Employers who force staff to return to the office five days a week have been called the “dinosaurs of our age” by one of the world’s leading experts who coined the term “presenteeism”.

Sir Cary Cooper, a professor of organisational psychology and health at the University of Manchester’s Alliance Manchester Business School, said employers imposing strict requirements on staff to be in the office risked driving away talented workers, damaging the wellbeing of employees and undermining their financial performance.

  • Telorand@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 day ago

    My company tried it…and now they have hybrid work schedules after employees with decades of experience left the company for remote work jobs.

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 hours ago

      after employees with decades of experience left the company for remote work jobs.

      Corporate still won. Those were the most expensive employees, and companies are proving time and time again that they just want output and not quality.

      • Telorand@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        6 hours ago

        I appreciate your opinion, but they most definitely didn’t. It wasn’t just a few people. It was a lot of people in a relatively short time, and they didn’t always give two weeks notice. The higher ups saw the writing on the wall.

        Also, they aren’t 100% profit-driven, because they’re not publicly traded, so they have more incentive to sometimes improve working conditions just for the sake of morale.

        • tetris11@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 hours ago

          Fair enough, I was basing my opinion on what some of the FAANG companies were doing to get rid of veteran staff by giving them the WFH ultimatum.

    • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Same. Or rather, I should say my previous employer

      Triggered an exodus, they did

  • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m interviewing next week for a job that wants hybrid for a fully-remote-capable position. I don’t need a job. I hate that company anyway.

    I’ll be asking them to justify their decree and asking how they want to pay the 20% surcharge - in the pay or separately - if I nail the interview.

      • delirious_owl@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        I don’t think we should be using such terms to address people, generally.

        Use your name. Don’t prefix it with “President” or “Sir” or whatever. This was done to establish hierarchy, but we as a society need to recognize that no person is superior to another person. By just using a name (and eliminating the title), you recognize equality amongst people.

        Sure, you can have a title that indicates what cog in a org you currently occupy, but it shouldn’t be used in your name.