this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2023
410 points (99.0% liked)

Work Reform

9965 readers
83 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 42 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is such a no-brainer that I'm surprised the climate crowd are not advocating more aggressively for it.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Something like 70% of greenhouse gasses are produced by 100 companies globally. This is like using a cup to empty an Olympic sized pool: yes, it does something, but not enough.

We need to maintain focus on the big producers and affect change there first and foremost.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's their products causing it. Cutting down on gas burned because we focus on more people working from home is focusing on big producers.

Ask yourself this, aside from real estate investors, who is most likely to lobby against legislation that incentives work from home? Car companies (Elon already is) and gas producers I'm sure are on the list right?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This article talks specifically about energy usage, not consumption of products. Work from home likely wouldn't have an impact in consumed goods.

I'm a WFH employee, and my company has no plans to change it. I'm all for WFH. I brought up the issue of 100 companies producing 70% of greenhouse gases because to me this article lines up with the idea of us reducing our individual carbon footprint, which we've found out in the last few years was just a coordinated effort by the fossil fuel industry to deflect their responsibility to us.

All of these efforts are good. WFH is good, renewable energies are good, EVs are debatable (depending on where you stand on how the rare materials needed for the batteries are sourced) but overall better than gas and diesel. But at the end of the day, if your tub is overflowing you need to turn off the tap first before you pick up the mop.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I hear you about the articles bias towards personal responsibility when tackling an issue that is structural.

And my point stands. Elon, for example, has come out heavily against WFH because fewer people will be driving his cars. In other words, WFH is bad for the car and oil/gas lobbyists and good for the planet.

If governments started offering incentives for WFH, it would be one way of turning off the tap.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

What are those companies doing? They are selling stuff to people.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think work from home and also the adoption of the 4 day work week will be critical to tackling the climate crisis

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Four day work will cut the emission even more. Just saying.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't that also what they're saying?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

It's also the 20% payrise we all absofuckinglutely need.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

But think of the commercial property prices!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

But at what cost? Employees are less productive without the watchful eye of a skilled manager.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 year ago

Another MrBusinessMan banger 😄

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

Employees don't work from home!!1!11!1!1!!

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

individual civilian emissions are so inconsequential in the grand scheme of things that it makes me laugh when people talk about shit like this. A vast, vast majority comes from industries, not individuals driving a car to work.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

They are, but when large masses of people are allowed to significantly reduce their emissions and with no downsides (other than middle managers' feelings, which no one but them consider a downside), then it's worth it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Tell that to my desk chair hahaa pass the crudité.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Fuck, just let us live our lives.