- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmit.online
JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon delivers a stern warning to remote workers::undefined
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
Capitalists gonna capitalize!
“I completely understand why someone doesn’t want to commute an hour and a half every day. Totally get it… Doesn’t mean they have to have a job here either.”
Then why hire people living 90 minutes away?
Sure limit yourself to workers living close by. But don’t give me any of that labor shortage bullshit then.
There is a shortage of people willing to work for the wage you’re offering at the terms you’re offering. There are millions of people choosing not to work for many, many employers right now. It will only get larger.
Depending on how old you are, understand, for the rest of your life, there will always be more jobs than employees, act like it and be brutal with your employers about it. The boomers were accelerating into retirement and then COVID exploded lots of employment norms, for good reasons.
Employers have been used to, for decades, lobbying to hire, fire and treat you disposable on a whim. Demand a lot, there are far fewer of you than there are of their boring companies to burn your life hours.
deleted by creator
That idea has all kinds of problems. There’s a substantial amount of investment in education necessary and even then, immigration still doesn’t counteract population ageing/shrinking. If you can read or have any well developed skill, you have no business falling victim to fake fears like this.
No, they aren’t. If you’re so easily replaceable then you’re worthless anyway.
Everyone is easily replaced. You’re not some unique snowflake.
Skilled workers are not easily replaced. I am a programmer and we regularly have job postings open for over a year at my work.
I hate to break it to you, but that’s not for lack of skilled applicants. Companies leave those positions open so they can say they’re trying to hire, just so they get more work out of you.
Source: I manage about 110 engineers in a global company. We’re always 'hiring '.
So they’re wasting time I could spend actually programming so I can interview people they don’t plan on hiring, got it.
I think you were downvoted just for saying something ppl don’t like. Half the jobs posted out there don’t actually exist tho, posting ads is also used as cheap marketing to seem like the company is growing and healthy, positions that are posted for legal reasons and aren’t really open, etc., your reason included.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
From what I am seeing does not seems true.
What I am seeing is that the more “intelligent” employer use the great replacement to get rid of unwanted people and WFH to attract good people that they could not normally have for a miriad of reasons.
(I am from Europe btw)
Jamie Dimon is a dipshit who brings practically nothing to the table. He shows up to the building, terrifies the people around him, pisses people off, shits in a waste basket and hires college interns to provide fresh blood infusions to treat his wrinkles.
Executives rarely bring genuine, functional value to a company, and that definitely includes Dimon. What a notorious fuckwit. JPMC is one example where the head could be cut off and the company would actually benefit from it.
Sounds like you worked there or know someone who does.
You are correct.
I worked at JP Morgan and DB
The people who run these companies are completely horrible assholes.
They also make sure every layer of superfluous management below them consists of immense, puckering assholes.
You can put a turd in an expensive suit, but in the end it’s still just Jamie Dimon.
“Old guy still doesn’t understand how anyone could be working if he can’t physically see them working”
Fully remote is the way of the future, in tech anyway. Use the money you saved on not renting office space to fly teams to the same area for a week or so a few times a year, there’s definite value in meeting, working together in person and going out for a beer afterwards. For short stints.
Otherwise, the lack of commute and the ability to focus uninterrupted for longer periods is massive advantage for remote work
Fully remote is the way of the future, in tech anyway. Use the money you saved on not renting office space to fly teams to the same area for a week or so a few times a year, there’s definite value in meeting, working together in person and going out for a beer afterwards
But make it optional and don’t penalize folks for not showing up. The last thing I want to do is meet up with my coworkers and go for drinks especially given the fact that I do not drink alcohol nor enjoy social outings in general.
Fully remote is the way of the future, in tech anyway. Use the money you saved on not renting office space to fly teams to the same area for a week or so a few times a year, there’s definite value in meeting, working together in person and going out for a beer afterwards. For short stints.
Fully remote is one of the ways of the future. A more reasonable approch is a mixed way.
If by a “mixed way” you mean 1-2 days in office, that would never work for a lot of people for the reasons below.
- You have to commute those days.
- You have to find child care but it’s not consistent so your possibly paying more per day for the few days vs. getting a good rate for weekly.
- You have to carry all your equipment with you. (I personally have to carry my laptop plus the equipment I support which takes like 2 trips from the car to my desk plus time to set everything up.)
- Not all of team comes in the same day/same location, so your still on virtual meetings anyway.
To be fair a lot of this is my personal experience and other companies may work differently but for me, I’m staying fully remote. Good companies/teams make it work. If your company/team can’t work like there are other issues at fault.
If by a “mixed way” you mean 1-2 days in office, that would never work for a lot of people for the reasons below.
I was thinking more “when I need/want to go to the office” than a fixed schedule.
All your points are valid, but I can make counter-points for a full remote solution, if I want. One example is that for a full remote position you need to have an home office or, at least, a place where you can work without interference. Not everyone has it.
You have to carry all your equipment with you. (I personally have to carry my laptop plus the equipment I support which takes like 2 trips from the car to my desk plus time to set everything up.)
I suppose that depends on the work you do. Of course in some cases a “full remote” or a “full office” solution is better than a mixed approach. For example, I personally have not to carry anything going to the office since I have a work laptop at home and a desktop at the office. I understand I am been lucky btw.
Not all of team comes in the same day/same location, so your still on virtual meetings anyway.
That is just an organizational problem.
To be fair a lot of this is my personal experience and other companies may work differently but for me, I’m staying fully remote. Good companies/teams make it work. If your company/team can’t work like there are other issues at fault.
That’s the point. Every way (full remote, full office, mixed and so on) are good for someone and bad for other.
“I’ll see you all dead before you move my commercial property portfolio one inch lower.”
I’m just going to leave this here… https://wallstreetonparade.com/12259-2/
I see wallstreetonparade, I upvote
Who now?
We’ve got a stern warning of our own, Jamie.
Sounds like he is looking for a flimsy pretext to lay people off.
Eat the rich.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I’m probably the only one. I do not think WFH is the future.
It takes a minute to turn around, tap PM on shoulder and ask “what about this or that?” And get an answer.
Instead if ping in company channel. Provide all possible points of relating data. Link to all related content. And then ask my question. And hope I get an answer within an hour.
In almost any possible professional situation it’s faster and more efficient to be in office.
The conversation we should all be having is what compensation we will demand for the return to the office. Paided travel. Paid child care. All those things that WFH revealed to be the scam our employers pulled on us.
I think it depends on your industry and specialty. In my line of work my coworkers are all over the world and can’t really be centralized. There may be clusters in different regions, but it’s hard to justify (in my opinion) coming into the office to see two colleagues you may not even need to talk to that week. It is especially more difficult when meetings are regularly outside of normal work hours.
My company is still trying to force people back in where there are clusters, but I feel like they’re spending more on bullshit events to make it seem like it’s worth it than they could possibly gain in productivity. It really feels like a bunch of people trying to justify their jobs than anything else.
Outside of regular work hours?? Screw that noise.
I do agree there are many situations where it doesn’t make sense to return to the office.
We’ve worked in some totally different offices. Half the time I couldn’t find the people I needed to talk to. That being said, yes, anyone being forced to go back to the office should be able to demand better terms.
