> The article incorrectly conflates "cares about productivity" with "cares exclusively about productivity".
No, I don't believe it does. The argument is actually that they "care about control over labour and stock prices" above all else, including productivity.
> The examples provided for "don't care about productivity" are things like open office plans- where a certain amount of productivity is sacrificed while offsetting a different cost (building space).
From the article: "Home offices also lower office real estate costs, so you’d think executives would love it, but they also makes employee surveillance harder."
WFH also made it massively easier for people to slack off/pretend to do multiple jobs.
And life was disproportionately more difficult for more junior folks.
WFH was far from an unalloyed good that only got abandoned "because it made surveillance harder".
Would it be possible to salvage WFH? Maybe. At a bare minimum, it'd require rapidly firing the abusers. And spending a lot more on helping juniors grow.
No, I don't believe it does. The argument is actually that they "care about control over labour and stock prices" above all else, including productivity.
> The examples provided for "don't care about productivity" are things like open office plans- where a certain amount of productivity is sacrificed while offsetting a different cost (building space).
From the article: "Home offices also lower office real estate costs, so you’d think executives would love it, but they also makes employee surveillance harder."