> You have the choice to choose your own employer and if you don't like the terms, the choice to leave.
That assumes two things:
1) That a company exists that will grant you your (let's presume reasonable) terms, and
2) That there are enough companies accepting those terms such that there are enough jobs available for everyone who wants those terms.
My ideal job would be a part-time gig where I get the benefits of a full-time gig (health insurance, 401k, equity, etc.), but can choose my hours (essentially 100% flexibly), perhaps with some sort of weekly minimum, and get paid by the number of hours worked. It would be fully remote, and I could work from wherever I want. But there are very few companies that will agree to terms like that (maybe even no companies), even though I'd be just as (probably more) productive than their "standard" full-time employees.
> A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from employees after being asked to go back into the office a bit absurd.
It's not absurd, it's people who have traditionally been on the bad end of a power imbalance (employees) finally getting the flexibility they've always wanted, proving that they can be just as productive that way, and then being pissed off that employers are requiring them to go back into the office for little reason other than management's desire to control their employees' lives.
And it's really funny that you find that absurd, because many of them are doing exactly what you claim they should do: leave and find a different employer that will accept their terms. Post-pandemic there are a lot more employers that will accept flexible/remote work arrangements than there were previously, and employers that are requiring employees to come back to the office are going to lose some talent.
That ideal job can exist, though you may have to create the company yourself (that's what I ended up doing). We were very small (5-7 people) and thought it'd be fun to try out different forms of compensation, so after some experimentation we settled on:
- very healthy hourly rate
- min commit of X hours per month (I think it was 80), then work as few or as many as you want beyond that (though for planning purposes we'd often ask people to give us a rough idea of their plans for the next few weeks)
- various bonuses that would kick in when the group reached different milestones each month (this was a consulting company, so a lot of them revolved around billable hours)
- no additional paid benefits at all
That last one took the most time for people to get on board with initially, but ultimately proved to be really popular. I think it had to do with how entrenched the mindset is around the norm, but concepts like getting paid even though you're not working, or having your employer be involved with your health insurance are pretty odd if you think about it. Things like sick leave, paid time off, etc. are also things that look nice on paper but IMO tend to be a net loss for employees - they tend to be assigned inflated values by the companies and are used as leverage against employees.
That assumes two things:
1) That a company exists that will grant you your (let's presume reasonable) terms, and
2) That there are enough companies accepting those terms such that there are enough jobs available for everyone who wants those terms.
My ideal job would be a part-time gig where I get the benefits of a full-time gig (health insurance, 401k, equity, etc.), but can choose my hours (essentially 100% flexibly), perhaps with some sort of weekly minimum, and get paid by the number of hours worked. It would be fully remote, and I could work from wherever I want. But there are very few companies that will agree to terms like that (maybe even no companies), even though I'd be just as (probably more) productive than their "standard" full-time employees.
> A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from employees after being asked to go back into the office a bit absurd.
It's not absurd, it's people who have traditionally been on the bad end of a power imbalance (employees) finally getting the flexibility they've always wanted, proving that they can be just as productive that way, and then being pissed off that employers are requiring them to go back into the office for little reason other than management's desire to control their employees' lives.
And it's really funny that you find that absurd, because many of them are doing exactly what you claim they should do: leave and find a different employer that will accept their terms. Post-pandemic there are a lot more employers that will accept flexible/remote work arrangements than there were previously, and employers that are requiring employees to come back to the office are going to lose some talent.