Google and JPMorgan have each told staff that office attendance will be factored into performance evaluations. The US law firm Davis Polk informed employees that fewer days in the office would result in lower bonuses. And Meta and Amazon both told employees they’re now monitoring badge swipes, with potential consequences for workers who don’t comply with attendance policies – including job loss. Increasingly, workers across many jobs and sectors appear to be barrelling towards the same fate.

In some ways, it’s unsurprising bosses are turning back to attendance as a standard. After all, we’ve long been conditioned to believe showing up is vital to success, from some of our earliest days. In school, perfect attendance is often still seen a badge of honour. The obsession with attendance has also been a mainstay of workplace culture for decades; pre-pandemic, remote work was largely unheard of, and employees were expected to be physically present at their desks throughout the workday.

Yet after the success of flexible arrangements during the pandemic, attendance is still entrenched as a core metric. What’s the point?

  • greenskye@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    They do pay more. The issue comes in because many executives are really doing two jobs. Job one is the company exec. They want to save money and downsizing office space is kosher with that job. But their second job is being landlords for commercial office space. Their portfolios will be negatively affected by companies (including their own) getting rid of office space.

    They are choosing to prioritize their personal wealth (commercial real estate investments) over the health of their company.

    Modern business is full of this type of stuff. The priority is always personal benefits over the health of the company. Run it into the ground while extracting as much as you possibly can and walking away from any consequences.

    • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The great Neo-liberal grift.

      42 years and the only thing to trickle down were two skyscrapers and half the smaller bridges in the country.

      And the middle class down the social ladder

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I fucking hate neoliberalism.

        It’s responsible for the vast majority of society’s problems at this point.

        • CaptainAniki@lemmy.flight-crew.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          no that would be conservatism.

          neoliberalism is putting bandages on conservative bullet wounds because they are selling the blood second hand.

          • SoylentBlake@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Neoliberalism is trickle down. It’s believing that tax cuts benefit society more than collectively investing in that society, usually in direct opposition to any actual tabulated, factual data.

            If you don’t remember the world before January 1981, and you live in a western nation, than you havent experienced anything other than neoliberalism.

            Nixon was more of a leftist than Clinton or Obama. All we’ve known is the Center-right (Democrats) and the right/far-right.

            Conservativism is dead in America. You’re average conservative now would look at Dubya’s “Compassionate Conservativism” push for Medicare Part D and shriek until their owners finally came and put them into bed.

            • CaptainAniki@lemmy.flight-crew.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              None of what you said is true. I have no idea where you came up with that horseshit but just because you’ve convinced yourself of it doesn’t make it true. We’ve had Regan, Bush Sr. And Bush Jr since 1981. You’re a clown. Reganomics are not Neoliberalism. That’s just straight conservative.

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

                    Here ya go fuckface. Read this. Just this one study, done by professionals, discussing how neoliberalism effects attitudes towards government and the self and the responsibilities, and abdication of therein.

                    Unless you thrive on being wrong, I mean, then keep doin what you’re doing.

                    There’s no shame in being wrong either. But there’s a ton of shame in STAYING wrong.

                    Idgaf if you change your mind, this is the internet, I posted this for your benefit alone.

                    Good luck to you.

                    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9605858/#:~:text=Neoliberal ideology is linked to,esteem%2C and self-reliance.

                    Post script

                    Y’know, after chewing on yr comments for a min I think I’ve identified the confusion.

                    Neo-liberalism is economic theory. It is not part of our “liberal-conservative” false dichotomy the media propagates. That’s propaganda to divide us poors from blaming those responsible for our problems. Neo-liberalism is a reactionary set of policies put forth from Milton Friedman from the University of Chicago to undercut Keynesian economics (The New Deal, a type of social democracy). Pinochet (the murdering dictator) was the first NeoLiberal leader in Chile, followed by Reagan and Thatcher over in the UK.

                    Every single president since Reagan has been neoliberal. Both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Trump and Biden. All of them.

                    Neoliberalism has been nothing but destructive towards not only our middle and working class, but to our infrastructure and social institutions themselves. Boomers, the most invested in generation, benefitted from the free or next to free college, $2000 houses and high paying jobs then took all that from millennials and Gen Z instead saddling us with debt. Their debt. When future promises are factored in America is 200 trillion in the red. TWO HUNDRED TRILLION.

                    That’s what trickled down. And it’s going to end the country, just watch. #eattherich

                    For context, the entire planets GDP is 95trillion. We are over 10 times our annual GDP.

                    Britain after ww2, had debt levels of 270% their output, close to where we are now. Theyve pulled out of it, on paper. Living conditions in the UK have been declining for 50 years and they’re STILL paying off that debt today. There’s ONE example of a nation not collapsing under that weight, and it was bouyed by us. You think China is gonna bouy us or you think China is gonna take Hawaii? Cuz whoever controls Pearl Harbor controls the Northern Pacific, and that’s 1/4 of the globe.