SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
IBM, one of the earliest companies to embrace the concept of employees working en masse from home or small satellite offices, has informed thousands of employees that it's time to return to the mothership—or find a new job. As The Wall Street Journal reports, this week is the deadline for remote employees—who make up as much as 40 percent of IBM's workforce—to decide whether to move or leave.
IBM once heralded the savings and productivity gains it won from its "Mobility Initiative." The company has also made untold millions over the past two decades selling software and consulting services, such as its Sametime instant messaging and voice products, to companies looking to support far-flung workforces.
Earlier this month, IBM touted research from IBM's Smarter Workforce Institute that found "remote workers... were highly engaged, more likely to consider their workplaces as innovative, happier about their job prospects and less stressed than their more traditional, office-bound colleagues."
But even as IBM was selling the magic of remote workforces to its customers, the company was dismantling its own "telework" program.
The story notes this might be a way to reduce staffing and avoid worker layoff protection laws at the same time.
Source: ArsTechnica
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday May 22 2017, @05:16PM
I think we're actually in agreement here Buzzard, with any differences really being those of nomenclature rather than substance.
Because workers are unique (not in the "everyone is special" or "we are all different individuals" sense, but in the sense that each worker has specific knowledge, experience and motivations as applied to the domain covered by their employment/job responsibilities), which, depending on the work involved, might be quite important (in areas where knowledge, skills and experience enhance results/productivity) or it might not be important at all (in areas where only simple tasks are required).
As such (as you correctly pointed out), while workers are "assets," they are (at least for certain roles) certainly not "interchangeable widgets."
And it's not even necessary to bring offshoring or outsourcing into the mix to see how treating workers as completely interchangeable can have (at least in the short to medium terms) pretty negative effects on productivity and product quality. Just moving offices from areas with higher costs of living (e.g., Bay Area, NYC, etc.) to areas with a lower cost of living (e.g., rural Illinois, Florida panhandle, etc.) can significantly reduce costs for an organization.
These costs extend well beyond reducing real estate and (possibly) tax costs. Given that many (perhaps most) employees have roots in those higher cost areas, they would be unwilling to relocate with the organization. What's more, those who replace the workers who remain will likely be willing to accept significantly less in the way of compensation. Which was my point about a salary dump.
The short to medium-term reductions in productivity/quality come in as a result of the loss of institutional knowledge (longer term employees have much better knowledge of business processes and organizational methods) and experience in creating/providing the specific products/services offered by the organization. While those things can be rebuilt, significant negative impacts would likely be felt while that happens.
So, no. Workers are not all identical self-sealing stem bolts, nor are they necessarily hand-blown custom glass figurines.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr