Everyone has a choice. Do it or don't. Crying about it is so millennialistic.
Principal Financial-Remote work
- Thread starter pfgemployee
- Start date
Pretty cool side-effect of remote work.
www.theguardian.com
People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office
Study in US shows one day a week of remote working cuts emissions by just 2% but two or four days lowers them by up to 29%
www.theguardian.com
Requiring in-person work for office development tax breaks: Des Moines likely sets new norm
Des Moines likely set a new standard for awarding development aid: Kum & Go's new owner must show its employees are working in person 3 days a week.
www.desmoinesregister.com
Makes sense.Requiring in-person work for office development tax breaks: Des Moines likely sets new norm
Des Moines likely set a new standard for awarding development aid: Kum & Go's new owner must show its employees are working in person 3 days a week.www.desmoinesregister.com
Requiring in-person work for office development tax breaks: Des Moines likely sets new norm
Des Moines likely set a new standard for awarding development aid: Kum & Go's new owner must show its employees are working in person 3 days a week.www.desmoinesregister.com
I understand why cities would do it, to bring people to the cities so that they spend money on businesses that are there for the employees. But it just seems like a short term solution until companies slowly move to a hybrid or remote environment. I know some companies are trying to pull their workers back, but I think over time, as real estate leases expire, companies will slowly move to a hybrid or remote model.
But the cities incentives would probably not change. They aren’t going to give tax breaks and have people meeting outside DM or living out of state.
Your right in that the incentive structure makes sense. But I just think in the longer term, were going to see more hybrid schedules as companies downsize commercial real estate.
Not sure I would have guessed a number that high but it's common sense. Less gas from commutes, your house is still going to run A/C or heat while at work, albeit less if you have it programmed correctly but you also avoid the utility costs of the people being in the office and essentially double dipping on utilities. The only thing I miss about working in the office is impromptu lunches and happy hours with colleagues.Pretty cool side-effect of remote work.
People who work from home all the time ‘cut emissions by 54%’ against those in office
Study in US shows one day a week of remote working cuts emissions by just 2% but two or four days lowers them by up to 29%
I think they are going about it in a poor fashion though. Requiring in person 3 days a week isn’t going to actually solve anything. Requiring a certain average of people in the office each day would make more sense.
This current rule would be an overstep and not really relevant to the cities interests.
If I have 500 people working out of an office and average any day 250 workers then that accomplishes the same exact goal while not placing unnecessary burdens. Honestly it probably is more beneficial as if I’m working in the office only occasionally I’m more likely to eat out instead of bringing my lunch everyday when I’m in office every day.
Right. I am in the office one day per week now. I go get coffee, park in the ramp, and eat out for lunch.
If I go back any more days, I’ll skip the coffee, find free street parking, and bring my lunch those other days.
I guess another thing, how would the city know if a company is following the attendance rule. I know when cities offer incentives to businesses, they usually have something along the lines of 'will employ x amount of people.' But that's easy to verify due to taxes and payroll. The city would have to trust that a company is following the rules, basically the honor system.
They aren’t saying what days they have to be there so they are basically saying if you have 500 employees you need to have 300 there on average.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Sometimes colleges indicated that they won't even pay you to relocate, but they won't cover travel costs for an interview.
I suspect that's both to weed out candidates and also an indication that they absolutely suck and probably lack the money to survive.
It’s really nice of them to advertise up front that they are a terrible place to work.
CycloneErik
Well-Known Member
Will be interesting to see how companies track and report that to the city. I get why the city is offering it but I think it's going to end up hurting the companies with retention and not making all that much difference in downtown activity.
Thinking about this more. I hope Des Moines has other more forward thinking plans to attract people downtown. This feels like putting a bandaid on a gaping wound. It is an attempt to hang on to an old system rather than innovating for the way things are going.
Trying to maintain old ways of operating instead of figuring out how to innovate and lead with the new.