Make Remote Work Permanent? No Way, Say Bay Area Leaders (msn.com) 169
Last month a regional government agency in the San Francisco Bay Area voted "to move forward" with a proposal to eventually require people at large, office-based companies to work from home three days a week "as a way to slash greenhouse gas emissions from car commutes," according to NBC News.
But today local newspapers report "Bay Area leaders are already saying, no way." [Shorter, non-paywalled article here.] The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is drawing heavy fire from lawmakers, the business commmunity and transit supporters for a proposal that would require big companies to have their employees work from home at least 60 percent of the time by 2035.
The proposal is aimed at reducing vehicle commuters and greenhouse gas emissions, but Bay Area politicians and business leaders say it would encourage Silicon Valley companies to pick up and leave. "This will spur a flight of large employers from the Bay Area," said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, comparing the idea to paving lanes directly from Silicon Valley to Texas. After recovering from the pandemic-caused recession, Liccardo said, "we're going to miss those jobs." Liccardo and San Francisco Mayor London Breed this week urged MTC leaders to find a better solution to hit the region's long-term clean air goals...
Rebecca Saltzman, a BART director, is introducing a resolution asking MTC to re-examine the requirement, which was added late in the process. It would drive down transit use with no clear proof it would reduce greenhouse gases, she said. "We know we would lose riders," she said. Bay Area lawmakers said a work-from-home mandate would hurt small businesses located around large employers, drain vitality from downtowns and diminish transit use. The requirements would also fall heavily on low-wage workers who typically must report to work to cook, clean, build or serve customers. San Jose and San Francisco both have tech giants — Google and Salesforce — spending billions of dollars to design and develop new campuses with a higher density of homes and apartments near transit. A work-from-home mandate could disrupt those plans, Liccardo said.
"I'm concerned about a parade of unintended consequences," he said. "This undermines the incentives to live near work."
But today local newspapers report "Bay Area leaders are already saying, no way." [Shorter, non-paywalled article here.] The Metropolitan Transportation Commission is drawing heavy fire from lawmakers, the business commmunity and transit supporters for a proposal that would require big companies to have their employees work from home at least 60 percent of the time by 2035.
The proposal is aimed at reducing vehicle commuters and greenhouse gas emissions, but Bay Area politicians and business leaders say it would encourage Silicon Valley companies to pick up and leave. "This will spur a flight of large employers from the Bay Area," said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, comparing the idea to paving lanes directly from Silicon Valley to Texas. After recovering from the pandemic-caused recession, Liccardo said, "we're going to miss those jobs." Liccardo and San Francisco Mayor London Breed this week urged MTC leaders to find a better solution to hit the region's long-term clean air goals...
Rebecca Saltzman, a BART director, is introducing a resolution asking MTC to re-examine the requirement, which was added late in the process. It would drive down transit use with no clear proof it would reduce greenhouse gases, she said. "We know we would lose riders," she said. Bay Area lawmakers said a work-from-home mandate would hurt small businesses located around large employers, drain vitality from downtowns and diminish transit use. The requirements would also fall heavily on low-wage workers who typically must report to work to cook, clean, build or serve customers. San Jose and San Francisco both have tech giants — Google and Salesforce — spending billions of dollars to design and develop new campuses with a higher density of homes and apartments near transit. A work-from-home mandate could disrupt those plans, Liccardo said.
"I'm concerned about a parade of unintended consequences," he said. "This undermines the incentives to live near work."
hahaha what a counter-argument (Score:5, Insightful)
they're saying "no way" because they know a lot of people want to get away from that shit hole and would if they could? Sounds like you're obsolete, "leaders." Keel over and die then, so better can take your place.
Re:hahaha what a counter-argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:hahaha what a counter-argument (Score:4)
I read, just this morning, that there are 12 MILLION square feet of vacant office space in San Francisco.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, business properties AND employer taxes for hiring people.. but when those people are in other states, they (other states) derive that income... in addition to the commercial real estate you mentioned.. And if that also impacts a number of other businesses (those that support the other businesses.. (larger and smaller), which also impact their workers (less business means less employees) which also lowers real estate values (impacting investors who can't pump their money into the economy), and while th
Re: (Score:2)
How about this. More public transport, nahh fuck off, we will just ban POOR workers from using cars, fuck em. Send the useless fuckers crazy, isolated and trapped in, never allowed to leave their prison homes without a covid passport they can not get.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hahaha what a counter-argument (Score:5, Informative)
I believe businesses should let employees have lunch breaks and bathroom breaks. I believe companies should not lock their workers inside their buildings. I believe companies should provide workers with safety equipment and provide a safe workplace. Oh and I believe businesses should pay employees in US currency rather than company script that forces them to shop in company stores at inflated prices. However, I'm very much **against** government telling businesses that they must or must not. That is not the business of government.
See what I did there? BTW, each of those was real, businesses did that, and it took the government intervening to stop them from exploiting their workers. Laissez-faire business practices are rarely fair to the workers.
Re: (Score:2)
I note that the government mandated measures you listed are all intended to prevent businesses from unfairly exploiting workers. Telling businesses that they must have their workers come into the office rather than work from home does not strike me as particularly beneficial to workers. I suppose it could be indirectly beneficial to transport and other businesses dependent on office working, which affects the people working in those industries, but it would be stretching the point to say that enforcing work
Re: (Score:2)
It is the government's job to tell business and people what to do, like fair working conditions, pay taxes, don't kill etc. In this case the practice is not protecting workers but the environment, You could bring up cases where companies have illegally dumped waste, or not maintained equipment causing environmental impact.
Re: (Score:3)
It is the government's job to tell business and people what to do, like fair working conditions, pay taxes, don't kill etc. In this case the practice is not protecting workers but the environment, You could bring up cases where companies have illegally dumped waste, or not maintained equipment causing environmental impact.
I fail to see why trying to enforce a "work at the office" business model is protecting the environment. I would say WFH has considerable environmental benefits, just by getting cars off the streets, or in my case, a reduced use of public transport. In cities in the UK, city authorities are trying to get cars off the streets, partly because of traffic congestion, but also because of air pollution.
Re: (Score:2)
As long as government is rewarding companies to do what government wants via government contracts, there will always be government involved in business decisions. It has only gotten worse over the years. Corruption breeds corruption.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally, when the state has done well in regulating businesses, it's done so by listening to those with actual and extensive personal experience with the practicalities of the work environment. There's OSHA regs that require electricians to use metal ladders, which is all well and good right up until that wooden ladder is safety equipment as you're having to work on a live system.
Requiring they give employees the option of telework where feasible would not be bad, but they do have a point that small impr
Re:hahaha what a counter-argument (Score:4, Insightful)
Those leaders are doing exactly what their constituents want, and their constituents are mostly property owners. The place is a "shit hole" as you call it because of the sky high property value (and therefore rent), which is terrible if you're looking to rent or settle down and buy a house, but is great for someone who already owns a house or two.
Re:hahaha what a counter-argument (Score:5, Insightful)
but is great for someone who already owns a house or two
Especially if they've owned them for a while, thanks to Prop 13. They get the benefits of owning property with a high market value, but are taxed like it was only worth a quarter as much.
Re: (Score:2)
but is great for someone who already owns a house or two
Especially if they've owned them for a while, thanks to Prop 13. They get the benefits of owning property with a high market value, but are taxed like it was only worth a quarter as much.
What do you suppose would happen to rents for residents and small businesses if Prop 13 protections were stripped from rental properties?
Re: hahaha what a counter-argument (Score:2)
Rent is generally set by what the market will bear, not the operating costs of the landlords. It is possible that some of them would get out of the rental business if taxes went up to market rates, but the properties themselves are not going away.
Honestly, repeal of Prop 13 would probably be the best thing that could happen to the SF property market. Prop 13 distorts the market - it creates an artificial disincentive to sell, which means that very few properties come on the market, which leads to extremely
Re: (Score:2)
Only a small part of SF is like that. The Bay area is a lot bigger and most of it is suburban with no homeless people in sight.
Re: (Score:2)
I do like some personal interaction, so I would like my employer to pay for one mid priced meal a week to encourage interaction. Otherwise a call works.
Re: hahaha what a counter-argument (Score:2)
SF could certainly use better management, but itâ€(TM)s nowhere near as bad as the rust belt city I used to live in.
Re: (Score:3)
Living in SF is certainly more interesting than living in the dull-as-ditchwater burb-towns off down the Valley. Work for Google and live in Mt View? There is nothing of interest in Mt View so if you have a life outside work that life will not be in Mt View.
So people live in SF, and not a short distance outside SF, because outside SF is still very expensive and it's extremely boring. Living in SF may be expensive but at least there's stuff to see and do.
SF isn't scared of people moving out to the burb-towns
This just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Old guys with vested interests in giant downtown office buildings take stand against telework! Story at 11.
Re: This just in (Score:2)
Then there are the effects on supporting businesses, the food industry in particular. Most of that office space can't be easily converted to residential property, which means as companies scale back you end
Re: This just in (Score:2)
I agree, 3 remote/2 on-site is (in some ways, and for some people) the worst of both worlds. It still ties workers to an expensive metro area with generally mediocre schools, *and* requires them to secure larger houses or apartments with private workspaces (which many Bay Area living spaces do not have).
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't like it I'd like to hear an alternative. I've never heard a solution to the problem with out of control money that doesn't involve taking some of it away. It's not like you can just move out west anymore. The only parts of America that aren't claimed are a handful of deserts without enough water to survive.
Everywhere has water if you're willing to bore deeply enough. :-)
Re:Yep. This. So much This. (Score:5, Interesting)
Until you've bored as deep as you can and all that water was sucked out for fracking because it's a shared resource that was mismanaged, and now you live in a sinking dust bowl as your land slowly collapses to fill the void where the water used to be...
Re: (Score:2)
This is the problem with having no upper limit on the amount of money a person can accumulate.
This isn't so much about the money that the Silicon Valley businesses have accumulated as the power that the petty tyrants in city hall have over these businesses and their employees. You could probably put the Bay Area landlords in one corner of an Alphabet subsidiary and nobody would notice. But they have the politicians by the testicles. And those politicians are capable of doing more damage to business than their financial status would indicate.
Re: (Score:2)
Money is power, right? Well, that means these people have power over you.
That is precisely why societies where the government has all the money are called "dictatorships."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Yep. This. So much This. (Score:5, Insightful)
An informed voter base capable of seeking out information from multiple independent sources and applying critical thinking skills to that information is the only only only defense against tyranny, whether by big government, big business, big labor, or big environmentalism.
Everything else--divided government, federalism, freedom of speech, gun rights, freedom of movement, independent private institutions of civil society, all of it--is intended to facilitate that balance of power. If you see the balance is upset, don't go for the easy answer and blame money or Christianity or white ppl or da jeez; look for where the failure was in the universities, the private schools, the public schools, the media landscape, wherever. You won't like what you see, but at least you'll understand the situation a little better.
Re: Yep. This. So much This. (Score:2)
Mod parent up.
They are getting what they deserve (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they get what they buy with the money they have accumulated. Unless you're willing to pass laws mandating Work From Home then be prepared to lose it when the pandemic is over. There is simply too much money to be made forcing you to drag your ass into the office.
You've not been watching the business news have you? Your employer is not the one making money forcing you to drag your ass into the office when it's not necessary--most of that office space is rented, and even when it's not it can be quite a drag on the books. The pandemic has finally gotten upper management to listen to their accountants who have been flat-out saying that office space is hella expensive--and we can expect more pandemics because currently the groups in power in the West won't accept that
Managers can't yell at people over zoom (Score:2)
They have a mute button at home.
Re: (Score:2)
A business where managers have to yell at people does not deserve to succeed.
I was rather pleased when an interfering middle manager at work left during the lockdown. I presume that his micro-management style was incompatible with home working. His job has been taken by an engineer who at least knows what he is talking about, and treats people fairly.
Working from home is not for everyone. (Score:5, Interesting)
It's already fairly easy to find a position that lets you work from the majority of the time, if that's what you want. With only one exception, every job I've had in the last decade allowed at least part-time WFH, and most had at least a few people who were full-time WFH. If anyone who wanted to work from home wasn't already, I'd daresay they just hadn't looked hard enough for a WFH position.
In fact, before COVID I'd already done a 2-year stint of permanent WFH when a previous employer shut down its local office and I didn't want to relocate. I gave it a fair try. But it is not for me. And I've already gone more than a little batshit from being stuck at home staring at nothing besides my home's walls, and barely having any human contact (I don't even have the option to get out and work at a coffee shop... which helped a lot to keep me sane during that 2-year period... with COVID.). Yeah, I'm looking forward to going back to the office, interacting for real with my coworkers (Whom I do actually like.), having real team lunches and happy hours, and boundaries between work time and home time.
So how's about we let the people who want to work from home do so; and leave alone those of us who want a more traditional style of work?
Re:Working from home is not for everyone. (Score:4, Insightful)
So how's about we let the people who want to work from home do so; and leave alone those of us who want a more traditional style of work?
Sounds like a reasonable approach to me. But, in the real world, I've seen a lot of resistance to the former, and pretty much no resistance to the latter. In my experience, the root problem is middle managers whose jobs are likely unnecessary, but who have the decision-making power over stuff like this.
Re: Working from home is not for everyone. (Score:4, Interesting)
In my experience, people who prefer WFH are fine with letting their coworkers make their own choices (WFH or WFW), but people who prefer WFW are not the same way. They do not seem to be content unless everyone else comes into the office, too.
Re: (Score:2)
So how's about we let the people who want to work from home do so; and leave alone those of us who want a more traditional style of work?
Wear a mask and stay 6 feet apart. Otherwise traditional away.
Re: (Score:2)
I have been working from home for well over a year now, initially due to recovering from cancer treatment, followed without pause by the lockdown. WFH has many benefits for me, and I would like to continue it. My immediate boss is happy with that. As far as I know, his whole department is working from home, and that is expected to continue for the rest of the year.
I agree that there is a risk of going a bit crazy, due to lack of social contact. Posting on Slashdot is not the same as a chat down the pub. I t
Re: (Score:2)
and barely having any human contact
Aaaaah an extrovert! Run for your lives. *dives under the bed* ... *runs out, grabs a book and then dives back under the bed for a couple of hours*.
Yeah different people are different. 2 members of my team are going stir-crazy. One of them called me up just to chat about nothing because she just needed to talk to someone about anything they could think of. Me ... I'm living my best life, and the cat is happy to have a warm lap to sleep on the entire day :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Me ... I'm living my best life, and the cat is happy to have a warm lap to sleep on the entire day :-)
Same here, minus the cat.
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not sure of your examples, you're right that not everybody's job is can be done from home. My roommate works in a shipping department--tough to do that from home. And while her sister can certainly style hair from home, customers still need to come to her. The dentist may need an office to go to rather than setting up an X-Ray machine and a dental chair in their house.
That said, FTS:
The mandate would apply to "large, office-based employers" and require them to have at least 60 percent of their employees telecommute on any given workday. They could meet the requirement through flexible schedules, compressed work weeks or other alternatives.
So if you work in a warehouse, you're probably not a large office-based employer. If you work in lab, you're pro
Re: (Score:2)
That said, FTS:
The mandate would apply to "large, office-based employers" and require them to have at least 60 percent of their employees telecommute on any given workday. They could meet the requirement through flexible schedules, compressed work weeks or other alternatives.
So if you work in a warehouse, you're probably not a large office-based employer. If you work in lab, you're probably not a large office-based employer. If you work in a bakery, you're probably not a large office-based employer.
Except this is being done by government fiat. You yourself may work in the warehouse or the lab or maybe even the bakery--your employer can still be a large office-based employer in the eyes of the government, because of how they may define that.
And speaking of bakeries, many of those jobs which can't be done remotely will still be at risk of going away even if they're not judged to be at a large office-based employer, simply because if your place of work is kept afloat by things like the office lunch rush
Better to require option to work at home 3 days (Score:4, Interesting)
That seems like a good compromise option. That's what we're going to advocate for at my workplace when/if this is over.
I-10 Is Pretty Good. (Score:2)
""This will spur a flight of large employers from the Bay Area," said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, comparing the idea to paving lanes directly from Silicon Valley to Texas. "
Having just made that journey, I can assure you that I-5 to Los Angeles and I-10 to San Antonio or Austin, TX are in good repair and well paved. What the "leaders" of San Francisco and San Jose and Governor Navin Gruesome of California have been doing for the past few years is just making sure that more and more of their residents have
Drain vitality from downtowns (Score:2)
What they mean is hose it off the sidewalks.
A different way to reduce particulate emissions (Score:2)
This is a morally sound policy as well, because when you pollute by burning gas, you are creating externalities - impacting the health of others who have nothing to do with the particular company or their employees. This is exactly the sort of thing that s
Re: (Score:3)
A carbon tax would've done this. You must pay if you take carbon out of the ground. That cost gets passed down to all of your downstream consumers automatically. Those consumers can then decide whether it's worth using the carbon-generating product versus an alternative simply based on its price.
Unfortunately, every government that tried to do this also failed to prevent loopholes from being added for various special interests, which makes the tax basically useless.
Re: (Score:2)
You must pay if you take carbon out of the ground.
Most food is primarily composed of carbon. We ourselves are mostly carbon and water. We generate carbon dioxide with every breath. If your "carbon tax" is going to make me pay money to the State to harvest my own vegetables ... Well, you'll be very painfully unsuccessful.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what kind of alien crop you're growing, but my plants get their CO2 from the atmosphere and not from the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
>At some point, buying that Tesla becomes much cheaper than filling your car with $20/gallon gasoline.
It already is, if you're willing to keep the Tesla 4-5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
At some point, buying that Tesla becomes much cheaper than filling your car with $20/gallon gasoline.
Not if I'm working from home.
The fact is that I'm done commuting and I'm done working in offices, period.
Re: (Score:2)
A basic Model 3 is 35k.
Not sure where you're buying a new car for $5k.
Re: (Score:3)
Add up the gas. That's quite a bit of it. Then add in the lack of almost all of the maintenance costs besides tires. Things like, brake pads, brake fluid, clutches, oil changes, engine gaskets and so on.
I've had a leaf for a few years. I've spent about $10 on a new cabin filter so far.
I've had a Tesla for a year. I've spend nothing on maintenance.
Many of people have done the sums. You can too. Higher initial costs for an EV are traded off against lower ownership and usage costs sooner or later the EV ends u
Re:A different way to reduce particulate emissions (Score:5, Interesting)
You're forgetting to account for the Tesla parts and labour premium. My Tesla is by far the most expensive vehicle to maintain that I have ever owned. If you've only had it a year, just wait until the warranty runs out!
A windshield costs 4 times what any other car's windshield costs. It goes through tires at twice the rate of other cars. The brakes that they brag last longer because of regenerative braking actually last a shorter time which they explain as being because they aren't used enough. A simple parking brake costs over $1000 and that doesn't even include labour! And let's not even get into the $800 annual service which is only a new keyfob battery, wiper blades, and topping up the washer fluid. And you have no choice but to go to them for all your service because they refuse to sell parts to 3rd parties, and the software (which is needed for EVERYTHING) is locked down so only they can access it.
In my first year out of warranty I've spent nearly $7,000 on maintenance, and I still need to buy tires before the year is out. At the rate that Tesla is "saving me money on gas" I'll go bankrupt!
Re:A different way to reduce particulate emissions (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with Tesla is that their cars are filled to the brim with unique parts. Most Tesla owners I know don't bother with the Tesla service station, they go elsewhere (doesn't void the warranty here). And they are charged half the price for the same tyres, brakes and fluids. The most common issue is that a lot of the independent tyre centers don't have the right settings for wheel alignment on Teslas yet (and that contributes to excessive wear), but that's changing. The concensus amongst owners seems to be that Teslas are way cheaper to maintain than ICE cars... until a Tesla-specific part breaks.
Re:A different way to reduce particulate emissions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not simply raise gas tax even higher?
Because if they did that, they would be voted out of office.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not simply raise gas tax even higher?
Because that punches everyone who can't WFH right in the nuts. Some jobs just can't be done from home, but they still need doing.
Great (Score:2)
I have in the past telecommute to work completely and at other times worked from home a few days a week and came into office a couple days. Splitting home and office was the best for getting things done without distractions and then going in a couple days to work/meet one on one with my project teams. That was perfect to me.
WF-India (Score:5, Interesting)
It will dawn on someone eventually that if their worker can work from Bangor for $100,000, she can work from Bangalore for $100.
Ok, code from India may be shit at the present time .. but I guarantee it will improve over the years .. deny all you like, we are seeing that.
What do you do that's hot shit that someone from India can't do it? Yes ... currently India quality currently is shit .. but it's improving. People said quality was terrible when made in Taiwan, Japan, and Korea .. now what? The iPhone is made in Asia .. and thy are getting good at high end design too .. look at Toyota/Honda which are desinged in Japan, or the Samsung Galaxy samrtphones. A lot of the CPU designers working at Apple, nVidia, and Intel are Indian .. go visit their campuses .. especially Intel's.
What is America doing to leverage its lead? Protectionism is NOT the answer. We should be focussing on Aerospace, driverless cars, robotics more. Instead we're like "block the hindu from coding web applications."
We should be leveraging India, and improving ourselves .. eventually compensation in India should match compensation in the US .. and that will happen when India's gets wealthier .. I mean nobody says Japan has cheap labor. In 1953, Korea was poorer than almost any African country (if not all of them) -- proof that you. don't have to be stuck poor. Singapore as well.
Citation about Korea and an African country in the 1950s: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p... [ssrn.com]
Dude if they could move it to India (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The equivalent in Bangalore is $7000 [glassdoor.com], not $100. And as the code quality improves over time, so will the salaries.
Think about it - if US tech companies can outsource to Bangalore and produce software for a fraction of the price, why can't Indian tech companies produce software for a fraction of the price and outcompete US companies?
Also think about the fact that US tech companies have *already* outsourced to India. Google, for example, has a facility for 13000 workers in Hyderabad [wikipedia.org]. Yes it is difficult to out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When you outsource work to local contractors the resulting code quality is usually far, far worse than if you did it in-house. Same with electronic design, mechanical design, and probably a lot of other stuff.
Part of it is that the contractors usually lack knowledge of your products, your specific needs, your customers etc. Part of it is that once their contract is complete they move on so who cares about long term sustainability of the code or technical debt? And if they are asked to do more work and it's
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of breaking windows, you can just write people a check. They don't need a job, they need money.
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of breaking windows, you can just write people a check. They don't need a job, they need money.
We aren't in a stable, permanent post-scarcity economy. We need jobs, especially because jobs have psychological benefits that being handed a check by the state does not provide--such as some confidence that you won't find yourself starving because you offended your political masters--and the general realities of the fact that money still does not grow on trees.
Re: (Score:3)
"the general realities of the fact that money still does not grow on trees" --- so then why are you proposing that productivity be reduced so that people will have something to do? Giving people jobs when it could have been done cheaper and better without them with reduces the GDP and money supply/value.
Re: (Score:3)
"It's a horrible idea to just accept that they are worth nothing to anyone else and can only survive due to involuntary charity based on taking from the people who produce the stuff they want."
Giving them a job that they are not the best choice for because a machine or someone else somewhere can do it much more efficiently is charity. If I can buy a robot-made car I like for $1000, but you force me to buy a different one for $10,000 because someone needs a job .. that's the equivalent of taking $9,000 from
LOL - "Leaders" (Score:3, Insightful)
Leaders lead. These "Bay Area Leaders" aren't leaders. They're hangers on to how things used to be, and when their coffers were full with lobbyist funds.
True leadership is leading from in front, recognizing change, evaluating when it's needed, and supporting it.
The only "Leaders" here are us, the people, doing what is necessary to get through this safely, survive, and do our jobs... without "going to work."
FUCK these "Bay Area Leaders" for trying to put is into the past to pad their pockets.
E
Trade secrets (Score:2)
Of course they want to keep an eye on their employees when it comes to leaks. Tim Cook doesn't want details of the iPhone 3D holographic projection display falling into the wrong hands.
It might make more confidentiality sense for those working on FOSS to work reduced hours in the office, hot-desking the 1 or 2 days a week they show up in person for face to face.
Broken window fallacy (Score:3)
Guess they got to keep breaking those windows so the repairman can have a job. That's basically what they're saying here. If people don't go to the office, they don't buy gas, they don't buy lunch at restaurants, etc. But we can't have that, so we keep doing the inefficient thing to prop up the businesses. Those businesses don't have a God-given right to profit. If a worker can work from home and save money, more power to them. Why do these businesses think they are entitled to get paid? If I (as an employee) can work from home and save money on transit, parking, eating out, etc, then you're damn right I'm going to do that, and pocket the money for myself. And help the environment to boot.
"The incentives to live near work" (Score:3)
"This undermines the incentives to live near work", the BART director says.
How about the incentives to live near our lives? What about the ability to choose not to live in an area that's run nearly all of its artists out with unregulated rents and left San Francisco a cold-hearted shell of what it used to be? What about those with disabilities are never decently accommodated as required by law, no matter what some ableist napoleon type insists?
Sorry about their real estate bubble, but people's lives matter. They had a chance to keep the spirit of a place that was full of of better vision. They swung, they missed.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, people can spend a fair bit of their lives commuting. I imagine that long commutes are common in the USA, what with urban/suburban sprawl. I worked with an engineer from Spain, and he was quite surprised at how far people traveled to and from work where we are. His experience in Spain was that commuting was not much of a chore, because people generally live close to their work.
That's odd... (Score:2)
I keep hearing that San Francisco hates the tech industry and has been doing everything it can to drive the nerds out of town. So suddenly there's been a change of heart now that remote work may actually make that happen?
A balance will appear (Score:2)
they are already losing tech companies FAST (Score:2)
how to really cut the pollution (Score:2)
Likewise, Bay area needs to switch their public vehicles over to EVs as well. EV busses, trucks, etc.
All going according to plan (Score:2)
The proposal is aimed at reducing vehicle commuters and greenhouse gas emissions but Bay Area politicians and business leaders say it would encourage Silicon Valley companies to pick up and leave. "This will spur a flight of large employers from the Bay Area,"
Driving companies away will, indeed, reduce vehicle commuters and greenhouse gas emission in the Bay area.
And I predict that after a double digit percentage of jobs in the Bay area are elsewhere, the politicians will crow about how successful they've
NEVER move into... (Score:2)
a community selected/designed by your employer or the politicians he/she had purchased. "It's a trap" as admiral akbar would yell. That path leads to the misery of the 1930's coal mining towns...
"you load sixteen tons, and what do you get? Another day older, and deeper in debt..." - it's a song lyric. look it up if you're young.
Not for me.. (Score:2)
Not to mention (Score:2)
What a stupid decision (Score:2)
WFH both works and doesn't (Score:2)
I've noticed a lot can be done at home, there are many that spend lots of time in front of a computer at work. Might as well do it at home. However, if involved with facilities that has test equipment, machine tools, overall a development facility then need to be onsite every now and then. Some people can do this continually but I wonder if they will ever return to work. Or (shudder) what if the company figures they can do just fine without them. I'm thinking that CSPAN lecture, "BS Jobs."
Oh one thing... i
Re: (Score:2)
Office spaces usually do not have backup power, except for some communications and lighting equipment. Exceptions are hospitals, some telco buildings, and so on, but most do not have backup power. If there is a utility power cut then most of the lights go out, the lifts stop working, the environmental systems stop working (so the temperature goes up, or down in winter, and the air becomes stale), things like large wall monitors don't work, and even if your laptop retains power and the networking stays up be
the road to hell.. (Score:2)
government at all levels should fuck off and switch their role back to referee from whatever this is. I can concede that they think they're doing the right thing; but dictating to business how and where employees should be spending their days?
That's an overstep of such monumental proportions i have trouble with the irony of reconciling that kind of governance with what allowed SV to occur in the first place.
A far better solution (Score:3)
Work the rule differently (Score:2)
said San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, comparing the idea to paving lanes directly from Silicon Valley to Texas
Since their concern is about companies moving their offices, Then write the law as a Tax, and target the entire operation of all companies that do any kind of business within their territory, San Francisco, which will be Most companies having more than a few end customers in SF, so that moving offices will not avoid application of the rule - since the tax would then still apply to people working a
Politicians want their cake and eat it too (Score:2)
It seems the proposed solution is to relieve congestion and pollution in the Bay area, however retain the taxes from the big corporations. By saying everyone must work from home at least 60% of the time, they are saying we want to reduce the number of people in offices to 40%, but they don't want companies to simply move 60% of their workers out of the area and vacate 60% of their offices to save on rent and taxes. They want to collect taxes for 100% of the offices, but only provide services, such as public
so if I understand then... (Score:2)
...the stance is "let's do everything we can to save the environment...as long as it doesn't affect our tax incomes."?
And how are you substantially different from Exxon, again? I mean, aside from having the power of laws to compel people's behavior?
Why, inherently, is that a problem? (Score:2)
They say, "This undermines the incentives to live near work."
But it seems to me like that argument is just begging the question.
The only real reason to live near work is if you need to go there on some sort of regular basis in the first place.
There could very well be some valid reasons to not make work from home permanent, but removing an incentive to live near work cannot rationally be one of them.
"unintended consequences" like freedom (Score:2)
"I'm concerned about a parade of unintended consequences," he said. "This undermines the incentives to live near work."
Yes, "unintended consequences" like people being able to live where they want and compete for jobs that don't have to be within driving distance. O The Horror.
Tell me again...if I don't need to live near my office, why should I?
Why should I move across country to do the exact same work that I'm doing from home?
Should I uproot my family just to satisfy a manager's desire that I be physicall
Re: (Score:2)
Pave streets with concrete. Light colored pavement reflects more sunlight, aka "heat", into space. Black asphalt heats city pavement a LOT.
Re-roof your house with light-colored shingles.
Re: (Score:2)
> Re-roof your house with light-colored shingles.
Done.
Power bill ( Texas ) went down ~25% this summer but house felt cooler than before.
And 95% of the streets around here are already paved with concrete.
Re: (Score:2)
Said the guy who hasn't caught COVID or had to suffer the myriad complications of "recovering" or figures the Blued Haired deserve death sooner than they anticipated or had one of his loved ones sent to the Ayn Rand Asylum in the Sky because of that virus.
Say, you aren't related to Elizabeth Holmes, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
Your propaganda is boring and substandard.
Re: (Score:2)