Remote work is here to stay: Manhattan may never be the same

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Or if the big fish ensures that they aren't the lowest fish, they're satisfied.

I'm sure that many working-class Trump diehards were well aware they weren't deriving much economic benefit from Trumpism, but they're confident he was harming (or trying to harm) blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, gays, transgender, etc. meaning they won't be on the bottom rung.

The mostly destitute whites of the post-Reconstruction south were fervent supporters of plantation economies, not because they derived direct economic benefit, but because their perceived rival was under attack. Enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

that's the famous lbj quote trump obviously took to heart:

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

[homebucket]

Salesforce to welcome vaccinated employees back to office

(Reuters) - Salesforce.com said it would start allowing vaccinated employees to return to some of its offices, making it one of the first major U.S. corporations to give vaccinated workers preferential treatment over those who have not taken the shot.

Vaccinated employees will be able to volunteer to join groups of 100 or fewer people to work from its San Francisco headquarters and other offices, including Palo Alto and Irvine, the cloud-based software maker said on Monday.

It added that the offices would be equipped with onsite COVID-19 testing that would be mandated twice a week.

...

“In our Phased Reopening stage, offices will gradually reopen from 20% to 75% capacity,” Salesforce said, adding that it would welcome both vaccinated and non-vaccinated employees then.

Salesforce, which opted for a hybrid or permanent remote-working model due to the pandemic, also said it would extend the option for employees to work from home through at least December.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2BZ1R9

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by homebucket

the offices would be equipped with onsite COVID-19 testing that would be mandated twice a week.

This doesn't make any sense. It should be an either/or situation. That's what Wynn Casino-Hotels is doing in Las Vegas: They are mandating employees either show proof of vaccination OR get a COVID PCR test every week (twice a week would be better) and the hotel has installed the facilities to do the testing on-site.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

that's the famous lbj quote trump obviously took to heart:

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Among the most spot-on quotes in human history.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

This doesn't make any sense. It should be an either/or situation. That's what Wynn Casino-Hotels is doing in Las Vegas: They are mandating employees either show proof of vaccination OR get a COVID PCR test every week (twice a week would be better) and the hotel has installed the facilities to do the testing on-site.

It makes sense to hedge against virus-resistant variants, which (probably) don't exist now, but could arise at some point. UChicago is continuing surveillance testing even as basically all staff has had a first dose by now.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

It makes sense to hedge against virus-resistant variants, which (probably) don't exist now, but could arise at some point. UChicago is continuing surveillance testing even as basically all staff has had a first dose by now.

First of all, "all staff" probably haven't had shots. The refusal rate is unfortunately high, especially among non-professional staff (the guy who mops the floors, cooks the food, makes the beds etc and also the folks who do the office work like billing) but even nurses and a few doctors.

March 19, 2021

Despite being prioritized for COVID-19 vaccination, 48% of frontline healthcare workers have not yet gotten one or more vaccine doses, according to a survey conducted by the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation February 11–March 7.

The researchers conducted online or phone interviews with 1327 frontline healthcare workers, who were defined as anyone who had direct exposure to patients and their bodily fluids.

Nearly seven in 10 (68%) of the workers responsible for diagnosis and treatment, including doctors and nurses, reported having received a COVID-19 vaccine. In contrast, 44% of workers who perform administrative duties and 37% of those who assist with patient care, such as those involved in bathing, eating, cleaning, exercising, and housekeeping, reported having been vaccinated.

There were also big differences in the percentages of vaccinated respondents in various care settings. Sixty-six percent of workers in hospitals and 64% of those in hospital outpatient clinics said they'd been vaccinated, compared with 52% of those who work in doctors' offices, 50% of workers in nursing home and assisted living facilities, and 26% of home health workers.

Overall, 52% of the survey participants had received at least one dose of vaccine. The percentages of those vaccinated was higher among men than in women and higher among whites than among Blacks or Hispanics.
Vaccine Hesitancy

The unvaccinated group of frontline health workers included people who either had scheduled their vaccination (3%) or planned to get vaccinated but hadn't scheduled it yet (15%). 12% of respondents said they hadn't decided whether or not to get vaccinated, and 18% said they didn't plan to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/947813

Second, SURVEILLANCE testing makes a lot of sense but that's a different thing from regular, required testing of individuals.

Finally, I think we should aim for doing RNA analysis of every positive specimen looking for mutations or, if that's impossible, as high a percentage of randomly selected samples as possible. I suppose if resources are unlimited you could periodically test fully vaccinated people, but I also think the focus should clearly be on the unvaccinated who should be tested regularly and often.

[mrnyc]

my spouse is double hating the modern open floor plan lately. we live close to her office so she can go in when she wants. they have closed full floors in the building and put everybody on a half floor while they update.

fortunately, everybody isnt anybody, except for her, a few others and some top leadership. even the office rooms have glass fronts, which sucks. anyway its all weird, but at least there is no push to get people back in there yet.

[Acajack]

Even if the uber-rich don't pay their fair share in taxes (and I tend to agree with most of the crowd here that they don't) it's still not good policy to create a fiscal environment that will drive them out of your jurisdiction (municipal, state, province, country).

There is a tendency among some to say "who needs 'em!" but if you look at places where there's been an exodus, it didn't lead to happy times for those left behind.

[Pedestrian]

'You show face in the office, you get brownie points': What are the risks of staying remote as offices reopen?
Chase DiFeliciantonio
April 12, 2021
Updated: April 12, 2021 8:48 a.m.

As offices slowly reopen in the Bay Area, many workers are not rushing back to their cubicles, opting to continue working remotely now and into the future . . . .

But staying home risks some workers and their contributions becoming less visible than that of in-person workers, experts have said. CEOs from companies including Zillow and Gitlab have warned of the potential for the hybrid work situation to create first and second class workers in a company, a problem with no quick fix despite plenty of technology at hand.

“It’s out of sight, out of mind,” said Mitchell Marks, professor emeritus of leadership at San Francisco State University, who is also an organizational psychologist. “The person who is in the office is more likely to be regarded as someone who is a team player and someone who is committed.”

Being physically present also creates more opportunities for the spontaneous run-ins that build relationships and create opportunities for advancement, he said, adding that a company’s industry and culture can determine how remote workers are treated.

Not all companies plan to offer total flexibility. Search giant Google has said employees will need permission to work from home for more than 14 days a year starting in the fall. Requiring people to show up in-person could also be used as a disciplinary cudgel or a way to keep an eye on less trusted or productive workers.

A former employee at aerospace defense manufacturer Lockheed Martin in Sunnyvale said they were forced out of the company after refusing to return to in-person work, despite being able to do their job remotely.

The employee said disagreements with management over job duties and eventually their performance led to their being asked to return to the office, and eventually a disciplinary process that resulted in their leaving the company under duress.

“You show face in the office, you get brownie points, even in the age of the COVID,” said the individual, who signed a confidentiality agreement and was granted anonymity in accordance with The Chronicle’s policy on confidential sources. “If you refuse, they look down on you.”

Lockheed spokesman Mark Lewis said, to his knowledge, the company has allowed employees to remain at home if their job duties allowed it and they asked not to come in, or had a medical reason not to. He also pointed to steps the company has taken to protect people working at its facilities during the pandemic.

Companies like San Francisco pay-per-mile car insurance tech company Metromile are planning to let employees return to the office in the coming months, but are being deliberate about letting employees choose their own schedules while focusing on staying connected regardless of location.

Hybrid schedules for the company’s workers will likely see different members of a team cycle in and out of the office at different times. The company doesn’t plan to require anyone to come back, said Chief People Officer Mark Gundacker, and many employees are expected to stay remote with people now scattered across two dozen states.

Gundacker said he wants to leave it up to employees and teams when they choose to come in, if they do at all. He said previous company-wide surveys have shown more than half of employees want to stay remote for good.

Regular check-ins with managers along with every meeting having a Zoom call built in will be part of making sure that the distributed workforce is connected with people in the office and vice versa, Gundacker said.

Giving employees the option to stay remote is also a way to keep people from jumping to another company that allows more flexibility, particularly for tech workers.

A recent anonymous survey, by Blind, of 3,000 professionals, including many at tech companies including Google, Twitter and Apple, found that over a third said they would quit their jobs if work from home ended at their company. It underscores how important the ability to work remotely, at least sometimes, has become for many workers.

For Metromile employees like executive assistant Rira Raisi, previous jobs required going to the office “In order to prove we were working.”

Raisi, who has been making trips to the company’s headquarters in downtown San Francisco to sort mail and prepare for the reopening, said work is now weighted less on where you are than “How willing are you to take on a new task, to take on new projects? How much do you care?”

Another Metromile employee, Ashok Madhavi, works in data engineering. He was hired during the pandemic and has never met his co-workers in person. With a family at home that includes an infant son he does not want to take the risk of commuting into San Francisco on public transit from Newark.

“I don’t fear that if I don’t go to the office people might see me differently,” he said.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...e-16090301.php

I think Ashok Madhavi is an idiot. I think the chances of getting promoted, of developing a mentoring relationship with any senior employees or alliances with fellows you've never met is minimal.

I think a lot of this is fantasy. Give it a couple of years and it will become apparent the folks who are down the hall and seen by the boss will get the promotions and be favored in other ways and then the ambitious will more and more be willing to come to the office while the others drift away.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...e-16090301.php

I think Ashok Madhavi is an idiot. I think the chances of getting promoted, of developing a mentoring relationship with any senior employees or alliances with fellows you've never met is minimal.

I think a lot of this is fantasy. Give it a couple of years and it will become apparent the folks who are down the hall and seen by the boss will get the promotions and be favored in other ways and then the ambitious will more and more be willing to come to the office while the others drift away.

completely agree. in my field many people could work from home most of the itme before COVID if they didn't have to go into the lab, but the grad students who only came in to meet with their adviser or for an odd colloquium were definitely talked about and are definitely lacking in connections compared to the ones that were there all the time.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if the uber-rich don't pay their fair share in taxes (and I tend to agree with most of the crowd here that they don't) it's still not good policy to create a fiscal environment that will drive them out of your jurisdiction (municipal, state, province, country).

There is a tendency among some to say "who needs 'em!" but if you look at places where there's been an exodus, it didn't lead to happy times for those left behind.

Indeed, it's not an easy problem to solve, but at least we need to acknowledge that's an universal problem in every democracy, having billionaires paying symbolic amount of taxes while people who live from paycheck to paycheck, the ones that actually consume instead of stockpile assets, paying as much as 30%-40% of their income in taxes to keep the system running.

When we read basic textbooks on the French Revolution, we are puzzled on how such unfair system survived for so long. Well, today is arguably even more unfair.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even if the uber-rich don't pay their fair share in taxes (and I tend to agree with most of the crowd here that they don't) it's still not good policy to create a fiscal environment that will drive them out of your jurisdiction (municipal, state, province, country).

There is a tendency among some to say "who needs 'em!" but if you look at places where there's been an exodus, it didn't lead to happy times for those left behind.

one of the problems is it's so easy for part-year residents to be tax-resident elsewhere. Especially for people who travel a lot for business.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Indeed, it's not an easy problem to solve, but at least we need to acknowledge that's an universal problem in every world democracy, having billionaires paying symbolic amount of taxes while people who live from paycheck to paycheck, the ones that actually consume instead of stockpile assets, paying as much as 30%-40% of their income in taxes to keep the system running.

When we read basic textbooks on the French Revolution, we

I am extremely suspicious of this talk about billionaires (and giant corporations) who "don't pay taxes". If you can find the details, it usually amounts to certain issues:

- They are in a situation where the law allows them to carry over previous losses to discount current earnings. It is, of course, a political decision to allow this or not.

- Their earnings are outside their home country. The US is pretty unusual in trying to tax global earnings of American citizens and businesses. Most countries don't even try to do this--they only tax domestic earnings. And in this era of multinational businesses and wealthy people who live and work all over the world, it matters a lot.

- The source of earnings is a favored one. Governments around the world purposefully offer tax savings to certain types of business activity in order to encourage it. When that results in the people doing what the governments want them to do, it seems unfair to complain.

Rather than raise top rates or minimum taxes or other shotgun approaches, it seems to me governments should be analyzing the loopholes they've created such as I have mentioned and to decide whether they really want to continue to offer them. But if they do, then those who take advantage are going to seem like they are getting away with something when they are only doing what they are incentivized to do.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Indeed, it's not an easy problem to solve, but at least we need to acknowledge that's an universal problem in every democracy, having billionaires paying symbolic amount of taxes while people who live from paycheck to paycheck, the ones that actually consume instead of stockpile assets, paying as much as 30%-40% of their income in taxes to keep the system running.

When we read basic textbooks on the French Revolution, we are puzzled on how such unfair system survived for so long. Well, today is arguably even more unfair.

I'm reading a book now that has a chapter that covers the very short history of income taxes in the U.S. The federal income tax in the U.S. has only been permanent for just about a century, and few other places had income taxes by then either. Before that, income taxes were emergency measures that mostly just funded wars. But the most interesting thing about the income tax is that only rich people paid it in the beginning. Middle-class and poor people were largely exempt from it at the start. Over the years, the income tax burden quickly crept down the socioeconomic ladder, so now the poor and middle class pay taxes disproportionate to their share of wealth.

[twister244]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

https://www.sfchronicle.com/local/ar...e-16090301.php

I think Ashok Madhavi is an idiot. I think the chances of getting promoted, of developing a mentoring relationship with any senior employees or alliances with fellows you've never met is minimal.

I think a lot of this is fantasy. Give it a couple of years and it will become apparent the folks who are down the hall and seen by the boss will get the promotions and be favored in other ways and then the ambitious will more and more be willing to come to the office while the others drift away.

I think you are underestimating how prevalent remote work is going to be moving forward.....

I have been fully remote for over a year now with my company, which seems to be pretty close to Metromile in that article you posted. We now have employees spread across the country, and continue to grow/expand..... and I recently myself got a promotion and raise. What I found interesting is over 1/3rd of major tech employees are drawing a line in the sand on WFH/Remote policies. That's not going to suddenly reverse itself.

Yes, some people will need to be in the office for optimized in-person interactions (management, senior leadership, sales, etc). But for many of us, it's just not needed.....

I've become so mentally used to being able to work remotely indefinitely now that I would be super pissed if suddenly my company changes their hearts and requires us to come in soon. I suspect many across the tech industry also feel the same way.

Once you open the flood gates on something like this, it's going to be extremely difficult to undo it. Many folks will simply go work for a company that will allow them to be permanently remote. It's going to become a new "sing on perk" for those who have good skills.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I am extremely suspicious of this talk about billionaires (and giant corporations) who "don't pay taxes". If you can find the details, it usually amounts to certain issues:

- They are in a situation where the law allows them to carry over previous losses to discount current earnings. It is, of course, a political decision to allow this or not.

- Their earnings are outside their home country. The US is pretty unusual in trying to tax global earnings of American citizens and businesses. Most countries don't even try to do this--they only tax domestic earnings. And in this era of multinational businesses and wealthy people who live and work all over the world, it matters a lot.

- The source of earnings is a favored one. Governments around the world purposefully offer tax savings to certain types of business activity in order to encourage it. When that results in the people doing what the governments want them to do, it seems unfair to complain.

Rather than raise top rates or minimum taxes or other shotgun approaches, it seems to me governments should be analyzing the loopholes they've created such as I have mentioned and to decide whether they really want to continue to offer them. But if they do, then those who take advantage are going to seem like they are getting away with something when they are only doing what they are incentivized to do.

Well, yeah most of the very rich do follow the letter of the law in terms of their tax bill and employ experts in tax avoidance which is a legitimate (or least legal) business niche that isn't the same as tax evasion.

Of course, the tax laws we have are often the result of lobbying and pressure exerted by the very rich over many decades.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's fair.

[JManc]

Most billionaires make money not on traditional income but proceeds from any sale of equities which are taxed at a lower rate than income which maxes out at 20% for short term capital gains versus 37% for income (and short term capital gains). If Jeff Bezos unloads a billion dollars of AMZN stock which he does regularly, he pays about $200 million.

Most 'normal people' also have equities but don't sell and rely on incomes until they retire.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

Most billionaires make money not on traditional income but proceeds from any sale of equities which are taxed at a lower rate than income which maxes out at 20% for short term capital gains versus 37% for income (and short term capital gains). If Jeff Bezos unloads a billion dollars of AMZN stock which he does regularly, he pays about $200 million.

Most 'normal people' also have equities but don't sell and rely on incomes until they retire.

Most "normal people" have a large part of their assets in tax sheltered or tax deferred entities. Typically, much of their retirement savings are in 401(k)s or IRAs, both tax-deferred and examples of the sort of government incentivization I referred to. The government wants you to save for retirement so it gives you a tax incentive.

The rest of most "normal peoples" assets are in the value of their homes. This too is tax advantaged. $250,000 for an individual or $500,000 of a couple's gain in the value of their home is untaxed. Also, home mortgage interest to $10,000/year is a tax deduction . . . because the government is incentivizing home ownership.

I think it's arguable who gets the bigger tax benefit: Bezos or "normal people".

[Pedestrian]

While I think the tax system is fairer than the media want you to think it is, and as fair as the government, which too often looks at trees rather than the forest, wants it to be, THIS is a real problem that doesn't get near enough attention:

CEO Pay Surged in a Year of Upheaval and Leadership Challenges
By Theo Francis and Kristin Broughton
Updated April 11, 2021 1:30 pm ET

CEO pay surged in 2020, a year of historic business upheaval, a wrenching labor market for many workers and unprecedented challenges for many leaders.

Median pay for the chief executives of more than 300 of the biggest U.S. public companies reached $13.7 million last year, up from $12.8 million for the same companies a year earlier and on track for a record, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

Pay kept climbing in 2020 as some companies moved performance targets or modified pay structures in response to the Covid-19 pandemic and accompanying economic pain. Salary cuts CEOs took at the depths of the crisis had little effect. The stock market’s rebound boosted what top executives took home because much of their compensation comes in the form of equity.

In some cases, investors have responded by withholding support for company pay practices in annual advisory votes, increasing pressure on corporate boards. With the annual-meeting season only just beginning—80% of the S&P 500 have yet to hold their votes, according to pay data firm Equilar—shareholders have given a thumbs down to pay arrangements at a dozen big companies, including Starbucks Corp. and Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc.

Pay rose for 206 of the 322 CEOs in the Journal’s analysis, which uses data for S&P 500 companies from research firm MyLogIQ. The median raise was nearly 15%. The Journal uses figures reported by companies in their regulatory filings, which value equity awards on the date granted.

The leaders of Exxon Mobil Corp. , ad giant Omnicom Group Inc. and Intel Corp. made less in 2020 than they did in 2019. Those companies generated total shareholder returns, a measure of share-price changes and dividends, between minus 36% and minus 15% in 2020.

Compensation jumped for some executives at battered companies. At Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. —which recorded a $4 billion loss last year after sailings stopped and revenue fell 80%—CEO Frank Del Rio’s pay doubled to $36.4 million, in part with bonuses tied to a three-year contract extension, according to the company’s proxy . . . .

As the pandemic unfolded and whole industries slowed or nearly froze, many CEOs gave up some or all of their salaries, often to great fanfare. But salary makes up less than 10% of total compensation for most big-company CEOs. The equity awards and cash bonuses that make up the bulk of the rest have generally remained high, the Journal analysis shows.

The biggest pay packages reported so far went to leaders who received special stock awards during the crisis. Chad Richison, founder and CEO of Paycom Software Inc., received compensation valued by the company at $211 million, including restricted shares. Larry Culp, the CEO of General Electric Co. , received compensation valued by the company at $73.2 million tied to a contract extension and new performance targets . . . .

Most companies didn’t modify annual or long-term incentive plans, but those hard-hit by the pandemic were more likely to, consulting firm Pay Governance found in an analysis of S&P 1500 companies filing early proxy statements. When boards intervened to adjust calculated payouts, they were more likely to increase them than lower them, Pay Governance found . . . .

. . . investors are displeased with boards issuing retention awards and some Covid-19-related changes to executive pay plans.

Last month, investors of aerospace-parts maker TransDigm Group Inc. voted 57% of their shares against the company’s pay program. TransDigm allowed vesting for option awards made during the fiscal year even though the performance criteria wouldn’t be met, benefiting 85 employees, including directors and some top executives.

In its proxy, TransDigm said directors concluded existing performance criteria weren’t attainable, cited good performance ahead of the pandemic, and said not making the change would have put some employees at a disadvantage, because the company awards equity every other year . . . .

About 1 in 6 companies holding shareholder votes since Sept. 1 have gotten less than 70% support for say-on-pay votes, according to an analysis of S&P 500 companies by Equilar. Among the same companies last year, by contrast, about 1 in 12 had such stiff opposition.

Although only advisory, a poor showing in a say-on-pay vote often prompts boards to restructure pay packages—or more. About a quarter of boards replace the compensation-committee chairman and nearly half replace at least one committee member after losing a vote, consulting firm Willis Towers Watson found.

Getting 70% to 80% shareholder support for a pay package is worrisome for boards, said Don Delves, executive-pay-practice leader for Willis Towers Watson. “Below 70% they consider almost like a failure.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-1...8142400?page=1

For what it's worth, I no longer ever vote FOR executive pay packages. My choice now is between AGAINST and ABSTAIN. I think the disparity between executive pay and median worker pay in the US is a crime and it bothers me much more than the tax structure.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

While I think the tax system is fairer than the media want you to think it is, and as fair as the government, which too often looks at trees rather than the forest, wants it to be, THIS is a real problem that doesn't get near enough attention:


https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-1...8142400?page=1

For what it's worth, I no longer ever vote FOR executive pay packages. My choice now is between AGAINST and ABSTAIN. I think the disparity between executive pay and median worker pay in the US is a crime and it bothers me much more than the tax structure.

Not saying I agree with but the ridiculous salaries are corporate America's way of securing and retaining C-level talent in a very competitive field. If a company has a good CEO who is responsible for record profits and growth, are they not worth the pay? I don't know. What I do oppose are golden parachutes where a CEO is essentially rewarded for running their company into the ground or forced out for dubious activity.