SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Exclusive IBM is cracking down on remote workers, ordering unlucky employees to either come into one of six main offices and work "shoulder to shoulder" – or leave for good.
In a confidential video message to staff seen by The Register on Tuesday, chief marketing officer Michelle Peluso told her US marketing troops they must work at "a smaller set of locations" if they want to continue with the company. Staffers have 30 days to decide whether to stay or go.
This means affected IBMers who telecommute, work at a smaller district office, or otherwise work separately from their team, will now have just a few weeks to either quit their jobs, or commit to moving to another part of America. The company's employee badge system will be used to ensure people do come into the office rather than stealthily remain remote workers.
According to sources, the six "strategic" offices US marketing staff must work from are in: Austin, Texas; San Francisco, California; New York City, New York; Boston, Massachusetts; Atlanta, Georgia; and Raleigh, North Carolina. El Reg understands that employees will not get to choose a nearby office, but will instead be assigned a location based on where their team is predominantly situated. The first wave of workers were informed of the changes on Monday. The next wave will be instructed in early March, we're told.
Marissa Mayer has worked wonders at Yahoo and the rest of the tech industry should follow her lead?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @09:51AM
If a company is to be nimble and agile, it must look at laws as things to be gotten around, rather than things which must be obeyed.
These are all sales drones. Sales people are unique in a business in that they can literally write their own check in most cases in any business they go to.
"Oh I see you formerly sold ladies undegarments, door to door. I think you'll make a perfect fit for selling our integrated verticals to enterprise customers"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Lester on Thursday February 09 2017, @11:04AM
That's the spirit that has lead to a world were companies are first class citizens and human beings a little more than raw material or tools, in the end, slavery is not main issue.
The main problem is the concept "companies... look at, company... get around, company... obey". Companies don't look, get around or obey, people do. Persons who make decisions should be accountable, not companies. And that really seldom ever happen. Companies shouldn't be under investigation, people who made the decisions should be, not as a representative or spokeman of the company but people in their own name.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 09 2017, @04:51PM
I'm not normally a grammar nazi - but your "lead" instead of "led" suggests a solution to me. A lead filled pipe upside some corporate leader's heads would fix a lot of problems. So much for first class citizens, right?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday February 09 2017, @08:51PM
On this... I agree completely. A lead pipe right up the majority of every MBA's fucking head. Let's add to that though, and if they don't clean up their act, a wooden stick right up their asses. Vlad the Impaler style.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday February 10 2017, @02:17AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @06:17PM
You mean corps are first class citizens, women and their children are second class, and males are just dogshit since 1870 or so.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 10 2017, @08:38AM
Women: Luxury animal for the upper classes; Breeding animal for the middle class; breeding and working animal for the lower class.
(Score: 0, Redundant) by moondoctor on Thursday February 09 2017, @11:35AM
>it must look at laws as things to be gotten around
That's known as acting illegally. Pretty sure that's not cool.
(Score: 4, Funny) by art guerrilla on Thursday February 09 2017, @12:06PM
stay precious, pollyanna...
(Score: 0, Redundant) by moondoctor on Thursday February 09 2017, @12:39PM
Stay criminal, son.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:06PM
We've got another broken one, I see.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Immerman on Thursday February 09 2017, @02:43PM
Illegal is such an ugly word. And implies a false image of the law is a line in the sand that must not be crossed.
Ask a lawyer though, and they'll tell you the law is more like a loose rope staked to the ground at a few points, with lots of play in between. There's a limit to how far you can stretch it, but it's a lot further than most people would suspect. (I think I first heard that description on Groklaw)
Incidentally, I've heard that many philosophers of the time strongly objected to the idea of having written laws, on the grounds that as soon as you give them a concrete definition, criminals will immediately begin finding ways to skirt the intent of the law while staying within the letter of it. And all evidence suggests that they were correct.
(Score: 1) by moondoctor on Thursday February 09 2017, @04:23PM
Thanks, that's a nice, well thought out and coherent response. Good point well made. I'll try a rebuttal...
>Illegal is such an ugly word.
That's the point.
>And implies a false image of the law is a line in the sand that must not be crossed.
That is how law must work, otherwise it's not law. But, I have to admit, I don't *entirely* disagree with you. It is a murky question, and I am playing devil's advocate. The problem is the drafting of the laws that allows for manipulation. However, without a line in the sand somewhere you have nothing.
>Ask a lawyer though, and they'll tell you the law is more like a loose rope staked to the ground at a few points, with lots of play in between.
Ask a scholar and you get a very different answer... There is a very good reason that lawyers have a bad rep. They lie for a living. Literally. For many lawyers their job is circumventing the law.
While yes, the world is not black and white, and laws must be able to take this into account, the premise that one person can be convicted and another not with identical cases because of fancy lawyers and convoluted laws means things need help. (liberty and justice for all, you know...)
>it must look at laws as things to be gotten around, rather than things which must be obeyed.
This is not a healthy approach to the legal system. Dysfunction is rampant in the government and attitudes like this are responsible.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday February 09 2017, @04:57PM
Add into the mix, many laws require that "criminal intent" must be proven. That's good, in a way. Sometimes, some dumbass (me, you, anyone who isn't a lawyer) manages to break a law without intending to break any laws. We get caught, we have a clean record, we convince the judge we were just dumbasses who didn't know any better, we get probation and records expunged if we stay out of trouble for a year or two. All cool - we learn a lesson, and never break that law again.
On the other hand - some SOB with a long record gets a crooked lawyer, and confuses the jury whether the life-long criminal had "criminal intent".
That alone can make for some serious injustices.
(Score: 1) by moondoctor on Thursday February 09 2017, @06:11PM
Very true.
There's a reason we (society) have been debating this for thousands of years. Pretty amazing the the ancient Greeks had such a well formed understanding of these issues.
It's incredible to me that people ignore (or deride) lessons we've known *for millennia*
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @10:54PM
Knowledge is easily lost or forgotten, and it takes serious effort to get every new citizen up to speed. In the US we simply don't value such things, just puritan style hard work and strict morality. Thinking is for communists, obedience is patriotic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @06:22PM
There is no we here, stupid fucking pro feminist cuck. You don't make the law
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 09 2017, @05:52PM
Incidentally, I've heard that many philosophers of the time strongly objected to the idea of having written laws, on the grounds that as soon as you give them a concrete definition, criminals will immediately begin finding ways to skirt the intent of the law while staying within the letter of it. And all evidence suggests that they were correct.
Be that as it may, I would prefer to have a known rulebook which people can "rules-lawyer" around than one in which anybody at any time can be punished for any reason. How do you defend yourself against accusations you are a witch and should be punished because you gave the right honorable Mr. Smith the evil eye which caused him to get gout?
For that matter, how do you defend yourself against a nameless accusation from nameless sources for committing a crime you don't know? Yes, that is happening now, but at least people in places like Guantanamo Bay are the exception rather than the rules, and large portions of society condemn it and have a chance to fix it... it's certainly better than star chambers and secret police sending people to gulags for "crimes against the state."
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday February 10 2017, @03:25PM
As would I.
There are other options though. For example, make the law simple enough and limited that everyone can be fully informed of it verbally, maybe even express it as intent rather specific details.
That's still got issues of course, but are they that much different than today? Where the privileged routinely escape punishment for their crimes, and the oppressed or inconvenient can face extended sentences for minor misdeeds?