• Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’ve actually started… walking to work. It takes me like 45min. So it’s not a short walk, though it’s a very short car commute. But the world is so different now that I’m walking. Having lived in car dependency vs walking is so different. And it’s healthy for you too. More people should try it, if i’s possible.

    • Siegfried@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Add to that a podcast, an e-reader or just jogging to work and those 90 min will be pure investment. Well done.

    • solstice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it’s a nice walk I’m game. I’m continually impressed with how walkable many cities are (except mine of course). If it’s ball sweating hot, walking through endless sprawl, dodging cars, on noisy highways, forget it.

      • Grumpy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I actually started on the day when it was 40°C / 104°F in humidex. Significantly less than favorable conditions. But I figured, if I can do that, I can do any other day. I do have the entire path with sidewalks though. And even a little bit of a park I can cut through.

        • solstice@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re hardcore. I just can’t do that though. I’m in good shape but I sweat a LOT and can’t show up at the office drenched. It would ruin my day.

    • jcit878@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      id love to do that. unfortunatly its either 90-120 minute drive (each way) or train-train-bike for 6km (2-2.5hr each way)

      • astral_avocado@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ma be honest with you, I would kill myself if I had to spend around 4-6 hours commuting each day. Or I guess find a different job.

        • jcit878@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          its not hyperbole to say it was a contributer to my depression before. slept 5 hours a night most nights. next to no family time and absolutely zero me time. high stress job. those lost hours didnt help

  • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I went from commuting close to 2 hours daily, with much of that spent stuck in traffic, to working fully remotely. I’d have to get gas every week. Now I go weeks at a time before needing to get gas.

    Even better, I used to work for a chemical company part of one of the big oil and gas corporations. Now I work for a green energy company. It cracks me up just how different the two situations are.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    WFH allowance should be mandated – anyone that wants it for a job where it’s possible must be allowed it. it’s such a dramatic quality of life difference.

    • StThicket@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m privileged to have a boss not caring where we work from, but i prefer to come into the office once in a while because of my social needs. It’s depressing to stay home day after day, but it’s more productive.

      • haruki@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        My boss allows people to WFH officially, but also establishes several small office spaces so people can come to hang out if they feel lonely, or want to get to know their colleagues more. I think this is the best of both world.

      • clayj9@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s great when it’s your choice. The issue is when bosses don’t give people the choice.

      • SnipingNinja@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Idk how legit it is, but I have read that companies got deals on taxes and such for building their office in the specific city/state and that’s with the expectation that the workers will either live in the city or will be from the city, in turn creating tax income from those workers buying things in the city. Basically because wfh employees also move to cheaper cities the companies are losing their benefits

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          They don’t lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.

          The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds. The company has a building that they have to pay upkeep on, while also having the IT costs of managing a off-site VPN.

          • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            As someone who works at a company that’s permanently hybrid I have to disagree. We now literally have more employees at our corporate office than we have desks, and because all of our employees are 60-90% remote we can pull talent from a larger distance while still being able to have in-person meetings and in-person power sessions for large projects. But by continuing to have an office we have a central location for shipping and receiving, a secure and static space for meeting, working on projects and training plus core infrastructure and roles that don’t work well remotely can still be on premises. Its literally the best of both worlds.

          • TheRTV@lemmy.film
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against WFH, just providing possible reasons big companies are against it.

            They don’t lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.

            That only applies to companies that rent. If they own the building, then an empty office becomes a waste

            The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds.

            I disagree on that one. Not everyone wants to WFH or do it full time. Also if they meet with outside persons regularly, like customers and want to do it in person, having an office is useful. Obviously this does not apply to all companies, but it’s wrong to say that the hybrid system is the worst.

  • NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    There are so many CEOs putting their own private portfolio over the companies they supposedly run having a high staff attrition, and yet “they command such big salaries because they take on so much risk”.

  • mayo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ugh I really want to out the company I work at. Of all companies we should be going and advocating for remote.

    But we aren’t. ‘Because being with each is SO valuable’.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      $100 says you’re company is either stuck in a lease with their building or owns it outright…so glad I work for a WFH company that started that way 20 years ago and never went to having offices.

      • mayo@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Lol no I wish!

        I swear to god we just had all our leases expire and chose to renew ALL OF THEMMMM.

        In fact, for the main office we’ve just signed a new multi-year lease in a new building. It’s smaller tho. Renovations currently in progress.

        But no raises. Times are too tough.

      • electrogamerman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        $100 says you’re company is either stuck in a lease with their building or owns it outright

        But why exactly would that mean “no WFH”?

        Stuck in a lease? Its not like if people WFH or W in the office the lease would decrease. On the contrary. less people means less bills to pay. (Same for owning the building), in this case just rent it for something else.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m not saying it makes sense, it’s just old school idiots running these companies who think ass in chair is more productive. They’re just sociopath control freaks.

  • crackajack@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That much is obvious. And for us commuters of public transport, it is such a relief to notice the traffic is not as bad and heavy as they used to be pre-pandemic, due to people now working from home.

    With many businesses now wanting workers to return working on site, I think this shows the true colours of capital-owning class in relation to climate-change. Despite all the shifting of responsibility to make consumers monitor carbon-footprint, and corporate marketing of supposedly environmentally-friendly products, if CEOs and billionaires truly care about the environment, they would not even demand workers to return working on-site 5 days a week. Green-washing indeed.

    Edit:clarity

    • oroboros@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The blatant disregard there will be of this research, which will be the case, tells you everything about the viability of trusting the captains of industry to navigate us away from climate collapse

    • solstice@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The most amazing part of the pandemic was during the peak of all the lockdowns when nature came roaring back within weeks. My gf and I took a walk around a closed college campus nearby and we saw at least ten different kinds of creatures roaming around without a care in the world. Deer, rabbits, turtles, you name it.

      Personally I prefer office but I totally get it, and do plenty of wfh when appropriate. The business world is still transitioning to WFH/hybrid/full office models so hopefully we’ll reach an equilibrium soon.

  • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That’s probably primarily a consequence of bad zoning and transportation policy in the U.S - higher density zoning and public transportation/cycling infrastructure would address this more than enough.

    Slapping a WFH-band aid on top of this mess doesn’t really address the root cause. That’s not to say you shouldn’t be able to WFH - work whichever way suits you best - but I don’t find this particular argument compelling as for a reason to advocate for WFH.

    • 0110010001100010@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      100% agree, we (the US) truly need better city layouts and public transportation. However, it’s nice to see more arguments that are “pro WFH” that aren’t just talking about the employees themselves or productivity. Not that it’s likely to change the path of management but it’s still welcome.

  • ParsnipWitch@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Interesting. When the impact of individuals on the environment is discussed, a huge number of users here can’t stress enough how the effort of the people doesn’t matter and is irrelevant.

    Stop eating meat and dairy, not buying plastic wrapped stuff, using public transport,… That’s all of no use and no one should even dare to mention it since this is all just propaganda by big corporations.

    Unless it’s about home office. Suddenly there is great agreement that we have to do home office to save the climate! It almost seems like for a lot of people it’s not so much about protecting the climate, but about not taking up responsibility when it’s uncomfortable.

    • random65837@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Stop eating meat and dairy,

      SURE!!! Because aside from the fact of all the carbon-neutral farms out there at this point, which aside from them going that way for tax credits is irrelevant, that actually puts back into the soil and regenerates our literally dead soil. Pretty different story from all the mono-cropping destruction that’s happening otherwise.

      But those evil cow farts right??? When cows aren’t fed trash corn and grain and actually graze on grass like they’re supposed to, the gas isn’t a problem, not that it is anyways. But then you’d lose the talking point for plant based eating, wouldn’t ya? Most emmisions are from transportation, which is happening either way. Nice try.

  • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.fmhy.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Um… no fucking shit.

    Transporting millions of people dozens of miles twice a day OF COURSE has resource costs, in carbon and pollution and energy consumption. This shouldn’t be rocket science. Sadly it is for people who are afraid of change.

    It also saves the workers money (as they don’t have to pay for fuel or public transit), it saves the company money (as they don’t have to pay for office space), it saves the environment (as you don’t have pollution from commutes), it reduces traffic (as you don’t have as many commuters at rush hour), and it’s generally good for just about everybody except commercial real estate developers renting out overpriced office buildings and Starbucks that’s paying absurd rents to be in the bottom floor of those overpriced office buildings. And of course middle managers who think that hounding their employees in person somehow accomplishes something.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, I’ve traded burning fuel for burning internet and electricity at my home. My electricity at home is mostly solar (from my roof) and hydro from the grid (I live in Washington State).

    Working from home spares me ~20 uncompensated transit hours a week, so the emissions difference (whether I use transit or drive) is substantial and so is the cost savings (in fuel and parking). FWIW, my employer will pay for my transit fares (but not fuel or parking) and that’s nice and all, but I’m squeamish about transit during flu/covid season because of all those coughing people going in to jobs that don’t encourage them to stay home while sick.

    I’m able to work more hours when I do it from home because I’m not constrained by transit schedules/catching the last train out of town, and that way I still come out ahead in terms of having time with my kids, and I have time to take grocery shopping and meal planning and prep off of my wife’s plate.

    It’s better this way, not just in terms of cost and environmental impact and quality of life, but productivity-wise.

    • newde@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      And if they drive, they drive less ridiculous cars. The fact that the F150 is the most sold car in the US is just mind boggling.

      • Da_Boom@iusearchlinux.fyi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Is it bad that I’m seeing more and more of those huge ass trucks here in Australia?

        Those trucks make no sense to me.

        • bedo6776@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, as an American that prefers to drive small cars I feel like driving is no longer safe. I can’t see past any of the tank sized cars that make up 75% of the vehicles on the road and I know, from experience, how destructive getting hit by one of those vehicles can be. I’m down to driving 1-2 times per month and I’m terrified every time I get behind the wheel. The only reason I keep a car is to visit family that lives about 130km away since the Republicans in my area have killed every train project between my hometown and my parents’ town.

          • coffeeaddict@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Wouldn’t they just hire a truck if they ever need that? I mean that’s what we did, we moved twice in the last 20 years and one involved moving over 300 miles away to another city

              • coffeeaddict@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean there are companies that do this for you, carry everything over (from the front of house to placing them inside as well, like couches and tv and everything) so you don’t do anything really except paying them money (and ask for refund if they broke something 😡). Like I guess it’s called forwarding

        • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          The sad thing is, I really want a truck for transporting stuff for hobbyist gardening and woodworking, but it’s so hard to find a truck that isn’t 20ft tall with more cabin than bed space. Two door trucks are getting harder to find.

  • YⓄ乙 @aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    right but the issue is not environment pollution , its the real estate. They all are empty so fuck the environment and bring yo 9-5 ass to office.

    • jcit878@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      i also think theres an inherent bias that ‘leaders’ tend to be more extroverted and see more value in people ‘being together’, and to an extent, at least in my observed experience, are unwilling to acknowledge the fact its not the same for everyone

      • Stovetop@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is downright malicious in many cases, though. A lot of times, business owners will be renting the property their office is based out of, and that property ends up being owned by a family member or friend (or they themselves) who then get to bill the company for quite a sum without that being considered payroll. If they lose the office, they lose money, and that’s all they care about.

      • solstice@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m deeply introverted but prefer in-office. I’m in a leadership position and gently encourage staff to work in office too when possible. It’s not for socializing and awful pizza parties, and you don’t have to tell me about your weekend hobbies if you don’t want to.

        For me it’s mainly because my work requires technical skills, problem solving, and creativity, which means it’s very helpful for me to know my staff really well in order to properly review their work. If I see something that looks odd it’s really helpful to know ‘Mary did this and that’s her strength so I’m probably wrong’ or ‘Steve did this and he sucks in this area so it probably is wrong’ etc. WFH removes all that and everyone is just a disembodied talking head, or worse, emails and texts only, so I have no idea who I’m talking to.

        I truly get the allure and I still wfh when appropriate but again I encourage in office as much as possible.