People ally with them because they are non-specifically mad at other things and see anything that involves someone being cancelled or oppressed as something that they must jump into. I want to be clear that this is exactly how a culture war begins - someone powerful intimates that they are being oppressed by a non-specific force, usually for doing something that sucks for a specific group of people that have less power than they do.
The person writing this op-ed also says that these companies “feared being second-guessed by stockholders and worried about problems that could arise from reopening offices.” And, of course they had a record year, which proves that remote work is stupid, and they are smart. Nevertheless, this is the fuel that the executive class is pumping out - that a big, successful law firm went back to the office and that there are many more people that wish to go back to the office being cruelly silenced, one might even say, “canceled” for saying that people should be able to work remotely. The law firm in question justifies their decision to not go remote based on an entire five weeks of seeing if it’d work (and, apparently, several lawyers had already been going in!), proudly boasting about how “companies in energy, health care and tech….jealously applauded decision in private conversations.” This culture war that I’ve been warning you about hinges on the fact that many of these people cannot find a real justification to go back to the office. While seemingly innocent, the phrase suggests that everyone working from home has been on some sort of vacation with their laptop rather than doing work, and that only by returning to our big, beautiful offices can we fully work again, and see “the value of face-to-face communication.” This position, while potentially able to provide a balanced view on the subject, is already steeped in executive propaganda by using the “back to work” phrase. One might say I’m paranoid if the Times was not also hiring a “Back to Work” newsletter writer: It’s almost as if the organization itself wants people to return to the office but can’t find the evidence to do so and thus has turned to their opinion page to justify it with anecdotal bullshit. It includes some incredible anecdotes - workers encouraged to drive in as they “wanted driving to work and supporting many energy-sector clients,” anonymous clients that allegedly were jealous of their in-person office - and reads entirely like something that was published specifically because the New York Times couldn’t actually get a reporter to have a researched opinion that was anti-remote work. The screed is exactly the thing you don’t give space to if you’re looking to give a balanced view on a subject, telling the tale of a group of lawyers that were forced back to the office in May 2020.
In one of the more bizarre op-eds I’ve ever read, the New York Times again chose to empower the forces against remote work, running an insufferable op-ed by the co-founder of a law firm.
0 kommentar(er)
