There's just one solution: unionize.

As you can see, your bosses already did.

Because they know they are creating unfulfilling low paying jobs with shitty objectives, who wouldn't fuck off in that scenario?

    > Those lazy employees need that strict supervision!

> > will do the minimum work that is required of them

> So... doing their job?

Can also mean working 5 h instead of 8, but not so little so you'd get fired.

That's not doing one's job completely (if paid for working 8 h), just that no one notices.

> People do their chores at random times in the middle of day...

When I was in-office, people I needed to speak to would be away from their desk (god only knows where) several times a day. Perhaps they were off taking a shit, or getting food, or having a long think in a quiet corner, or crying in the nap closet, or who knows what, but they weren't at their desk and I had no idea how to contact them.

If your coworkers are regularly inaccessible for extended periods, then you're gonna have to do what has been done since way before widespread WFH: talk to your manager to establish core working hours during which everyone is expected to be easily accessible to other folks in the company.

If your manager doesn't see the need to establish and enforce core working hours and neither does their manager, then either stop thinking of it as a problem, or go work for a place that is a better fit for your theory of work.

If you've already established core working hours and these remote employees are ignoring them, then complain to your manager. If their behavior is seriously getting in the way of you getting your work done, it's your manager's job to fix that.

Also given many orgs are distributed across buildings, cities, and countries.. a manager admitting they need to physically see butts in seats is telling on themselves re: ability to do their job.

So bring all the constant interruptions and inability to focus that is in the office at home as well?

The fact that you think is good tells me you're probably some kind of middle manager with too little actual work to do.

Wow I’m surprised at the heavy downvoted here.

I don’t think mandating cameras on and insisting on 100% is the right move, but I definitely think you want to aim for a team culture where camera-on is a default and most people have them on 80-90% of the time.

Otherwise, yea participation and engagement seems to take a major hit.

> cameras on 100%

i hate the idea of camera on 100% of the time.

I am not presentable when WFH. That's the point.

I might also be on the toilet - which otherwise is dead time!

Hahahaha, my sides. Jesus. That’s the funniest I’ve heard in this thread.

I have found the same with remote. Cameras ON is a huge improvement in how much people are in on the game. Constant communication, frequent ad hoc meetings, screen sharing. Its totally doable, but most people don't do it. There is no feeling worse than presenting an idea to a meeting room of 10 people with all cameras off, and when you ask a question you get crickets. Too many people are phoning it in.

No way, they're going to charge for the gym in the office? That's like something out of the onion.

I saw a few clickbait articles highlighting that JPMorgan's new world headquarters in Manhattan (270 Park Ave) has a gym but will charge employees to use it. Why is this so interesting? I have worked in many different tall office buildings in my career. I saw a variety of setups: (1) company gym, (2) third party gym, (3) no gym. You always had to pay a fee to use the gym. Why does requiring employees to pay trigger such a hostile reaction from people? Also, the people working in this specific building are very well paid. They can easily afford the fees. Some other points that people don't mention: If it was free, it might be overloaded. That building is expected to have 14,000 employees! Also, no gym can possibly provide everything that everyone wants. In Manhattan, you are spoiled for choice with gyms.

I am sure that a few people will reply to say: If the gym were free, then more people would use it, and the company would benefit from lower healthcare costs. (Specific to the US: Most large corporations are self-insured for healthcare, but use third party providers to administer the programme.) Maybe so, but difficult to prove. If that is true, the company should also provide healthy lunches, etc. The list goes on and on. And Internet randos will have a never ending list of things that a "good company" must do for their employees.

> if employees like it, it must be a perk/benefit.

Or, for those who have bought into the utterly toxic mindset that employees are always trying to get as much out of the company as possible for as little work as possible, "if employees like it, it must be a scam on us."