Surprising no one but the mgmt teams…

Unispace found that nearly half (42%) of companies with return-to-office mandates witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated. And almost a third (29%) of companies enforcing office returns are struggling with recruitment. In other words, employers knew the mandates would cause some attrition, but they weren’t ready for the serious problems that would result.

Meanwhile, a staggering 76% of employees stand ready to jump ship if their companies decide to pull the plug on flexible work schedules, according to the Greenhouse report. Moreover, employees from historically underrepresented groups are 22% more likely to consider other options if flexibility comes to an end.

In the SHED survey, the gravity of this situation becomes more evident. The survey equates the displeasure of shifting from a flexible work model to a traditional one to that of experiencing a 2% to 3% pay cut.

  • 🐱TheCat@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    As someone who contributed to the ‘high level of attrition’ during a forced return to office: it was my pleasure and I’ll do it again.

  • Pulptastic@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Many companies, including my previous one, assume their position is stronger than it is. Then they complain and blame millennials’ work ethic when people don’t hang around for their torture like they used to.

  • Branny@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    With around 15 years of experience working remote-only, I will never accept a job that mandates a day in the office.

    If the role isn’t 100% remote, it is not considered.

    Simple as that.

  • Arotrios@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yep, you can’t fight basic math.

    With a half-hour commute, you’re dropping at least $250/mo on gas (more if you use proper mileage calculations and include car insurance costs) and spending an additional 32 hours of your time in unpaid travel for work. If your hourly rate is $15/hr, that means another potential $380 in earnings a month out the door.

    Since that $15/hr brings you in $2600 before taxes, that means in this scenario you’re spending roughly 10% of your gross income on travel expenses, and losing out on a potential income increase of 14%.

    This is why, despite the fact they were a great company I had thought about joining for years, last year I turned down an offer that was a 50% raise from my previously held position.

    I got the same amount in an offer from a separate company that enabled work from home, and when I did the math, the value between the two was striking - it was the clear winner, despite the fact that the first company only wanted me to travel across town.

    • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t think this is even the full picture, though. The cost savings from working remotely for me have been largely unnoticed (but objectively there).

      The real value, for me, has been increased autonomy and freedom from the office culture and overbearing bosses. It was amazing how my managers were suddenly ambivalent about my work performance once they weren’t able to constantly observe me at my desk.

  • NotAnonymousAtAll@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    In the SHED survey, the gravity of this situation becomes more evident. The survey equates the displeasure of shifting from a flexible work model to a traditional one to that of experiencing a 2% to 3% pay cut.

    Those number seem way too low to me. Just picking some semi-random numbers, let’s assume a 40 hour work week and an average travel time to work and back of 1 hour per day, so 5 hours per week. Being forced to come to the office would then be equivalent to 12.5% more of your time spent to earn the same amount of money. Of course that scales depending on how far away from the workplace you live, but for 3% or 2% to be realistic you would basically have to live right next door.

    • penguin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      People aren’t that logical. Most people feel more pain losing something than never getting it in the first place (eg: rolling back an accidental raise would be worse to someone than not getting the raise at all)

      If you tell people to get back to work or lose 3% pay, you’ll get more takers than offering people a 3% bump. Although they’ll be very disgruntled of course.

    • Jaysyn@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      WFH saves me ~$4000 per year in gas & wear & tear alone. 4 cyl sedan with a 30 mile round trip.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well like they say, all the workers need is a nice little recession to return to the office. They’re getting too uppity!

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Meanwhile, since we like money more than control, my company is letting the office lease expire & finding a smaller, cheaper place for our equipment.