, transformers and pylons that still have gobs more life left in them is a big waste. If upgrades are made as those items get closer to the end of their useful life, the better both the financial and energy ROI there is.
"-- Yes, the exact prediction is difficult. So let's stick our heads in the sand and not do anything until the models are perfect, yeah??? --"
I've always favored looking for the low hanging fruit, doing that and then looking at the issue again. I do a lot more recycling, upcycling and thinking about how to be energy efficient. Saving money is my motivation rather than being an eco-warrior. Governments and those eco-warriors seem to want to dictate the changes in my lifestyle just like mom chose what was for dinner as opposed to going to a restaurant and choosing from a list of options and getting what was most appealing. (I'll work on the analogy a bit more).
The governments banning ICEV's is a good example of bad thinking. Until there is a robust used EV market, many people won't be able to afford an EV. Some people may not be able to fit an EV into their driving needs until other things such as on-street charging is more available. So far all of the talk has been about handing out tax credits and perhaps even subsidizing purchases by poor people, once again leaving the middle class with no alternatives. It could be that a low emissions ICEV is the better option in combination with reductions on a person or family's CO2 footprint being reduced elsewhere.
£12.50/day to drive in the greater London area is going to increase the exodus from the city, not help the environment. It's just not possible to get from anywhere to anywhere else on public transportation all of the time and miserable a lot of the time in the wet. I've always found that no matter which side of a bus shelter is uncovered, that's the direction the rain is being blown from making it useless as a shelter for staying dry.
Yes. This. There is space between the crazies on one side claiming that the human race will soon be made extinct by climate change, and the other side denying that the human race has any negative impact on the environment at all. And where we find that space is with the sensible process that MachDiamond describes.
Alas, too many people seem to prefer the adrenaline fix of manufactured outrage to the sometimes hard and often boring work of finding something constructive to do. But I can raise my glass in a toast to common sense even as I try to ignore the crazies.
@MachDiamond
You think London public transport is bad!!!
Try living in lots of other areas of the UK, London levels of public transport is way beyond even the most wild drug addled public transport fantasies of most of us.
The £12.50 ULEZ compares favourably to extortionate bus travel here (the only cheap fares are at times outside of when people may commute, use a bus to commute in "peak" hours and you are just a huge cash cow)
-- Climate Policy relies on inadequate models. --
This to me is the most important point. Until the computer models reflect reality to a reasonable degree (ie make predictions that are a. testable and b. prove correct) its a bit foolish to determine humanities actions on them.
"The IPCC is not going to play down the "emergency" and the voices that shout the loudest that there's a global catastrophe get more funding."
Those sorts of panels are a good place to finish out a career. All you have to do is say the same thing over and over using different words and collect a healthy pay packet and generous benefits. Any deviation from the narrative decided at the beginning will not be tolerated. The other great thing is the panel doesn't need to do any real work towards solutions to the problem they are promoting. Yes, they'll say that CO2 emissions need to be reduced, but not how and if one method of reduction might cause loads more emissions through the law of unintended consequences. There's also the issue of how change impacts society. Gradual change is not a problem, a fast rate of change displaces industries and ways of life faster than people can adapt to.
Some politicians in the US thought it would be a good idea to have fossil power plants (coal for the most part) install additional emission control devices with no grandfather clauses. The thing they didn't realize is that an older plant that is getting close to it's last major maintenance cycle before retirement isn't going to have any ROI on the new emissions gear so it's pointless to do the major maintenance and just close the plant instead since that refurbishment wouldn't have any ROI either in the time frame before the new emissions requirements come into effect. It just so happened there were several cases of this in one region which would lead to some very serious shortages if the operators shut those plants down with nothing to replace them. There has to be something to replace them with and that still takes years to get designed, approved built and mostly a bunch of time in court fighting all of the NIMBY lawsuits. In the mean time, companies worried about brownouts and power cuts may cover their bases and move someplace without these problems looming.
You seem to believe that if something is unpopular that automatically means that it's "scientifically wrong" and it's merely a question of which term you choose to use. This is absolutely not the case.
Unfortunately we are now in an era where "The Science" (as in whatever is the current 'approved' view on that particular subject) has taken on many of the aspects of a fundammentalist religion, with a dogmatic insistence that none of its conclusions can ever be questioned, and witch hunts against the unbeliever.
To start, your understanding of the scientific principle is wrong. Those theories that are proven and pass peer review become part of the scientific consensus, those theories that are proven wrong don't.
So the "view" that there is no such thing as climate change is not being suppressed, it's being proven to be wrong.
"View" is also the wrong word to use, as that implies everyone can have different views, but since this is about finding theories which explain facts there is no room for those theories that have been proven to be false.
Thanks for the patronising start! I think it's actually you who has the shaky understanding here.
There is actually no such thing as a 'proven' theory. There are those which have very strong evidence one way or the other, but that shouldn't prevent research which challenges them from being published. There are also those theories which at one time were considered to have very strong evidence, but later the evidence to the contrary proves stronger.
You are simply wrong to say that contrary views are not being suppressed - there are plenty of examples of this happening in many fields. In scientific research there is no such thing as 'proving' that something is definitely, unquestionably wrong. Trying to suppress contrary research is dangerous - go and have a look at all the published research on the "safe and effective" Covid "vaccines" and the risk of myocarditis (particularly to younger people), to give just one example. Researchers in this field have really struggled to get published, as anything which doesn't agree with the approved narrative is not welcome in most journals.
Also, a lot of the approved "knowledge" in some areas (especially climate science) is based t a significant extent on modelling. Modelling a system as complex and with as many variables as this is fraught with difficulties, and it is absolutely not the case that academic modelling always proves correct, or even close.
"The carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by industry's burning of coal and oil--more than half of it during the last generation--may have changed the atmosphere's composition sufficiently to account for a general warming of the world by about one degree Fahrenheit." -- John von Neumann, "Can we survive technology?" Forbes, June 1955.
Yes, THAT John Von Neumann. Hardly a culture warrior.
That said, I recognize the very human phenomena of dogmatization around the issues of increasing carbon content and it's effects. For example wide scale protests that shut down roads for extended periods of time, and leave people stuck in traffic, actually creating more pollution due to CO2 release by fuming motorists. Not that I don't understand the "feelings".
For those who don't intend to read, or give up after the painful grammar gets to you, here's an appropriate summary.
Point in contention: "As much as I'd like to justify reasons for WFH, I'm not sure it being "Good for the planet" is one of them. At least, not in any significant sense."
Proof from article: Climate change from human-created means is overstated/nonexistent/not my problem, pick your favorite because all are in there. Anyone who says different is an evil censor who won't let me say the kind of stuff I'm saying right now.
Conclusion: WFH isn't better for the planet because using more power and the emissions that result are irrelevant/not your problem.
The article makes no point about WFH in either direction because it wastes a lot of paragraphs complaining that the actual people researching climate issues don't listen to people who don't care and would like to be able to ignore it. All you'll read in the article is a number of anecdotes about the failings of climate scientists, some of which are even true. Of course, they will point those failings out as evidence that the conclusions they come to are inaccurate, which few if any of the anecdotes even suggest. You've seen it before. Don't feel you need to read this one for a point about WFH; it's not in there.
For all of ByteDance's protestations that they aren't just an arm of the Chinese government... this doesn't really help their case.
This is just me, but I'd actually be less annoyed at such a policy if the execs would at least be honest about the reason. Don't get me wrong, I'd still be pissed about it, but saying it's because of "improved collaboration" or any of the other excuses given is just plain insulting to the intelligence of your workforce. At least if they gave the real reason they wouldn't be adding that last twist of the knife.
Mainly the colleagues and the air conditioning.
I still chat with them in a conference call once a fortnight (now that I am officially retired), but in the heat I really did miss that air-conditioning, which is energy intensive.
I did work on a bid once, many years ago, for the Environment Agency, and they insisted that we record our carbon footprints for travel to work, and minimise it. Of course they forgot that people travel to places other than work, like, for example, doing the school run, or another person in the household also working (but somewhere else). So good that they considered the carbon footprint, but only 6/10 for not thinking it through.
I go to our office twice a week just to get pushed around on public transport, walk on crowded streets and feel the throng of humanity around me. I'm serious, I love the noise and throng of the city in motion, I'm not some spotty kid, I'm in my 50s and love the seething mass of motion that is people on the go. The office is about 5% full most days I go in and so there's a few people to have a chat with. I love my wife of 30 years, she's my whole life but I feel "refreshed" after a day in the office, just "5 mins" away from the house and same person who's always there. I love the whole ritual of getting ready for work, putting on some half decent togs and just making an effort.
Some days I really can't be arsed though, I just want roll out of bed, cup of tea, plow into work and be done and on those days I'm so thankful my company is still pushing WFH!!
It's nice to have the choice, WFH is losing it's shine and I'm in need of some different company and maybe a pint over lunchtime with some techie company then it's nice to go into a busy city and the office. Friday's WFH is still nice, clock off at 4:30pm and into the weekend without any hard slog home on the train.
Swings and roundabouts.
I admit that if my employer had an office near me – even, oh, an hour away, let's say (and possibly further if public transportation were available) – I'd go in once in a while, if only for a change of scenery and a chance to interact with some colleagues who aren't on any of my teams and aren't routinely communicating with me for other reasons.
But they don't, and going to an office near me wouldn't let me see any teammates because they're all at least 1400 miles from where I live. The closest person that I even occasionally discuss technical issues with is ~350 miles away, and he's WFH too. The nearest office is ~285 miles but I've never been there and don't know anyone who works there. The nearest office I have been to is ~650 miles.
Aside from a two-year period when I did live near an office, I've worked remotely for over 30 years. I've enjoyed my rare visits to the office, but I think mandatory attendance is stupid. And, yes, my employer has also instituted a mandatory-attendance policy for people who aren't on a remote contract, and I find their reasoning utterly unpersuasive and completely unsupported by any sort of methodologically-sound research.
95% of people stay home 24/7/365, doors locked. The military deliver rations and remove trash/bodies as required. Essential workers operate a bare-bones infrastructure. That's it. Permanent lockdown. Maximum reduction of emissions. Polar bears saved. Sorted.
Imagine being a tech company and not knowing whether your staff are productive or not! Maybe they should spend less money on new tech and concentrate on the fundamentals, ie managing people effectively in both office and remote settings. I bet these same companies subject their workers to endless meetings as well
DanUK: Maybe they should spend less money on new tech and concentrate on the fundamentals, ie managing people effectively in both office and remote settings.
Umm, I'm reasonably happily 'retired', but if you come across a company like that, do let me know.
(Ok, only joking! There aren't any.)
The article gives me the impression that all these companies know how to do is measure time. None of them seem to know how to measure productivity and their costs to house people 10+ hours per day. I can see the point in brining teams together periodically for bonding and tackling work that's easier done in person, but instead of coming in to the company office, they should meet somewhere in the opposite direction as rush hour traffic. The trains going away from the big city in the morning are often quite empty. Being able to book a room with white boards, a coffee maker (or tea) and restrooms is all that's needed. Everybody has a mobile and laptop/tablet these days so perhaps a space with wi-fi is useful, but likely more secure using data via the mobe. Many people escaped from living in or near congested downtowns during the lockdowns and worked from home. If the work can still be done that way, companies should find a way to continue doing that.
If I went back to work for somebody rather than being self-employed, it would be a WFH arrangement and I'm already set up. I'd just need to make some space in a filing cabinet to store paperwork and that's about it. No expense to provision space for me and no incremental costs in bog rolls, coffee/tea and HVAC. I have internet and several computers all hooked up (Win/Mac/Lin) along with printers and scanners. When I had a manufacturing company I had to teach my principal investor about why we couldn't just hire several more people to increase our output. So much for a UCLA business degree. Those people would need a place to work and we'd need more tools/fixtures so there would be something for them to work with. For some positions, that was a fairly large upfront cost and not as simple as putting out some adverts and interviewing some people. If somebody could have worked from home using tools they already owned, bonus. It would have also been easy to measure their productivity and gauge whether they were giving good value for money. Or, exactly the same as I did for those working at the plant. I didn't look at how diligently they were working, but their output. If they were always at the water cooler or talking but still managed to get as much done as somebody that stayed glued to their chair, I'd offer them a raise to get more done. Obviously, they were much more efficient at the job.