Working from Home and Worker Productivity

Trapper Gus wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Working from home, like almost every other business decision, will be made with spread sheet logic looking at productivity and cost of office space.

If your group worked in leased space that wasn’t renewed and productivity has stayed up you might get to stay at home or have a hybrid schedule.

MSU and some Lansing based insurance companies have gone to the hybrid model.

Exactly. Why spend more than you must in a business.

Why does it seem that the Progressives who work from home are the same ones who can’t pay their college loans, don’t have good healthcare, and want the government to pay for daycare? Is there a correlation there?

PennSpartan wrote:

Other Teams Pursuing That wrote:

For these types of cable news watchers, everything is connected to politics. Everything.

It’s political because progressives like you stereotype everyone.

This post never fails to deliver. I love it so much.

If I worked in an office, it probably would have been closed yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I'll be working each of those days.

But someone that wants employers to go back to the ways of the 1980s says it's more productive to work in an office.

MiamiSpartan wrote:If I worked in an office, it probably would have been closed yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I'll be working each of those days.

But someone that wants employers to go back to the ways of the 1980s says it's more productive to work in an office.

And getting three days off is a bad thing? On one hand I hear Progressives pushing for more time off, and then you just argued for the opposite. I suppose we could have people working from home 365 days a year and improve productivity tremendously, but isn’t that a step backwards? Unions pushed for a 40 hour work week decades ago as an improvement. Were they wrong?

PennSpartan wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:If I worked in an office, it probably would have been closed yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I'll be working each of those days.

But someone that wants employers to go back to the ways of the 1980s says it's more productive to work in an office.

And getting three days off is a bad thing? On one hand I hear Progressives pushing for more time off, and then you just argued for the opposite. I suppose we could have people working from home 365 days a year and improve productivity tremendously, but isn’t that a step backwards? Unions pushed for a 40 hour work week decades ago as an improvement. Were they wrong?

Unions?

Unions are almost dead, Penn.

Membership is almost down to single digits of the American work force.

However, there is hope. The millennials are working on starting more unions.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
And getting three days off is a bad thing? On one hand I hear Progressives pushing for more time off, and then you just argued for the opposite. I suppose we could have people working from home 365 days a year and improve productivity tremendously, but isn’t that a step backwards? Unions pushed for a 40 hour work week decades ago as an improvement. Were they wrong?

Unions?

Unions are almost dead, Penn.

Membership is almost down to single digits of the American work force.

However, there is hope. The millennials are working on starting more unions.

WTF? Unions from home?

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Unions?

Unions are almost dead, Penn.

Membership is almost down to single digits of the American work force.

However, there is hope. The millennials are working on starting more unions.

WTF? Unions from home?

The ones that are reported are Starbucks & Amazon

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
WTF? Unions from home?

The ones that are reported are Starbucks & Amazon

What does that have to do with working from home?

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The ones that are reported are Starbucks & Amazon

What does that have to do with working from home?

You are the poster who brought up unions. I'm just trying to be nice to you and address the points you are making.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
What does that have to do with working from home?

You are the poster who brought up unions. I'm just trying to be nice to you and address the points you are making.

I just brought them up to point out they advocated for 40 hour weeks. I thought that was a good thing. Are young people against that, too?

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You are the poster who brought up unions. I'm just trying to be nice to you and address the points you are making.

I just brought them up to point out they advocated for 40 hour weeks. I thought that was a good thing. Are young people against that, too?

Generally no, but there’s no reason why it needs to be 8-5 M-F in many cases. Nothing wrong with 4-10’s or someone that works from 11-8 if that’s what works better for them. I’m sure you’re aghast at these things but the good news is that no one cares

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

You are the poster who brought up unions. I'm just trying to be nice to you and address the points you are making.

I just brought them up to point out they advocated for 40 hour weeks. I thought that was a good thing. Are young people against that, too?

No, but without the union pressure, for exempt employees, the owners are totally taking advantage of the labor laws.

Assistant Managers in fast food, basically do the same work as the hourly workers, are really screwed by being on salaries which turn out to be paying them something below minimum wages for the hours they put in.

Obama tried to fix this, Trump promptly unfixed it and now Biden might be fixing it again.

As an Automotive Engineer I was expected to be putting in 60 plus hours on site or in an assembly plant and that didn't count all the hours I was thinking up inventions at home.

Work from home for the exempt cuts out the commute time and allows it to be more on task, though again, my commute time was taken up with telephone conferences or contacting people who I needed to talk to. Cell phones and laptops have completely changed the work environment since 2010.

Onsite (for strict computer related jobs) is only a requirement for horrible bosses who need to bully.

If you HAVE to stare at someone to get them to be productive, you are doing it wrong.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Onsite (for strict computer related jobs) is only a requirement for horrible bosses who need to bully.

If you HAVE to stare at someone to get them to be productive, you are doing it wrong.

Agreed.

I worked for a company managed by fossils, though their real problem was the "C" suite had all advanced from the operations side and didn't understand how to manage professionals, and I was located at World Headquarters, so the lower management really didn't have much choice as to how they treated their staff. It was better in places away from WH.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Onsite (for strict computer related jobs) is only a requirement for horrible bosses who need to bully.

If you HAVE to stare at someone to get them to be productive, you are doing it wrong.

I never had anyone stare at me while I worked, but I did have an office so they would have had to do so through the window. Usually the employees who were good at interpersonal communication moved up the ladder quickly. The ones that didn't ended up getting meaningless tasks or were eventually told to work from home (fired )

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Exactly. Why spend more than you must in a business.

Why does it seem that the Progressives who work from home are the same ones who can’t pay their college loans, don’t have good healthcare, and want the government to pay for daycare? Is there a correlation there?

Except the under 30 in my family all paid off loans to qualify for 2% mortgages.

Time to find another whipping boy.

GRR Spartan wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Why does it seem that the Progressives who work from home are the same ones who can’t pay their college loans, don’t have good healthcare, and want the government to pay for daycare? Is there a correlation there?

Except the under 30 in my family all paid off loans to qualify for 2% mortgages.

Time to find another whipping boy.

Well done. I guess it can be done after all.

PennSpartan wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:If I worked in an office, it probably would have been closed yesterday, today, and tomorrow. I'll be working each of those days.

But someone that wants employers to go back to the ways of the 1980s says it's more productive to work in an office.

And getting three days off is a bad thing? On one hand I hear Progressives pushing for more time off, and then you just argued for the opposite. I suppose we could have people working from home 365 days a year and improve productivity tremendously, but isn’t that a step backwards? Unions pushed for a 40 hour work week decades ago as an improvement. Were they wrong?

Are you dense? What does the threat of a hurricane (that didn't even hit us but was just near by) causing many offices to close for 2 days, have to do with working 365 days a year. What was supposed to be a 4 day week became a 2 day week for many offices because of the very nature of people having to go to an office. That is the definition of decreased productivity.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
And getting three days off is a bad thing? On one hand I hear Progressives pushing for more time off, and then you just argued for the opposite. I suppose we could have people working from home 365 days a year and improve productivity tremendously, but isn’t that a step backwards? Unions pushed for a 40 hour work week decades ago as an improvement. Were they wrong?

Are you dense? What does the threat of a hurricane (that didn't even hit us but was just near by) causing many offices to close for 2 days, have to do with working 365 days a year. What was supposed to be a 4 day week became a 2 day week for many offices because of the very nature of people having to go to an office. That is the definition of decreased productivity.

Me dense? You’re the one living in Florida. And continuing to work when offices were closed due to a hurricane. LOL.

If we didn’t interact with clients face to face, I would definitely allow my employees to work from home. Give employees what they want, it will pay off in loyalty, and even advocacy. Well worth the perceived loss of production.

Motown Spartan wrote:If we didn’t interact with clients face to face, I would definitely allow my employees to work from home. Give employees what they want, it will pay off in loyalty, and even advocacy. Well worth the perceived loss of production.

Every study I have seen shows that productivity is higher when people work from home. Sort of the point of this thread.

Did the dinosaurs die quietly?

kingstonlake wrote:Did the dinosaurs die quietly?

There was a very loud noise, but it might have come after the wall of red-hot supersonic debris from the meteor strike

Trapper Gus wrote:

kingstonlake wrote:Did the dinosaurs die quietly?

There was a very loud noise, but it might have come after the wall of red-hot debris from the meteor strike

So basically internet technology vs dinosaurs?

kingstonlake wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

There was a very loud noise, but it might have come after the wall of red-hot debris from the meteor strike

So basically internet technology vs dinosaurs?

Sure seems that way. I get it. If someone hasn't been working over the last 10 to 15 years they totally missed the electronic communication explosion in the workplace, which btw, is everywhere anyone works. Information on the factory floor is all via electronics now, too.

Motown Spartan wrote:If we didn’t interact with clients face to face, I would definitely allow my employees to work from home. Give employees what they want, it will pay off in loyalty, and even advocacy. Well worth the perceived loss of production.

Call me old fashioned, but I think face to face is the best interaction. In most everything. I prefer dining out to take out. Having a beer with a friend to talking on the phone or texting. In school to home school. Going to a game to watching on TV. But that’s a dying opinion I guess.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:If we didn’t interact with clients face to face, I would definitely allow my employees to work from home. Give employees what they want, it will pay off in loyalty, and even advocacy. Well worth the perceived loss of production.

Every study I have seen shows that productivity is higher when people work from home. Sort of the point of this thread.

Yep. The lack of production is only perceived and a few bad actors seemingly ruin it for the vast majority.

PennSpartan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:If we didn’t interact with clients face to face, I would definitely allow my employees to work from home. Give employees what they want, it will pay off in loyalty, and even advocacy. Well worth the perceived loss of production.

Call me old fashioned, but I think face to face is the best interaction. In most everything. I prefer dining out to take out. Having a beer with a friend to talking on the phone or texting. In school to home school. Going to a game to watching on TV. But that’s a dying opinion I guess.

This is sort of like when the telephone & telegraph were invented.

There still are face to face meetings, just many fewer, and they are hardly needed at all, or even that possible if people are working together in a multi-national with parts of the work being done all around the globe on a 24-hour basis.

Motown Spartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Every study I have seen shows that productivity is higher when people work from home. Sort of the point of this thread.

Yep. The lack of production is only perceived and a few bad actors seemingly ruin it for the vast majority.

The people who cannot self-police get weeded out quickly in most workplaces.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:If we didn’t interact with clients face to face, I would definitely allow my employees to work from home. Give employees what they want, it will pay off in loyalty, and even advocacy. Well worth the perceived loss of production.

Every study I have seen shows that productivity is higher when people work from home. Sort of the point of this thread.

You love studies. Studies are some of the most unproductive things on earth. There are studies that say take an aspirin every day. And studies that say don’t. There are endless studies that counter one another. Like polls, you can make studies say whatever you want. They’re garbage.

Trapper Gus wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Call me old fashioned, but I think face to face is the best interaction. In most everything. I prefer dining out to take out. Having a beer with a friend to talking on the phone or texting. In school to home school. Going to a game to watching on TV. But that’s a dying opinion I guess.

This is sort of like when the telephone & telegraph were invented.

There still are face to face meetings, just many fewer, and they are hardly needed at all, or even that possible if people are working together in a multi-national with parts of the work being done all around the globe on a 24-hour basis.

You still have told me how to assemble an automobile from home.

PennSpartan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:If we didn’t interact with clients face to face, I would definitely allow my employees to work from home. Give employees what they want, it will pay off in loyalty, and even advocacy. Well worth the perceived loss of production.

Call me old fashioned, but I think face to face is the best interaction. In most everything. I prefer dining out to take out. Having a beer with a friend to talking on the phone or texting. In school to home school. Going to a game to watching on TV. But that’s a dying opinion I guess.

If it can be said in an email, it doesn’t need a meeting.

PennSpartan wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:


Every study I have seen shows that productivity is higher when people work from home. Sort of the point of this thread.

You love studies. Studies are some of the most unproductive things on earth. There are studies that say take an aspirin every day. And studies that say don’t. There are endless studies that counter one another. Like polls, you can make studies say whatever you want. They’re garbage.

Kind of like meetings. They’re garbage.

Motown Spartan wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
You love studies. Studies are some of the most unproductive things on earth. There are studies that say take an aspirin every day. And studies that say don’t. There are endless studies that counter one another. Like polls, you can make studies say whatever you want. They’re garbage.

Kind of like meetings. They’re garbage.

Should we get rid of schools?

PennSpartan wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:If we didn’t interact with clients face to face, I would definitely allow my employees to work from home. Give employees what they want, it will pay off in loyalty, and even advocacy. Well worth the perceived loss of production.

Call me old fashioned, but I think face to face is the best interaction. In most everything. I prefer dining out to take out. Having a beer with a friend to talking on the phone or texting. In school to home school. Going to a game to watching on TV. But that’s a dying opinion I guess.

I like how, intentionally or not, you've pretty much shifted your argument away from saying that it is more productive to work in an office.

MiamiSpartan wrote:

PennSpartan wrote:
Call me old fashioned, but I think face to face is the best interaction. In most everything. I prefer dining out to take out. Having a beer with a friend to talking on the phone or texting. In school to home school. Going to a game to watching on TV. But that’s a dying opinion I guess.

I like how, intentionally or not, you've pretty much shifted your argument away from saying that it is more productive to work in an office.

I like how you dodge the questions.

If we could go back in time, I'm sure an 18th Century farmer would tell us how it's better to have horses or oxen pull a plow rather than a tractor.

MiamiSpartan wrote:If we could go back in time, I'm sure an 18th Century farmer would tell us how it's better to have horses or oxen pull a plow rather than a tractor.

But he was working from home, so it must have been more productive.

PennSpartan wrote:

MiamiSpartan wrote:

I like how, intentionally or not, you've pretty much shifted your argument away from saying that it is more productive to work in an office.

I like how you dodge the questions.

There wasn't a question in that post.