Emerging corporate refusals to work from remote locations (another, unfortunately, called work from home) is nothing to be ashamed of self-destructive and strange. I say this because at the same time businesses are struggling to attract and retain the talent they need during a severe talent shortage.

It is as if level C executives have argued to their boards: “This shortage of workers is doing us a lot of harm, and it needs to be corrected. But while we are here, let’s make the deficit much worse by undermining the policy of remote workers. “

Apple is a great example because the nature of its operations is ideal for a distributed workforce, and it has seen firsthand all the advantages – and virtually none of the disadvantages – over the past two years. And yet, in the rabbit hole “let’s bring our workers back to corporate buildings” she rushed.

Talented Employees across Apple have protested against this turnaround and its in high demand the director of machine learning has resigned, citing the cancellation of a remote site as a key reason.

If Apple – or any other company – claimed that material deficiencies on remote sites led to these changes, it could be different. If he claimed that efficiency had fallen (failed), that the quality of work had suffered (not), that managers struggled to get their teams to follow instructions (they didn’t), then perhaps it would not have been so one-sided.

True, however, remote sites have generally worked admirably. There was an expected IT cost to securely configure everyone, but that money has now been spent and it is not refundable. This means that there is not even an argument: “We had to go through these new costs in the early stages of Covid, but these costs are no longer justified.”

Copyright © 2022 IDG Communications, Inc.


Previous articleSee how Kendall Jenner and Chloe Kardashian deal with an unwanted guest
Next articleThe 1971 Mk1 Escort RS1600 that could set a new auction record this week