Law10 mins ago
No Going Back To Work
246 Answers
Apparently, people who needn’t go back to work aren’t going back to work.
https:/
Is this inevitable? So many office jobs are far from useful, involving moving bits of paper around, or making phone calls, that people just aren’t going to miss a few million office workers not turning up.
A bit like many hospital clinic consultations, just as effective done by telephone, people might be waking up to the tremendous waste of time that society indulges in.
https:/
Is this inevitable? So many office jobs are far from useful, involving moving bits of paper around, or making phone calls, that people just aren’t going to miss a few million office workers not turning up.
A bit like many hospital clinic consultations, just as effective done by telephone, people might be waking up to the tremendous waste of time that society indulges in.
Answers
Sometimes you are impossible to argue with
11:22 Fri 11th Sep 2020
I am glad to see this thread evolving into a discussion about the value (or necessity) of work. I like the idea of office workers working their bits off in order to keep Subway going. Nice analogy.
Nation of shopkeepers isn't far off it: I sell you this, you sell me that, I sell you this, you sell me that.... and on, and on, and on.
A
Nation of shopkeepers isn't far off it: I sell you this, you sell me that, I sell you this, you sell me that.... and on, and on, and on.
A
It's not entirely inappropriate.
There is a bit of confused thinking here.
The PM was urging people to go back to work "in their offices" not simply to go back to work, obviously now concerned that people working from home is having a knock-on effect on other businesses.
With a bit of blackmail thrown in
Iain Duncan-Smith said this:
"The reality is that small businesses that provide the vast majority of jobs in the UK rely on people in city centres being back in their offices.
“If they do not go back many of those businesses will collapse, which will lead to higher unemployment and in turn impact on people’s mental and physical health.”
And Boris Johnson suggested that if youo don;t go back to the office you may lose your job.
All of which suggests a cabinet utterly out of touch with reality.
There is a bit of confused thinking here.
The PM was urging people to go back to work "in their offices" not simply to go back to work, obviously now concerned that people working from home is having a knock-on effect on other businesses.
With a bit of blackmail thrown in
Iain Duncan-Smith said this:
"The reality is that small businesses that provide the vast majority of jobs in the UK rely on people in city centres being back in their offices.
“If they do not go back many of those businesses will collapse, which will lead to higher unemployment and in turn impact on people’s mental and physical health.”
And Boris Johnson suggested that if youo don;t go back to the office you may lose your job.
All of which suggests a cabinet utterly out of touch with reality.
It ignores the point mentioned above many times, that the places they are threatened are there to serve not to be served.
And whether people work in an office or not is down to employee and the employer.
If the PM wishes to make an observation about the knock in effect of deserted or quieter offices then that is absolutely fine. But he should leave it at that. Otherwise it just sends a confused message.
And whether people work in an office or not is down to employee and the employer.
If the PM wishes to make an observation about the knock in effect of deserted or quieter offices then that is absolutely fine. But he should leave it at that. Otherwise it just sends a confused message.
Ichkeria, his message doesn't confuse me - and it shouldn't confuse anyone who doesn't seek to be pedantic. Your bone of contention appears to be the word ‘offices’. Is it? Had he said ‘factories, warehouses, workshops and offices, etc., etc’, do you think you would have gained a better understanding of the fundamental problem?
Here’s a very good example of what I mean
https:/
https:/
Yes they were asked to stay at home to save lives
And so they did.
And many people are desperate to get back to their offices.
However many found - as did their employers who by the way are also largely working from home in a lot of cases, that things worked much better from home: better life quality, no commute etc etc.
What is unrealistic is failing to realise that you can't expect those people to return to work as a good turn to other industries
I cannot make it any clearer.
And so they did.
And many people are desperate to get back to their offices.
However many found - as did their employers who by the way are also largely working from home in a lot of cases, that things worked much better from home: better life quality, no commute etc etc.
What is unrealistic is failing to realise that you can't expect those people to return to work as a good turn to other industries
I cannot make it any clearer.
We can't bring everyone back to our offices and service delivery spaces and adhere to social distancing at the same time. So telling everyone to go back IS very contradictory advice.
So we now have a mixture of staff working at home and in the office, so it will still, for a long time, be only up to half the workforce on site at a time, so those business will still be impacted. i am not going to put staff at risk so the local cafe and chippy have a few more customers.
So we now have a mixture of staff working at home and in the office, so it will still, for a long time, be only up to half the workforce on site at a time, so those business will still be impacted. i am not going to put staff at risk so the local cafe and chippy have a few more customers.
100% ichkeria 11:39.
When government gets involved they have the power to break or make markets by legislation or financial methods. But this hides a true reality of that market (be it businesses or individuals).
By policing people's journeys with the threat of fines, and yes probably a bit of fear they made people work from home and stay at home. By paying incredible sums of money on the furlough scheme they have saved a lot of jobs and put off mass redundancies until the autumn (but these are coming). By paying for people's food they got people to eat out and help out.
There is a pattern to the above, people don't just do things because someone says pretty please.
When government gets involved they have the power to break or make markets by legislation or financial methods. But this hides a true reality of that market (be it businesses or individuals).
By policing people's journeys with the threat of fines, and yes probably a bit of fear they made people work from home and stay at home. By paying incredible sums of money on the furlough scheme they have saved a lot of jobs and put off mass redundancies until the autumn (but these are coming). By paying for people's food they got people to eat out and help out.
There is a pattern to the above, people don't just do things because someone says pretty please.
Ichkeria, I know what you’re saying but the reason ‘offices’ were specified is because realistically people who work elsewhere couldn’t work from home. They are the people the government has propped up with funding paid for by taxes from industry and the workforce.
I don’t think the government has ‘failed to realise’ that some people working from home would rather not return to the workplace, but it does understand that the whole thing has a knock on effect and in order to kickstart the economy we must get people back to work because, like it or not, one industry does support others. That’s a fact of life.
Mass unemployment benefits no one - no industry, no jobs, no money, no taxes, no benefits … and so on ….and if people don’t return to the workplace that will be the direction in which we will head. It’s not just cafés, pubs, and shops - it’s cleaning companies, suppliers of all sorts, maintenance companies, transport companies - everything - and all of those businesses provide jobs.
Ultimately, if those working from home have nothing to work with because the companies they are dealing with have folded, they have no jobs either. We need to get the country back to work - urgently.
I don’t think the government has ‘failed to realise’ that some people working from home would rather not return to the workplace, but it does understand that the whole thing has a knock on effect and in order to kickstart the economy we must get people back to work because, like it or not, one industry does support others. That’s a fact of life.
Mass unemployment benefits no one - no industry, no jobs, no money, no taxes, no benefits … and so on ….and if people don’t return to the workplace that will be the direction in which we will head. It’s not just cafés, pubs, and shops - it’s cleaning companies, suppliers of all sorts, maintenance companies, transport companies - everything - and all of those businesses provide jobs.
Ultimately, if those working from home have nothing to work with because the companies they are dealing with have folded, they have no jobs either. We need to get the country back to work - urgently.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank29 mins ago
Crosswords35 mins ago
Home & Garden38 mins ago
Food & Drink40 mins ago
