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, 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?