News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

The issue is we all started in the Brampton office, they opened the downtown office latter and we moved there.
They had us still come into Brampton once a week, but just before the pandemic they had us empty out our Brampton desks so they could give them to someone else and were moving us into a storage room. So our only real desks IMO were downtown at that point.
Ah, that's going to be one, where the only benefit will be to the lawyers. :(

How were they handling travel costs and time to each of the offices. I suppose if one were half-way between, it wouldn't be an issue, but there must be some who'd need to have been compensated for travel costs and time.
 
How were they handling travel costs and time to each of the offices.
They weren't. It's our problem to deal with.
One guy lives near to the DT office and has a 2 hour commute by transit each way for the Brampton office.
But he was doing that for 10 years before the DT office opened.
 
I imagine that because he was doing it for years before the DT office opened he wouldn't have a case.
 
One of the issues I had was addressing the need for a second car. I used to commute daily to the office near Dufferin and Supertest, but since Covid I go to the office perhaps once a month. So I really don't need a second car.... except for when I'm on the road visiting our clients, which can take all over southern ON but mostly GTA. I charge the office $0.50 a km, so will bill about $250 a month. The challenge is that my car is old, starting to rust out and soon needs replacing. But the only reason I need a car is for my work duties, and as I WFH 10-15 biz days month without going on the road, . So, my plan is to ask my employer to fund in part or wholly my next car purchase. I'd still charge them some $ a km for fuel and if I'm covering maintenance. The alternative is to ditch the car and rent one when needed.
 
Reviving this one to note that a stalwart support of return-to-office is going all-in in 2025.

Amazon is set to mandate 5 days per week in the office, no exceptions across all operations.

Indications are that they will terminate non-cooperating staff, as this has been occurring with those currently failing to adhere to a 3-day mandate.

 
Reviving this one to note that a stalwart support of return-to-office is going all-in in 2025.

Amazon is set to mandate 5 days per week in the office, no exceptions across all operations.

Indications are that they will terminate non-cooperating staff, as this has been occurring with those currently failing to adhere to a 3-day mandate.

Why is there this push?
 
Why is there this push?
I can’t speak for all sectors but in finance at-home employees are generally less productive and it has been a disaster for new hires as they lack a nurturing work environment. Of course this doesn’t apply to everyone all the time but these critiques are consistent among most FIRE companies globally.
 
Why is there this push?

A lot of top-down pressure to force change in behaviours. Companies need to justify their existing office space leases. In addition there's also pressure from REITs and building operators to get more people back into offices to patronize the retail that are associated to the buildings and surrounding areas.
 
Why is there this push?
They probably want people to leave. It's not officially "layoffs" by law or as reported in the media if people choose to quit.
Very much like the old school "we're moving our office somewhere most of you can't or won't want to commute to" trick.
Happened to my father in the 90's when his employer moved their office from Yonge & College to Sheppard & Consumers. Lots of people quit and they were never replaced, their work was simply distributed to the remaining staff.
 
Last edited:
Why is there this push?

Lets differentiate two things; a general push towards 'back to the office' and Amazon specifically.

On the latter first, Amazon's owner, Mr. Bezos and the current senior management team have always been keen on the 'in the office'.

Amazon's work culture is very hard-driving. Their churn rate reflects this, lots of executives don't make it. Amazon can pay well if you make it up the food chain, but they will get every cent back out of you in work product.

That type of culture is not sustainable in a work-from-home model. You don't have peer pressure the way you do in an office. Additionally, in the office, your boss need merely be 'around' with a sightline of the office floor, for you to feel those eyes glaring a hole in your back if your break is running a bit long, or you've been on a social phone call for more than five minutes.

At home, this pressure really isn't there. The boss can email you, or phone you, or maybe facetime you........but they can't stand over your shoulder, and you can't see them glare down a colleague either.

That's all above and beyond any other reasons companies/gov't may have for 'back to the office' and is very specific to Amazon, though I'm sure there are other similarly inclined employers.

****

In general, there are three or four fundamentally good reasons businesses prefer a more office oriented workforce, particularly for workplaces where productivity is harder to objectively measure.

1) How easy is it for your boss/supervisor to see that you are engaged in productive work? There are some jobs where you may work from home, where some degree of measurement is possible. For instance an in-bound call centre function has software that measures how many minutes you're available to take customer calls and how many minutes you spend on them etc etc. However, for many jobs that involved projects, collaboration, where you aren't measured by minutes online etc. are much harder to oversee when workers are remote. This drives many senior managers nuts.

2) There is real evidence that collaboration heavy jobs tend to suffer from workers not being in one place together. Innovation just slows. When your colleague is 3 desks over, or even one floor up, its relatively easy for you or he/she to go visit the other, to pop by someone's desk and say 'What do you think of..." or "How about?" etc. Yes, you can send someone an email, or facetime them or something else when working remotely, but truthfully that takes more time, and is generally felt to be more formal/intrusive and happens less.

3) There are real dis-efficiencies to having people spread out. In the same vein as the above..........When you need to know something...."What's company B's address"; "How do I do this in Excel" or "When's the meeting again?" and there's someone beside you or across from you or down the hall to ask.......questions get asked/answered quickly and mistakes get fixed quickly. When you're at home, are you going to do that by email? Are you going to phone your colleague at home?
The answer tends to be 'no' which tends to result in delays.

4) The value of networking. This is different from collaboration and speaks more to the idea of relationships w/people. Not just immediate colleagues or subordinates etc. but the receptionist, the person in payroll, the guy you buy your muffin from every morning and so on; along with people from partner businesses in your customer base or supply chain etc.

So much happens in business because you know someone............well that means you know their birthday, the names of their kids, and maybe play golf with them on Fridays in July and August.

When you're not in the office those things just don't come together in the same way. That facetime is with everyone on your team.......are you going to ask people their kids names in front of everyone in the meeting? Probably not, that happens in the Water Cooler, in the Break Room or the Food Court. etc.

In theory, you could come into the office to play golf on Fridays, but in reality, it just doesn't work that way, and if you're remote out of region, you're not flying in to play golf.

****

For those reasons, and for reasons of paranoia about what your employees are up to when you can't see them...............

As well as for security reasons..........if staff are using their own computers to do office work, what are the risks of a virus/phishing etc.

****

The above factors mentioned by others also play some role as well......... certainly there is some pressure from landlords and from government to make sure downtowns / commercial districts don't become desolate.

There is also the matter of having to retain the majority of your office space if you have to be able to have all-staff meetings, or have people work 3 or 4 per week...........but then you end up with 30% of the desks empty on any given day.
 
Last edited:
I think as companies force 100% RTO, there is going to be another shoe to drop. Many companies have used the past several years to shed office space, or increase employee density. Forcing knowledge workers to 'work' in loud, cramped, unergonomic spaces is going to lead to a lot of stress and low productivity, and plummeting morale. 100% RTO also effectively shrinks the labour pool you can draw upon. Workers may be willing to commute long distances a few days a week. Every day is very unappealing. This problem only worsens as congestions worsens. I have employees hired during hybrid arrangements that commute a considerable distance. If/when we require 5 day attendance in the office, I expect many people to determine that it's not longer worth it and take different jobs closer to home.
 
My work has recently required staff who live within 50 km of the office to return twice a week, an increase from the previous 30 km radius. It is anticipated we will go up to three days in the new year. I work for an NGO where shedding office space was a huge win to decrease operational fees and look good for donors, although there is concern about desk and meeting room availability with the transition back to office.
 

Back
Top