[HN Gopher] Amazon to Close 4 of Its 5 US Call Centers, Shifts t...
___________________________________________________________________
Amazon to Close 4 of Its 5 US Call Centers, Shifts to Work-from-
Home
Author : taubek
Score : 118 points
Date : 2022-10-01 15:20 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (wolfstreet.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (wolfstreet.com)
| koboll wrote:
| The entire industry is shifting to WFH. I can tell because of the
| beeps.
|
| I swear in 1 out of every 5 or 6 calls to a customer service line
| I hear an intermittent beep go off every few seconds in the
| background. I used to think it was a call center thing. But then
| I realized it was a smoke alarm beep.
|
| Not only is every customer service rep working from home now, but
| for some reason they'd rather deal with beeping than change their
| smoke alarm batteries.
| Eleison23 wrote:
| A regular intermittent beep could also a be signal that the
| line is being recorded.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| I've had coworkers like that. Tempting to ask for their address
| and Instacart a 9V battery...
| bluedino wrote:
| Same but background dog barking
| catcherme wrote:
| A lot of companies are still trying to make hybrid work, though
| it remains to be seen how sustainable that is given the stark
| difference in experience.
| chucklenorris wrote:
| I'm surprised that Amazon of all gave up the "handcuffed to the
| desk" approach to management in favor of work from home.
| Apparently the cost of rent and infrastructure is bigger than the
| last 1% they could squeeze out of their workforce. Middle
| managers must have an existential crisis right now /s
| 3qz wrote:
| Can call centre employees afford their own workspace? I hope this
| comes with a big raise. Mom's kitchen table is going to get busy!
| conqrr wrote:
| If Amazon is doing it, its the data that's telling that its more
| efficient cost-wise. They are still one of the most ruthlessly
| efficient tech companies out there. They are definitely NOT doing
| it to make it better for employees, but it happens to be a pro
| for employees too in this scenario.
| tyingq wrote:
| I'm curious what kind of big-brother productivity/spy tools they
| are using. Something Orwellian enough that Amazon is willing to
| cede having these people in the office.
| 8organicbits wrote:
| Call center may not need much extra. Track call metrics: time
| to answer a call, time to resolve a call. Calls are recorded
| for quality, so the boss was always watching. Any action on a
| customer's account is logged and audited.
| pradn wrote:
| This will also make it harder to unionize. Historically, having
| your coworkers together in one place was a prerequisite for
| collective action. If call center workers are atomized, even a
| thin hope of that will perish.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| I don't think so. All that is needed is a different way to
| organize. Unions need online social networks for workers to
| meet and communicate. That would make it impossible for
| companies to stop unionization.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| IIRC, Ralph Nader once proposed a .union TLD that would
| mirror each employer's .com domain. If you worked for Amazon,
| you'd know to go to amazon.union to find out about the
| company union, or if it didn't exist, about unionizing
| activities. I'm sure there would be many implementation
| details that would need to be worked out, but it seemed like
| a pretty good way to empower labor at each company.
| [deleted]
| koheripbal wrote:
| That would give monopoly power to one union.
|
| Monopolies always abuse their power.
| oplaadpunt wrote:
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| The site could contain links to all unions that represent
| employees in that company. Not sure I've ever heard of
| any individual employee being represented by multiple
| unions, even if there are multiple unions covering
| different groups within a company, but I guess it's
| possible.
| jdeibele wrote:
| That was my first thought. If you're at a call center, you can
| talk to co-workers in the break room or bathrooms or on public
| transit or in the parking lot.
|
| If you're working remotely and every one else is doing the
| same, your only communications method will be company-owned and
| searchable. Amazon will make it difficult to know where Jeff B.
| or Mary G. lives, what their last name is, etc. No making
| connections on Facebook or whatever. Anybody asking a co-worker
| for personal contact information would certainly be terminated
| immediately.
| gorbachev wrote:
| This is fantastic news for the call center employees.
|
| I'm not sure it's good news for customers who call for support,
| though. From my personal experience there's a pretty high chance
| the call will be disrupted by something. Kids, pets, toilet
| flushing, personal calls, someone ringing the doorbell, whatever.
|
| The absolute worst I've experienced was a call with someone who
| was taking customer service calls outside on her cellphone. The
| heavy wind feeding into her microphone combined with an already
| not so good cellphone reception did not make a good customer
| service experience.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > The absolute worst I've experienced was a call with someone
| who was taking customer service calls outside on her cellphone.
| The heavy wind feeding into her microphone combined with an
| already not so good cellphone reception did not make a good
| customer service experience.
|
| That seems very okay. We'll adjust. Also there's plenty
| potential for technology to solve actual issues for humans (one
| human not wanting to have to sit at the desk all day, the other
| wanting to have good phone support), which is a great thing.
| firstSpeaker wrote:
| This is a big news both because it will help people who don't
| want to commute and work from home and will cause trouble for
| people cannot work from home (small homes, kids, noisy
| environments, etc.)
| rudasn wrote:
| I've worked from home since 2011 with no issues, but having a 3
| year old in the house made it impossible to focus on anything
| of importance.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Wait.... if you could not focus then were you really working?
|
| this is one of the biggest drawbacks I see, people wfh having
| less productivity because they are focusing on their personal
| responsibilities and not their professional ones likely
| meaning co-workers are picking up the slack to get the work
| done.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| One of the worst things about call centres is hearing everybody
| else. Work from home makes more sense.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| I applaud the work-from-home option, but wish that companies
| would do more to have quarterly on-site events just in case,
| maybe even a yearly gathering that's mandatory. I'd be very
| interested in meeting many of my co-workers in face.
| yboris wrote:
| Would this then require you still have to work nearby, or take
| a costly and time-consuming trip into the office? (I imagine
| it's not easy for a parent to abandon children just to fly over
| for a few days to see the office). Would be rather expensive
| for the company to fly people in and house them in hotels and
| feed them for seemingly (to me) little benefit :/
| ghaff wrote:
| Distributed teams have been getting together semi-regularly
| at offsites for as long as I've been working--which is to say
| decades. And while some people are adamantly opposed to
| travel of any kind, it's the norm for _many_ professional
| workers, especially at more senior levels.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Expensive to travel relative to what? A developer salary is
| probably at least 90k, so that's a 1% cost to get someone on
| site for a few days, all expenses paid.
|
| Now look at the big companies, devs make 4x that and don't
| require any extra accomodations for travel.
| azinman2 wrote:
| It's always a mixed bag, but with the increase in work-from-home
| culture will come with a number of down sides for society -
| loneliness, a significant drop in weak bonds which significantly
| shrinks one's social networks, local economic shrinkage as
| support businesses close (janitors, lunch spots, suppliers, etc),
| and a loss of general sense of belonging or even loyalty to your
| employer. Of course there are many obvious upsides which I'm sure
| HN readers will quickly defend and say they'd never be anything
| but remote again. That's great when you have a choice, but when
| you're a call center worker you have a low likelihood of having
| so much choice and autonomy over your not-quite-white-collar
| life. As far as a call worker goes, the inability to easily
| commiserate with coworkers on shitty calls, even between calls,
| I'm certain will lead to higher attrition and lower happiness.
| Humans need social support.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > Humans need social support.
|
| I'll readily admit, that I have very little knowledge about the
| possible realities of call center workers. Do they usually
| include social interaction at the workplace or is the whole
| setup more so geared towards oversight? Because (as always)
| saving on the commute at the very least frees up some time to
| do with whatever works for you, although it might take some
| additional motivation to do something positive with.
|
| > Of course there are many obvious upsides which I'm sure HN
| readers will quickly defend
|
| No need to be defensive. We can try to be better, one non-
| defensive comment at a time.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Having worked at one, the other call center workers are an
| important outlet of venting and source of camaraderie,
| because at the end of the day they too have been screamed at
| by some unpleasant person over the phone refusing to give you
| information yet expecting you to help them.
|
| I wonder what that looks like in a WFH scenario.
| wombat-man wrote:
| maybe they could break them into teams and give them chat
| rooms to vent and discuss call topics?
| dpkirchner wrote:
| One nice thing about venting in person: it's less likely
| to be permanently recorded somewhere. I've definitely
| held back online.
| [deleted]
| unethical_ban wrote:
| "They're sharing a drink they call Loneliness, but it's
| better than drinkin' alone" - Billy Joel
|
| Even if you don't talk every hour, you do have conversation.
| You are reminded that other people understand you, and they
| live your life. Conversations can happen spontaneously in a
| way they _never_ will on zoom or slack.
|
| A fully remote workplace is a lonely, sad place. I know.
| lolinder wrote:
| Not for everyone. These conversations need to distinguish
| between different living arrangements. My fully remote
| workplace is awesome! When I need a break I play with my
| 3-year-old son. I eat lunch with my wife. I have no
| commute, so I can be with my family right at 5 every day
| and have a good few hours before bedtime.
|
| For someone who lives alone, I can see remote being lonely.
| For someone without a place set aside for work, I can see
| it being hard to focus. But for me and my family, it's
| perfect. I won't be going back to an office at least until
| the kids are moved out.
| spoils19 wrote:
| > A fully remote workplace is a lonely, sad place. I know.
|
| I disagree vehemently - looks like you're simply trying to
| pass off your own experience as fact for the rest of
| people, which isn't appreciated. I know companies that have
| been fully remote since day 1 and every employee has
| thrived, both in terms of productivity but overall morale
| and happiness.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Of course I am. Just like the majority of HN here passes
| off their experience with WFH, with their families and
| their huge houses and their established careers, as
| perfect with no downsides - how dare anyone think an
| office is useful for socialization, career development,
| collaboration.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| > A fully remote workplace is a lonely, sad place. I know.
|
| I know that it doesn't have to be true, depending on the
| person and where they are at. Anyway, I hope you are good
| where you are right now or, if not, will be soon.
| lamontcg wrote:
| > a loss of general sense of belonging or even loyalty to your
| employer.
|
| no call center employees should be missing this.
| [deleted]
| m-p-3 wrote:
| It could also create better proximity bonds with neighbors,
| increasing the cohesion in the local social fabric. Personally
| I know my neighbors better since the pandemic, and we are
| helping eachothers more now.
| anoplus wrote:
| For me, the solution to work-from-home loneliness (or even
| loneliness in general), would be having more local work spaces
| where you can meet other work-from-home peers from your local
| town.
|
| Face-to-face interactions and sense of belonging are as
| important as sleep, exercise and nutrition.
| azinman2 wrote:
| But if it's a random collection of people then you don't
| really have a sense of belonging, unless there's fixed people
| over the long term. Which is unlikely in a random work space.
| Certainly you don't have a sense of shared work experience,
| or even people you can usefully talk trash about your bosses.
| IG_Semmelweiss wrote:
| with respect, are you a member of the "support" class?
|
| because your blindspots show:
|
| -single caregivers can actually work from home. -low income
| workers that cant afford a car (let alone the soon to be
| mandatory expensive EVs) can actually work and not depend on
| broken cars, or crime-ridden public transport. - savings on
| fuel, insurance, and accident rates - the ability to keep
| employemnt and not need to change jobs due to a toxic workplace
| culture.
|
| so no, depression et al are not problems of the "support"
| class. They have real problems (money, child rearing) making
| ends meet, and relationships/communities are one of the things
| they have lots of, particularly in immigrant communities.
|
| So telecommute is a godsend for the vast majority of people.
| The more call centers close. The better. There will be plenty
| of spaces leftover for people to work together if they so
| choose.
| azinman2 wrote:
| These for me were lumped in the "obvious upsides".
| pid-1 wrote:
| In the city I live having a shitty job is highly correlated
| with spending 3h-5h in public transport. WFH would be a
| blessing for those folks.
|
| I generally don't care about WFH, but I have enough money to
| live close to our office.
| test101101 wrote:
| > That's great when you have a choice, but when you're a call
| center worker you have a low likelihood of having so much
| choice and autonomy over your not-quite-white-collar life. As
| far as a call worker goes, the inability to easily commiserate
| with coworkers on shitty calls, even between calls, I'm certain
| will lead to higher attrition and lower happiness. Humans need
| social support.
|
| I'm in no position to have an opinion, but our development team
| constantly depends upon call center guys to pass the request
| related to bugs, and last week they had a meeting with the
| senior leaders to push for work from home.
| dehrmann wrote:
| This also shifts the cost of the office to the employee.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Only marginally, if one cannot afford to heat/cool their home
| 40 more hours a week then it's unlikely they can afford
| 5-hours a week commuting. And folks with family at home
| aren't saving anything compared to in office jobs.
| lovich wrote:
| >... a loss of general sense of belonging or even loyalty to
| your employer.
|
| I don't think you have to worry about that one being lost
| anymore
| jimbob45 wrote:
| On the flipside, starting a family when both parents are WFH is
| a fucking cheat code. 20 years from now, minority groups will
| be complaining about how white folks are lightyears ahead of
| them because they had WFH parents and they won't be wrong.
| behaveEc0n00 wrote:
| I mean do you seriously believe office life is some immutable
| law of nature and without it humanity will stop being social?
|
| You have heard of neighbors, yes? Just had "block party" with
| my wfh neighbors.
|
| I learned a couple are architects, one is in biology science,
| etc etc.
|
| Far more diverse conversation than parroting IT jargon all
| week.
| polio wrote:
| To uphold in-person work for these weak social bonds would be
| myopic. We should have more robust forms of community outside
| of work. That isn't something that a workplace can ever
| reliably provide at scale, given the incentives of workers to
| maximize income and not connection.
| Something1234 wrote:
| Instead we'll get a new alter to worship at together one that
| makes us all poorer.
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Can you elaborate? Are you saying we should worship at the
| alter of in person work? That it makes us richer than those
| who don't have to commute or suffer open office plans?
| azinman2 wrote:
| > given the incentives of workers to maximize income and not
| connection.
|
| I don't understand this point.
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| s/workers/employers
| 300bps wrote:
| Agreed. I happily use my old commute time to socialize with
| people I want to hang out with instead of the people I'm
| forced to be with through happenstance at work.
| opportune wrote:
| Someone in my extended family used to do remote tech
| support/call center type stuff for Apple around 10 years ago,
| before WFH was popular. WFH was a huge draw for her because it
| allowed her to stay in a small rural town (75 min from a medium
| sized city, 30m from a small city) with her extended family,
| and easily balance her job around caring for her household.
|
| I agree with your sentiment in general, that there are benefits
| to in-person work that we lose with WFH. But at least for her,
| WFH represented a no-compromise way of working. Her other
| options were don't work, work a local job that would likely pay
| at or barely above minimum wage, have a long commute to the
| medium sized city, or move away from her very close-knit
| family. Social support from coworkers was not a consideration
| compared to these things.
|
| Culturally I think the idea of having a loose social network
| from your job is actually a pretty recent thing for _most_ of
| society. Of course there have been professional organizations
| for millenia, but until the industrial /agricultural
| revolutions work for most people was done within the family.
| People can adjust back to spending more time with their family
| and local community, and less with extra-familiar coworkers.
| Long term, I don't think people will become more lonely from
| WFH - a lot of the loneliness issues were likely due to the
| abrupt transition to WFH due to COVID coupled with COVID-
| related social restrictions.
| lolinder wrote:
| > Long term, I don't think people will become more lonely
| from WFH - a lot of the loneliness issues were likely due to
| the abrupt transition to WFH due to COVID coupled with COVID-
| related social restrictions.
|
| Agreed. It's not just COVID--the other reason for the
| loneliness is because so many people have adopted a
| historically unprecedented way of living. We've severed ties
| with our families and with the people we live near in favor
| of forming our critical relationships around our careers.
|
| I hope we'll see over the coming years a return to an older,
| family- and neighborhood-centric way of life. This would
| require restoring or reinventing institutions that are
| currently dying or dead, but the result would be healthier
| than tying our social lives to corporations.
| azinman2 wrote:
| The ability for remote people to either work at all or get
| something higher paid I counted as obvious benefits in my
| original comment.
|
| The concept of a company maybe relatively recent in humanity,
| but that doesn't mean the social bonds with it are something
| worth throwing away, and given modern society is organized
| around it, with it will come a lot of loneliness. We don't
| have a culture in the US that values community for the most
| part, with exceptions obviously. Hell, one of two parties
| does nothing but call half of the US the biggest threat and
| enemy to the country. This isn't an environment to grow ties
| in.
| lumost wrote:
| > Hell, one of two parties does nothing but call half of
| the US the biggest threat and enemy to the country. This
| isn't an environment to grow ties in.
|
| I honestly couldn't tell which party you were referring to.
| Which likely speaks to the extreme nature of the current
| divide.
|
| Fortunately most local community groups are not tightly
| aligned with political groups - however there are obvious
| exceptions to this along with regional biases.
| spicyusername wrote:
| Definitely agree that the change will come with some immediate
| social drawbacks.
|
| I wonder if, after 10 or 50 years, you'll start to see
| different social structures materialize to fill the void left
| by losing the second place of the office.
| Larrikin wrote:
| I hope Meetup is replaced or fixes their problems. When
| moving cities or just traveling anywhere for a significant
| time it was an invaluable tool for meeting people with any
| kind of similar interest. But COVID crushed it, I don't know
| the financial particulars, but host I've talked to found it
| became particularly hard to continue groups that didn't have
| obvious financial backing (tech meetups that company's pay
| for to scout workers) or extremely passionate members willing
| to bear the cost.
|
| I got lucky my previous city had extremely passionate members
| for my favorite group, but my new city is smaller and I think
| the fees have either killed the old group or are preventing a
| new group from forming
| ghaff wrote:
| I can't speak to Meetup specifically but my sense is that a
| lot of activities that were plowing along mostly on
| momentum pre-COVID had to go on hiatus and with the break
| in continuity many will never return (although presumably
| new ones may take their place).
|
| I'm involved with a big greater than century-old outdoor
| club and even we are more or less just getting back into
| the swing of things.
| rnk wrote:
| 120 years ago, people still went to their 'worksite' every
| day. For some it was in a city, but for a huge number maybe
| it was on your own farm (thinking of the us). People coped.
| Isolation was a problem then too.
| nyokodo wrote:
| > People coped. Isolation was a problem then too.
|
| 120 years ago family and neighbors would just show up.
| Communities weren't compromised of strangers who only slept
| there. Maybe we'll adapt by getting to know our neighbors
| and being less exclusionary about our homes as time goes
| on.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Preach, friend.
|
| All the people saying remote is great aren't thinking about job
| mobility for new workers in a field, the cost of having to
| share your home with your job, having to have a larger home,
| not separating work and home life, etc. I am repeating myself a
| little bit.
|
| We are in a transition period where we see more of the
| positives of WFH. Give it a decade and the crippling social and
| job mobility issues for younger workers will be apparent.
| WheatMillington wrote:
| Do WFH employees get compensated for exchanging office amenities
| for personal? Desk space, electricity, internet, coffee, etc?
| albntomat0 wrote:
| There's definitely a tradeoff of having to buy your own desk
| and coffee, but not having to pay the transport costs and time
| of commuting.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| Speaking as someone who has been WFH for the past 10 years: No,
| not typically, although I did get like $25/mo. credit for
| Internet at my past job. To be fair, I sought WFH it was not
| forced on me - they would have preferred I been in the office.
| It might be different if your position is specifically WFH.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Capitalists constantly sing the song of capitalism as an economic
| efficiency driver.
|
| WFH is economically more efficient for both employer and
| employee. It does cause a short term ground-swell as inner city
| businesses move back to the suburbs, but long term it isn't an
| increase or decrease, just a reallocation. The same pro-
| capitalist people are upset by WFH even while being entirely
| inline with their supposed beliefs, kind of showcasing that it
| was anti-labor all along. They're happy to benefits businesses,
| but the fact it may benefit employees even more upsets them
| greatly.
|
| Personally I'm looking forward to more locally owned bodegas and
| sandwich shops opening near people's WFH homes, maybe so local
| that some people will even walk to them during lunch and start
| talking to their neighbors again. We may even see people vote for
| more pedestrian and cycling infrastructure improvements as they
| start to use it more.
| Nuhhnjnjmimij wrote:
| You criticize capitalism and then look forward to locally owned
| bodegas and sandwich shops, who by definition are capitalists?
| Someone1234 wrote:
| I didn't criticize capitalism. I'm criticizing online
| commentary.
| orwin wrote:
| I think here it's a historical materialist view on
| capitalism, so if you work in your shop, it's not capitalism
| (basically).
| pessimizer wrote:
| The comment was about how WFH is a boon to capitalists,
| because there are people/pundits who larp as capitalists who
| ignore productivity gains to bash it.
|
| It's just when some people see their religion mentioned, they
| get triggered.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| I sincerely don't see the connection between capitalism and
| anti-WFH. To me, I see it reducing the cost of starting and
| running a business. It's also very family-friendly (a lot of
| entrepreneurs seem to have families, especially older ones.) Is
| that based on a recent article or study?
| Tagbert wrote:
| I think you may be reading too much into pro or con
| "capitalism" here.
|
| I am generally pro capitalist (to a point) but any also pro WFH
| (in many situations) and don't see any conflict. It is a
| complex socio-economic issue and there are benefits and
| downsides to both office work and WFH.
|
| Some businesses oppose WFH but others are embracing it. A lot
| are experimenting with many trying a hybrid approach of
| intermittent office work with WFH on other days. Some employees
| love WFH and would do it all the time but others find something
| missing or inconvenient about it and would rather work at the
| office or be able to have a choice about the mix between those
| options.
|
| Whether you get more local engagement of those employees around
| their home may depend on the neighborhood they live in. Some
| may get a local convenience store but others may just drive to
| the closest Safeway.
| orwin wrote:
| At the bank I'm working at, last year with my coworkers, we
| decided to guess which managers/execs owned real estate in
| Paris according to how much they pushed against WFH. We had
| one outlier, and probably a lot of confounding factors, but
| the correlation do exist.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>WFH is economically more efficient for both employer and
| employee
|
| it can be, but it can also be inefficient
|
| When done correctly, where the WFH employee has a dedicated
| place in the home , has set aside dedicated time for working,
| and has provided the correct technological resources for their
| home (i.e proper internet) then it is a win win
|
| However when the employee instead uses WFH as an excuse to just
| be "From Home" and focuses on home actives such as child care,
| home maintenance, or even entertainment or when the employee
| attempts to use shared spaces (or even as one commenter
| mentions using a cell phone outside while doing customer
| service) then it can go very badly
|
| my personal experience supporting WFH people is vast, and the
| number of times I have had to explain to people that your Huges
| Net Sat internet, or you 3G connection is not really good
| enough to do a 4K zoom call is not good enough
|
| Or the number of screaming kids I have encountered on
| meetings...
|
| or....
|
| to be clearly, I am not anti-WFH. I WFH myself. From a
| dedicated office in my home with gigabit fiber optic connection
|
| but I dont think it is universal good for all employees, nor do
| I believe it is universal bad, it like most things has alot of
| gray
| pessimizer wrote:
| > do a 4K zoom call is not good enough
|
| Not doing 4K zoom calls is also a productivity gain.
| throw827474737 wrote:
| > However when the employee instead uses WFH as an excuse to
| just be "From Home" and focuses on home actives such as child
| care, home maintenance,
|
| Ah come on, who really does that? Usually people put in extra
| time. Especially when they unplanned had to suddenly care 2
| hours for their child or another emergency, I saw those do
| that at least the time in the evening, sometimes more.
|
| And what if not? In work you have days where lunch suddenly
| takes much longer, or you had a long but unecessary chat for
| an hour.. and just worked less time ""super productive"".
|
| Sure there are exploiters and lazies.. but know what? They
| slack in office then too in one or the other way.. And unless
| they are super destructive its still better to have them at
| home too, so they do not stick on my desk or distract me from
| the next cubicle. (But yeah please get rid of them as quick
| as possible, nothing more demotivating for a team than such
| guys going long undetected).
| mmastrac wrote:
| I think we're getting very close to a commercial office real-
| estate collapse in North America, and all the ensuing chaos that
| comes along with that. Commutes will plummet, houses will need
| space to work, neighbourhoods may need more services as people
| "stay local".
| steveBK123 wrote:
| There's already a micro version of this happening in NYC the
| last 18 months.
|
| Residential neighborhoods that are normally dead on weekdays
| daytime are suddenly filled with people while midtown/fidi
| office areas are significantly quieter. There's already been
| impact to relative apartment rents, especially with younger
| people who are picking neighborhoods based less on commute time
| and more on lifestyle.
|
| I can imagine a lot of NYC commuter suburbs will see similar
| effect.
|
| People I know in tech in NYC with high paying jobs have moved
| deeper into suburbs, banking on being WFH more than in-office.
|
| In before-times, fully in-office, workers were commuting 60+%
| of the 365 days of year (after removing
| weekends/holidays/vacations/sick days)
|
| Even in a median 2-3 days in-office case, people could be
| commuting as few as 20% of days of year.
|
| Spending 90min/way on the train but only 20-25% of calendar
| days starts to feel manageable if you were previously doing 60%
| of your days on the train for 60min/way.
| xbmcuser wrote:
| Yeah it was interesting to see
| https://www.youtube.com/user/rossmanngroup commercial estate
| videos how large portion of real estate is up for rent in NY
| but as the house of cards is built on cheap mortgage or black
| money no one is willing to bring down rent. Even NY
| government is unwilling to as that would mean they would
| loose billions in property taxes. But as interest rates rise
| landlords will come under pressure to sell the properties or
| lower the rent so that they can at least meat interest
| payments which will result in lower valuations and margin
| calls.
| rabuse wrote:
| I'm all for it, honestly.
| faeriechangling wrote:
| I'm so bearish on commercial real estate I'm hibernating in a
| cave and I'm not going to feel comfortable investing until I
| see it crash to earth. The fact the pricing is staying as high
| as it is, that's nothing but total madness.
|
| Work from home isn't going to stop. We've been desensitized to
| how ridiculous the status quo is. Like driving to a callcenter
| so you can be next to people shouting at their phone as you
| stare straight forward at a computer screen before going home.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| I don't like density. I understand where pro-density people are
| coming from, but I think there is a max density where people
| lose too much freedom.
|
| Getting rid of commutes and letting everyone have a smaller
| required radius is a big winner. It's a winner for pollution,
| for transportation and for family/work balance.
| pessimizer wrote:
| A better way to look at it is as a large permanent general
| productivity gain. If you wonder how a falling population can
| manage to take care of its seniors, it's by wringing
| productivity out of technology when we can.
| newaccount2021 wrote:
| [deleted]
| yrgulation wrote:
| A sensible approach. On site work is a thing of the past. We need
| more remote people for a higher quality of life, less pollution
| and improved mental health. I appreciate there are those without
| friends or family that want to fill in the void with coworkers
| but your coworkers are simply not there for that.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| > but your coworkers are simply not there for that
|
| I've become friends with coworkers at every job I've been at.
| Most of the time when I leave that is pretty much it, but I've
| also retained some of those friendships for years now (one
| particular friend I go out with at least once a month still).
| Another group of friends from several jobs ago I try and meet
| up once a year at a particular conference we all attend - no,
| we aren't terribly close anymore but once we are back together
| it is like old times again.
|
| In summary, I don't think there is any need to create "rules"
| on such things. Some people might become friends with their
| coworkers and some might not. Social bonds are important, and
| there is no need to try and draw lines on which bonds are
| appropriate or not - everyone is capable of deciding this for
| themselves.
| Telemoto wrote:
| I retained a few good friends from one particular small nerdy
| and young company.
|
| But I joined that company because of it.
|
| It was also very unique in itself.
|
| If Homeoffice would become the norm I could imagine actually
| enjoying the people who life around me.
|
| Due to covid I have seen much more of the people I actually
| life cloth. Neighbors etc.
|
| It would also be much cooler if friends would life closer to
| be able to meet up etc.
|
| But I still think it's
| pastaguy1 wrote:
| Something feels a little off in this particular case. I feel
| like there is an implied increase in flexibility with WFH for
| many of us here, but I doubt call center employees get that
| benefit at all.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| They likely get some of that. For example, I do laundry, and
| for me, 70% of that is popping one load in the washer,
| transferring to the dryer and back out. After that, I quickly
| fold and put away. That sort of task could easily be done I
| suspect while on the phone with a wireless headset. There are
| probably other household tasks that don't take much
| brainpower that could be multitasked.
| Nux wrote:
| > but your coworkers are simply not there for that.
|
| Yes they are, many of them would be there in a similar
| situation. The work place colleagues is the main pool one draws
| "friends" from nowadays in very many cases.
| dfee wrote:
| You may be right, but that's a sad ordeal: your boss is an
| arbiter of your social interactions?
|
| That's not healthy for you (those people), not for society,
| and especially not for local communities.
| chrsig wrote:
| No, they're not. And no, I'm not. And no amount of using
| coworkers as a crutch for not having a private social life
| will change that.
|
| There are plenty of reasons why many can't welcome coworkers
| into your private life. It's a huge discrimination risk.
|
| Aside from that, coupling social needs with employment needs
| creates a form of codependence with the workplace. You have
| more incentive to stay at a job that is mistreating you
| because you'll lose your friends if you leave.
|
| Maybe some people are ok with those dynamics, but I'm
| personally not, and I'll not have my colleagues forcing it
| upon me.
| codemac wrote:
| > No, they're not. And no, I'm not. And no amount of using
| coworkers as a crutch for not having a private social life
| will change that.
|
| You can say that, but the data says otherwise[0], with time
| with friends peaking at ~18 or so. Time spent with
| coworkers surpasses time spent with friends @ 20.
|
| I agree this is a problem in some ways (the discrimination
| you mention, conflict of power, etc), but in many ways it
| makes sense. You're spending 40-50hrs/week on an activity
| that involves others, you're probably going to have some
| non-commercial relationship with them. And maybe the
| opportunity of a good life is in finding that non-
| commercial relationship, while making money?
|
| To me - it's actually the suburbanization, the glass
| windows between everyone in cars on some "stroad"... of
| american life that causes this. The lack of literal
| physical interactions with others reduces your community to
| only the nuclear essentials.
|
| I'm desperately searching for a life that combines
| meaningful work, large community, privacy, and space. I'm
| still searching.
|
| [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/time-with-others-lifetime
| coffeeblack wrote:
| I am sure that companies would love that. Being tied to
| the company for your healthcare (in the U.S.) and also
| being tied by having so your friends in the company.
| Great "lock in".
| toast0 wrote:
| The health care exchange plans usually aren't as good as
| employer plans, but they do exist and should remove a lot
| of the tie to employers.
|
| It's not like the before times where you'd need to visit
| a bunch of brokers and hope someone could find a plan you
| might qualify for, if you're lucky.
|
| What you usually miss out on is non-emergency coverage
| outside your home area, whether that's limited to the
| state or county you live in depends, and sometimes it's
| pretty bad if you live in an area where it's common to
| cross county or state boundaries but the exchange plans
| don't allow that.
| xyzzyz wrote:
| You are not tied to _the_ company for healthcare. You are
| tied to _a_ company. This means that healthcare is not
| much of a leverage to keep you tied to any particular
| company.
|
| Similarly, I am not required to go through the company in
| order to socialize with friends I made in that company.
| Indeed, I maintain friendships I made in companies I no
| longer work for.
|
| Lastly, making friends through your job is how it
| _always_ has been. Talk to your parents.
| [deleted]
| Retric wrote:
| The removal of the pre existing condition exception does
| make heath insurance more portable. On the other hand,
| getting a new job while you have a major health issue is
| much harder while keeping an existing job is not because
| companies can't discriminate based on employee health,
| but it's much harder to prove discrimination during
| highering.
|
| So in theory it's not a limitation, but in practice it
| often is.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > On the other hand, getting a new job while you have a
| major health issue is much harder while keeping an
| existing job is not because companies can't discriminate
| based on employee health
|
| As far as I know, employers are free to terminate anyone
| having health issues that render them unable to perform
| their duties:
|
| https://work.chron.com/termination-employment-due-ill-
| health...
|
| FMLA (if employer has more than 50 employees) or a state
| disability law might protect employment for up to 12
| weeks or so, but other than that, there is no reason a
| business has to keep a sick employee who cannot fulfill
| duties on payroll.
| Retric wrote:
| People who are unable to function long term, qualify for
| SS disability. It's the middle ground where people have
| significant issues but are still capable of working
| that's at issue.
| lolinder wrote:
| > You are not tied to the company for healthcare. You are
| tied to a company. This means that healthcare is not much
| of a leverage to keep you tied to any particular company.
|
| Switching insurance is a hassle. Maybe in some areas
| plans are more fungible, but where I live there are two
| main insurance companies with two highly disjoint
| networks. Switching jobs has a 50% chance of forcing us
| to also switch pediatricians, which is a huge hassle when
| the kids have finally become comfortable with our current
| one.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Interesting, I have used BCBS affiliated insurance on
| both costs in 3 states with 3 different companies, and
| every doctor I have looked up has been in network.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| You are not even tied to a company for healthcare. You
| just get to purchase insurance with pre tax money rather
| than post tax money. But if you are self employed, you
| can also purchase with pre tax money.
|
| The people that get screwed are employees of employers
| that do not offer health insurance. They have to buy with
| post tax money.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > You can say that, but the data says otherwise[0], with
| time with friends peaking at ~18 or so. Time spent with
| coworkers surpasses time spent with friends @ 20.
|
| And my time on the bus far surpasses the time I spend
| with my mother, so I suppose I love the bus more than my
| mother.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Friendship isn't just spending time with someone.
|
| Let's invert the problem. My coworkers are stuck with me.
| More or less, whether they love me or hate me, they don't
| really get to say no to being around me.
|
| To that end, my goal around my coworkers is to be
| pleasant and not too opinionated. We'll talk about non-
| combustible sort of topics and I'll try to keep myself
| restrained on strong opinions.
|
| I don't do that with my friends. I pick my friends and my
| friends pick me. I am very close to my friends and we
| know each other fairly intimately, including our thorny
| opinions and sex lives and non-HR approved behaviors. We
| are friends.
|
| Do not burden your coworkers with your relationship. Be
| professional. Have real friends - and be real with them
| so that you may know them and be known in return.
| closeparen wrote:
| Not everyone you have regular, unplanned contact with is
| or ought to be your real friend. On the other hand,
| nearly everyone who becomes a real friend is someone you
| previously had regular, unplanned contact with. We're
| headed for a world where everyone is either close enough
| to make explicit plans with, or a total stranger in a
| public place - we will no longer have this third category
| "coworker" or "classmate" that's conducive to deeper
| relationships. That's a real loss.
| [deleted]
| starkd wrote:
| Perhaps, but that's not the way many people actually live.
| Maybe you would seek out alternates to socializing, but the
| institutions that once did that are dying or long dead.
| chrsig wrote:
| > Maybe you would seek out alternates to socializing
|
| I don't know if you intended it, but this directly
| equates work to socializing.
|
| I don't _seek out alternatives_ to socializing because I
| don 't use work as a socialization tool. If anything,
| people using work for their primary socialization outlet
| are using it as an alternative to socializing.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Ask yourself what political movements killed those
| institutions. It wasn't organic. People naturally come to
| together but most of those institutions have been
| harassed or outright outlawed out of existence. Make
| freedom of association an absolute right instead of
| something to be demonized and those institutions will
| return, along with all of the healthy social outcomes
| they enabled.
| ysavir wrote:
| Not sure why this is being downvoted. True, not all coworkers
| are there for building a social life, but many are. The GP
| was just as single-sided in its evaluation of workplace
| comradery.
|
| What we would benefit from is workplaces having a strong
| stance on which culture they belong to, and applicants
| understanding that, respecting it, and seeking employment in
| the desired culture.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > What we would benefit from is workplaces having a strong
| stance on which culture they belong to, and applicants
| understanding that, respecting it, and seeking employment
| in the desired culture.
|
| That just sounds like a strong stance that minorities (of
| any type) should be restricted to a tiny number of
| companies and fields, and that companies should be very
| opinionated and strict about aspects of applicants that are
| completely unrelated to their technical, organizational or
| communications skills.
| ysavir wrote:
| That's a very unfair take. My point was that some
| companies can say "we're adopting a WFH policy so that
| people can prioritize their out-of-work wants and needs"
| and other companies can say "we have an in-office policy
| so that people can fraternize during work". Both are
| valid policies that can be enriching to employees, and
| the key to preventing frustration is to maintain proper
| expectations--don't hire people that want a policy out of
| line with what you offer.
| patch_cable wrote:
| I've always felt the "coworkers can't be your friends"
| argument was as silly as saying "school mates can't be your
| friends."
|
| Make friends where you make them.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| And when you need to fire your friend, or report them for
| inappropriate behavior in the workplace, how is that
| going to go for you? What if you share something
| important with a coworker-friend and they dislike it? You
| are now stuck with that person.
| TexanFeller wrote:
| I don't want to be in management, so I just have to not
| report my friends' inappropriate behavior. I wouldn't do
| that to a friend anyway, short of something like murder.
| patch_cable wrote:
| I think it is reasonably to maintain professional
| distance from your reports for that reason.
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by "something important" but I
| don't think that's significantly different than a risk
| you might take with a neighbor or a classmate. You can be
| stuck with those as well.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Of course they can be your friends. But demanding they
| leave their families behind to hold your hand in an
| office is creepy.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| The snark in me wants to say "you live in a society".
| It's a free market of jobs. Want to be a yeoman, head to
| the farm.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > Want to be a yeoman, head to the farm.
|
| How about "Want a friend? Go find one. We're at work."
| Work is the only place where people who aren't wealthy
| can get their pay. Work, a place where people are locked
| in for 8 hours a day under pain of starvation and
| homelessness, is the only place where some minority of
| people can make "friends." We shouldn't tailor everything
| around those people, even though they're likely to be the
| most vocal.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| One of my arguments is that in the long term, full remote
| will hamper the ability for people to cross train,
| quickly pick up new skills, or network and be able to
| find new jobs effectively.
|
| I feels like you're saying "fuck you, I got mine" to new
| entrants to the field.
|
| I know wfh is great for others. It's terrible for others.
| No one is forcing you to do a thing. WFH is certainly
| here to stay for many companies.
| toofy wrote:
| no one is "demanding" someone "leave their families
| behind" to hold anyone's hand in an office.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| The context here is of 'work from home' vs 'go to the
| office' because coworkers need you to socialize with
| them, so yes, some are indeed demanding that workers
| leave their families behind to come hold their hand in
| the office.
| krona wrote:
| Where I work, family time is family time and work time is
| work time. Working from home should very little
| difference, and if it persistently does then that's a
| problem.
| patch_cable wrote:
| I don't they're saying you must go to the office because
| people need you to socializing them, I think they're
| saying some people prefer the office because they have
| the opportunity to socialize. And at least for my part I
| was agreeing that these folks exist.
| 6stringmerc wrote:
| Actually it does happen and it is awful because those
| making the demands are really lame people that never grew
| out of high school mentality - all their work friends or
| school friends are their only friends. If you don't join
| them you are to be expunged.
| spacemadness wrote:
| Because it's a self perpetuating trap that a lot of young
| workers fall into and forces others to adopt it for career
| purposes. Companies love this behavior but it's unhealthy
| as there is always a layer of work layered over those
| relationships. I've seen it many times where those
| friendships disappear when the gig is done, or where a
| night out veers back to work topics. Not to mention where
| is the variety in perspective in your social circle if it's
| all work friends? I know better now to seek most
| friendships outside work so I'm not accidentally linking my
| entire social existence into the company I work for.
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| I've had many people I would consider work friends I was
| happy to see and talk to every day and even hang out with,
| but Noone I kept a friendship with after moving on. Feels
| like it crosses a line to me about work and life being
| separate things.
| patch_cable wrote:
| On the contrary some of my best friends I've made at work
| and I continue to spend time with them years after we've
| all moved on to different jobs.
| yrgulation wrote:
| Thats just creepy. Sounds a bit like a communist collective
| where everyone sleeps, works, eats and lives together. But
| no, we are not there for you. Build your own private life.
| patch_cable wrote:
| Would you say the same about school?
| yrgulation wrote:
| I am not against making friends in either place. I am
| against demanding it, which forcing people into offices
| means.
| patch_cable wrote:
| I didn't read anyone up the chain suggesting it be
| forced, just that there are some people who do like being
| together in person.
| [deleted]
| unethical_ban wrote:
| In places that don't suck, coworkers do support each other
| and are friendly, at least to some extent.
|
| Work is 1/3 of ones life. I don't get how many people are
| hostile to socialization during that time.
| coffeeblack wrote:
| What about neighbors?
| tiffanyh wrote:
| I wonder if Amazon is using Amazon Connect to allows agents to
| answer these calls remotely.
|
| https://aws.amazon.com/connect/
| kondro wrote:
| They probably use it in their call Centres.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-10-01 23:02 UTC)