A critique of Return To Office propaganda that refuses to quantify what in person magic really means.
You deserve unconflicted friends in a full life of recreation and interests that don’t solely revolve around The Employer.
I use the term “The Employer” sometimes to emphasize that the employee’s relationship in the workplace is a legal relationship, and that’s demonstrated by those situated well enough to be in a workplace with a union contract, and the company (or government) is always referred to as “The Employer” in labor contracts.
People depending on jobs for social needs gives me the creeps, because I know what it means in the worst scenarios. I have met friends at workplaces, sure. But mostly in my youth at bullshit jobs, or they were people that I initially met at work but developed actual friendships after one or both of us left that place. Because some of the earliest professional and career advice I got was not to mix business with pleasure for a whole host of reasons. It’s risky, it’s compromising, it can put you in an awkward position, it could put you in situations of betrayal and uneven relationships. On multiple occasions decades ago now, I was asked on dates by supervisors, while other supervisors and managers were completely aware of the situation and presumably ok with it. I suffered no repercussions (at least that I knew about), by turning them down, and I have no reason to think any of those people meant harm, they didn’t understand it was a problem. But everyone knows better now, surely?
Even outside exploitation and abuse, and the rough situation of employment these days, I don’t think we as a society should be promoting a culture where people are encouraged to find their social connections and fill their emotional needs via their tenuous jobs in precarious work situations.
And that’s why a recent op-ed about Return To Office as something not just wanted by the employees, but desperately needed, is really cringe if you think things through. I came across this piece from The Philadelphia Inquirer reprinted in the Business section of the July 16th print edition of the Scranton newspaper, The Times-Tribune.
Screenshot of the print edition of the Times-Tribune with a piece from The Philadelphia Inquirer by Jake Blumgart. The headline reads “Staying in the office.” Subheading quote “These young workers say they fear remote work more than AI.” The photo above the headline has a caption identifying the person with long naturally styled hair and minimalist cosmetic in the photo as Audrey Lee in Philadelphia, who is wearing what looks like a very conservative crop top button down long sleeve top over a high waisted gauzy white linen peasant skirt. Some text of the article is visible, ending with quote “This suggests even a little team building and in-person interaction, can go a long way.” unquote.
I’m going to set aside the big tell in this piece setting the position as workers being more against remote work than AI, even though it’s a big giveaway on the whole PR game here. I’m just going to focus on the absolutely problematic way they never actually tell us the ingredients for this magical in-person witch’s brew. They never tell us what “bonding” actually means to anybody. And they never explain why communication by phone and internet is somehow not as real or impactful as having bodies of coworkers actually being in physically close. They never explain those things, I think, because there are no good, scientific, or probably reasonable explanations. At least none anybody wants to admit to.
I don’t know if people know this, but many of the people with “the greatest minds” of their times, never lived close to their professional colleagues. Many scientists communicated and even collaborated by snail mail. So it’s a big lift to claim you can’t possibly mentor someone largely over the phone. The Philadelphia Inquirer piecedoes include quoting someone who admits that things they want are possible remotely, but claims it takes more deliberate effort. What doesn’t get addressed is that it’s obvious that companies expend incredible amounts of deliberate effort to facilitate in person offices, they just don’t recognize the effort because it’s the default.
It was an old cliche storyline for old tv shows, and a lot of movies, where some people would have to have their spouse’s coworkers over to their house for dinner and such and it was an issue. It’s a great plot device because it is inherently fraught with problems. This isn’t something most people want to do, it’s something people have felt they’ve had to do.
Because people would normally have actual friends they’d prefer to be spending time on, or just having some relaxation away from work.
Of course not all workplaces are the same. Some are family businesses where spouses work together. Sure, a married couple co-running a small “mom & pop business” was actually once a norm. But no, their non-relative workers do not become “family” because of that. And a married couple or other relatives in the same workplace just becomes leverage for control by The Employer. Nepotism may look just like favouritism toward the family member, but in practice there’s a penalty extracted in that management can exert more control over employees when their family members may pay for them displeasing the higher ups. That’s why whistleblowers are generally always outsiders, and are either pariahs to begin with, or of course then become so.
Not every worker’s experience is the same, of course, because different people have different roles. Some people may be in a position where the social interaction isn’t uncomfortable because, for example, their position in the hierarchy is above those they’re socially interacting with, and thus the risks and pitfalls are greatly reduced, and it may feel quite enjoyable to them, especially since the others involved may be greatly motivated to make sure that’s the case because of their own hierarchical position.
But at a minimum, across the board for all involved, at least if you get laid off or there’s some good compelling reason you should move on to another job, you’re not sacrificing big chunks of your social life in the process. And if your friends work with you, and you divulge that you’re looking for another job and then management finds out, that’s a terrible way to find out that wasn’t a real friend. Authoritarian environments breed lateral violence, and hierarchical workplaces are inherently authoritarian, no matter how spruced up or how many perks. Even in union shops, fellow union members still may be conflicted in some ways, and the whole point of unions is to have collective bargaining power that circumvents social cronyism fueled favoritism and the like.
I’d argue that remote work, without all the superficial pizza parties and forced luncheons, might actually prompt people into actually seeking out better social ties, like joining clubs based on hobbies, interests, and enjoyable recreation and leisure activities, and meeting people outside of the office. And then getting away from work when not at work. But employers don’t want that obviously, they want your entire life devoted to work, and for you to be a captive audience to management.
I still remember on a Friday some years ago when the executive of the division where I worked characterized a 3 day holiday weekend’s purpose as to recharge all us worker bees so we’re refreshed for more work the next week. My first thought was, why would I make an authoritarian environment, where I have little control over anything, and certainly not the work or its outcomes, while on the clock; why would I ever want to make that the centerpiece of my existence?
I had a job which required very little communication that didn’t take place by phone or email with the outside, where even coworkers sharing the same cubicle would email each other and even people who sat a row apart would use the telephone to call. Perhaps that was because workers were discouraged from interacting on work or helping each other, and management actively shamed and even reprimanded people for lingering at the water cooler, fax machine, or a coworker’s desk. People sat working staring into a computer for hours ignoring the people around them, often using noise cancelling headphones to block out other people’s outside phone calls. With a workplace like that it’s hard to come up with these team building stories.
And I really don’t understand why people are unable to do “team building” or hold meetings without being able to do what? physically touch their coworkers? There have been telephones for example for a long time now and we have ooh video calls these days too!
Should you be touching your coworkers at all? What’s the in person magic about if it’s not physically being able to touch people you work with, or at least get physically close to them. Which isn’t generally a great idea, right. It really creeps me out that people keep insisting you can’t have a workplace professional relationship without being in person. If it were about the work itself, they could certainly explain what that is, like building a machine or a structure, or providing a service that requires teamwork in person, hands on, like healthcare. Hands on the project, not each other. Unless your profession is pairs figure skating or bi-double sex work, there really isn’t a compelling reason to be touching your coworkers “socially”. And if you’re in a profession that would require that, you should absolutely have a huge amount of control over who you’re collaborating with, or it’s an exploitative situation that shouldn’t be happening. The bottom line is that you should be able to explain why office team building, or social type interaction in the workplace, needs to be physically within touching distance without being cagey or creepy. And most of the time in these articles praising the glory of in person magic almost never address the details, it’s just hand waving that people need social contact, without describing what they think that contact should entail. And I have a hard time thinking of many scenarios that don’t involve something problematic. I do think it’s true that a lot of bosses want constant contact with workers because they’re narcissistic generally, though I know of many other reasons for Return To Office mandates, such as political motivations, where politicians have pushed for government workers to get back into the downtown to spur The Economy. But I think it’s true that a lot of managers do actually want their workers physically present for actual sexual harassment access, or just abuse, and I think we’ve known it all along. And that alone should make management types pause before they start declaring they want in person access to their employees.
Some people also want to go to the office just to carry on extramarital workplace affairs, which may be among equal coworkers. But I also have seen several examples of lateral sexual harassment, so of course any level of coworker exploitation is a potential. Even a unionized workplace doesn’t mean that your fellow union members have to be your best buds outside of work. Exploiting captive coworkers to fill any of your social needs, because they have no choice but to be present with you in the workplace, isn’t ok. And no, it’s not reasonable disability accommodation to expect your captive coworkers to fill your emotional social needs either. And yes, someone online has actually suggested something along those lines and it just doesn’t make sense. If someone’s job description is to meet someone’s emotional social needs, for example, an eldercare worker, that’s a legitimate job, but in that case, they’re meeting the needs of a client, not a coworker, it’s a different type of professional relationship altogether.
Treat your coworkers with respect: by joining your local sports club or hobby club, or get involved with activism or volunteer work. Even a professional association that’s related to your work, but not connected to your workplace, is a more sensible option if what you’re really looking for is professional mentoring and or networking, and without all the pitfalls.
Hidden at the bottom of that Philadelphia Inquirer piece that starts out cheerleading in-person, is this testament that remote work is wanted and here to stay, and at least the piece ends with the recognition that working from home is very much a reasonable accommodation possible in a lot of office jobs for people with disabilities. This is one reason I think it shouldn’t be denigrated, but there are many others.
Bloom said his research has found little evidence that most workers want to return to the pre-pandemic norm of working in the office five days a week. At the same time, remote work remains a boon to many, he said. “Setting aside for young people, remote work almost surely has increased employment because there’s a lot of people that can’t work without it,” Bloom said.
tangentwithtanner
gummygunk
gamechangershow
2087
gracieabrams
dailybridgerton
vaporwave
