>>27223

>the emotional and mental health benefits of mixing with colleagues

I don't know. To me, not having to deal with coworkers in an office environment every minute of my workday has been the most enjoyable part of this whole crisis. My mental health has actually increased from that.

>>27223
It is shameful that they're attempting to use messaging around people working from home might lose their jobs, or its less efficient because people don't work as hard - it's pure presenteeism and will backfire even more badly on them than everything else has. Many peoples/companies experience is quite different - people are MUCH more efficient working from home, it's gone the other way where for some classes of jobs people are putting far more hours in - too many.

The mental health angle is important, but not important enough. The ship has sailed - in the same way that e-commerce has fundamentally affected the high street shops, this virus and long period of WFH has fundamentally affected many classes of job, particularly those we previously considered "white collar". People are not going to go back to commuting again.

I am not going back to the office every day. Nor are most people. The government needs to deal with that and not scaremonger.

They are looking increasingly incapable and vulnerable - there'll be a u-turn about three days after Sturgeon announces a more sensible approach.

I'd rather not have to spend 1-2 hours a day commuting to and from work and having to rub shoulders with grumpy cunts and school kids on a sweaty bus.

>>27226

That's another thing you have to factor in. Your commute working from home is 30 seconds, from the kitchen where you grab a cup of coffee to your desk or livingroom table. Unless you really commute by long-distance train and find the time to get out your laptop and work on your e-mail and spreadsheets, travelling to work every day is really wasted time where you do nothing but waste fossil fuel and expose yourself to other people's pathogens.

Commuting to work is really mostly a 19th and 20th century invention, and became widespread in the age of mass production factories and ever-growing large corporations in Britain. Unless you still operate a machine on a factory floor or are an NHS healthcare worker or a flight attendant or a lab technician, there is a good chance that nearly all of your daily work can be done from home with today's technology.

As has been said, typical government scaremongering. And it's illogical, because how many times have they told us that we need to do something about our congested city centres, and now that inner city traffic has actually decreased, they are telling us that cities must not become ghost towns. Make up your minds, people.

Getting rid of mask wearing might help.

>>27230
>Your commute working from home is 30 seconds

My train journey is an hour each way - thats when it is all working perfectly - given travelling to/from the stations and waiting around, I get almost 3 hours per day back when WFH. That makes a massive difference to my quality of life. There are hundreds of thousands of people who will be in a similar position.

>>27231
Oh behave. If you want to debate that then start another thread on it.

All this because poor old Pret a Manger have been savaged by the lack of rushed businessmen and call centre workers to buy their overpriced sandwiches. Disgraceful.

If there's one good thing to come out of it it's that people might realise having a Tory government is like having your slightly dim Year 10 head of year in charge of the country- The only thing they care about is if you're working. It doesn't matter if the work you're doing is any good, or even if it needs to be done at all, but above all it's important that you're working.

Did anyone else hear that radio ad campaign a few weeks ago with the totally not subliminal slogan LET'S GET BACK TO WHAT WE LOVE. They've been at this for a while now because the absolute last thing they want is a progressive, positive change in the shape of Britain's workforce.

Eerily similar to "We’re Going to Have to Let Some People Die So the Stock Market Can Live", innit?

Are they still doing the £120~ fine for parents who don't send their kids back to school? I saw the headline on a discarded paper the other day so don't know the details. On the face of it that seems like pure extortion; forcing lower income people to risk the health and lives of their families or pay a not insignificant amount.

>>27224
From speaking with people it seems that a lot of larger companies intend to move to working 2 days in the office, 2 days WFH and 1 day where you can choose. I expect a hybrid like this will become the norm.

>>27232
Out of interest, how did you end up with that commute? Buying a house outside of London?

>>27237

Any type of commute that involves rail to bus transfer, two buses, or similar kind of fucking around because the office isn't directly located in a city centre but rather in some obnoxious outlying area that you can't travel directly to, will be like that.

I'm a lab tech and my trust is intending to relocate the regional pathology labs into a single "super-lab" in the nearest big city. It's going to be an absolute disaster, and they'll never be able to recruit staff, anyone who doesn't happen to live around the corner will be looking at a rail-bus or a bus-bus commute. The question was raised if they're allocating land for staff parking and the answer was a flat no.

So, fuck that.

>>27233
> The only thing they care about is if you're working.
If that were true they wouldn't have had a lock down.

>>27239
They did their best not to have one.

>>27236

It would really be a win-win. What companies care about is productivity. If working from home two or three days out of the week means your employees can get more work done, partly because they are happier due to not having to brave a stressful office environment every day, then that improves productivity right there. It also means they can scale down their fixed cost, because they can move from a fixed-desk workplace model to flex-desk, at least for part of their staff, and thus probably save on monthly office space rent.

That said, most people only take jobs with long commutes because they can't find a job in their field near where they live or because they can't afford to live where they work. I have a friend who lives in Luton and is an archaeologist, and she works full time at a museum in London, mainly doing visitor tours. There is positively no work for archaeologists in Luton (there isn't much in London either, to be fair), but her salary would also never be enough for a flat or a house in London. It's about 70 minutes door to door for her every day by train, but she is fine with it.

>>27238 Some of the buildings will get chopped into housing, if the commercial customers dry up. With any luck, we can have both WFH and more intermingled work / home areas.
Of course, what will actually happen will be a fuckup of monumental proportions as commercial landlords apply pressure to stop their world collapsing. I have no idea what form this will take.

>>27245
Not sure what it's like in the UK but Louis Rossmann has been doing some real estate videos and has mentioned that landlords in NYC are hiking up the price for rent when there is fuck all business due to people working from home.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu3PipmF2Ng

>>27247

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/aug/19/londons-greenwich-market-stalls-face-closure-following-huge-rent-increase

100% of my social interaction is at sork, luckily I can't work from homd, would commit suicide if I did

>>27248 "In a letter to stallholders, Knight Frank said it has been forced to put up rents because the market is “running at a considerable loss”, with fewer stalls operating and only four days of trading a week. It says the losses are “simply not sustainable” for the owner, Greenwich Hospital."

'Fuck you, pay me', they said to a completely mobile customer base who, even if on a lease, will just say fuck off, and fold.
Shut in a month?

Commercial landlords have always preferred voids to rent reductions - the former is a temporary blip, the latter revalues their estate which, if they're running on borrowed money, can fuck them. Seems daft-but-sane.

>>27234
>Eerily similar to "We’re Going to Have to Let Some People Die So the Stock Market Can Live"

It's not really worked. Most of the developed world market indices have bounced back whereas the FTSE had a slight recovery and then levelled out way below what it was before the crash.

>>27288

Just goes to show what I was saying when we went into lockdown. A massive, massive chunk of the UK economy is based on either pointless, needless make-work and sheer vapid consumerism. That's the kind of stuff that's going to really struggle bouncing back.

Personally, I'm ready to go back to work and we all know the malingerers will be protected. My profession allowed for working from home before the pandemic and there's a definite decline in productivity if you reach 3 days wfh not just in focus but because you can't walk over to someone's desk.

Jokes on them. I pack a lunch and cycle because I'm stingy.

>>27289
That's not how the stock-market works.

>>27290

>That's not how the stock-market works.

Go on then, Rishi, elucidate us.

>>27291
He's right - it's not how the stock market works. The market is based on sentiment, not fundamentals. >>27289 can pretend to be I-told-you-so about it on his analysis of those businesses, whether right or not, it makes no difference to how the markets work, and therefore the charts shown are specious.

All the people working from home wanking themselves off about how much money they're saving and how much better their lives are is making me very bitter.

>>27293
Just wait until they need to get some printing done.

>>27293
Give us the other view then.

>>27295
It's not another view, my job just doesn't allow me those benefits. The relative value of my job has therefore decreased.

>>27294
I had to print something out, sign it and scan it for work. My bastard HP printer, which by design I never use, decided it was out of black ink and wouldn't just print in dark blue. Cue me trying to order some and finding out that printer ink was (is?) sold out everywhere. In the end the best deal I got was from a Gibraltar-based eBay seller for £35 quid or thereabouts, about double the price. I'm tempted to see if I can somehow claim that on expenses.

>>27297
Why didn't you just scan your signature then Photoshop it in? You could even plop the text onto a scanned blank piece of paper for effect.

I visited Central London today for the first time in five months - quite incredible how quiet it was.

I was the only person in the train carriage on the way there. Waterloo in the middle of the day was like the very end of the day when there are only two trains left, and its a few lonely people figuring out how they now get home. I had a (great) lunch in a restaurant, where my companions and I were the only patrons.

What was startling was talking to my friends, who were a mixture of married/older and younger/single - there was an obvious generational gap between those of us who have saved money/gained time during the lockdown and happy to stay in it and those who were suffering very badly and itching to "go out" again. I don't know how we resolve that tension, but it was obvious and stark.

I've heard figures of transport being 40% back to normal, with trains/buses moving to 90% when the schools go back - anecdotally it was nowhere near that today - more like 10% of what I would expect to see. We might be back to normal-ish in twelve months time, but we're going to be nowhere near normal in any part of 2020 and I was struck by the noises coming out this morning encouraging us to go back to work/we're all going to lose our jobs, and what I saw on the ground.

I am very excited by the societal reset that this presents - although it was weird seeing London like that, I feel a lot more optimistic that the virus will drive lasting, positive change in our working, living and travelling habits. We are not going back to "normal"; everything has changed for good.

>>27300
Fucking over 65s, again. Oxygen thieves.

>>27301
>over 65s
Never before have so few done so much to squander the prospects of so many as our outgoing pensioner generation. The prolonging of human life through medicine was a mistake.

>>27290
>there's a definite decline in productivity if you reach 3 days wfh not just in focus but because you can't walk over to someone's desk

I'm finding it great not to be pestered every 10 minutes by someone asking me a dumb question that they can't be bothered to try and figure out themselves. They still call me, but it's now only if they've got something important to ask.

I'm a lot more productive with fewer distractions from doing my actual job, especially not having to sit in so many pointless meetings. For the social aspect Slack, Teams and instant messaging means I'm still keeping in contact with people.

>>27299
>there was an obvious generational gap between those of us who have saved money/gained time during the lockdown and happy to stay in it and those who were suffering very badly and itching to "go out" again. I don't know how we resolve that tension, but it was obvious and stark.

Most people I know who are itching to be able to go into the office are those who don't really have the space to set up a proper workstation because they're either in a house share or living with their parents. If you have your own place it's great.

>>27301>>27303
In their defence they're not experiencing what it's like so they're being fed the media narrative that loads of people are on a jolly and refusing to go back to work because of how good they're having it.

I thought the Tories were in favour of ghost towns.

>>27303
>so few

Well that's the problem, isn't it? It's not 'few', there are fucking loads of them -- a boom, one could say.

The UK economy could lose almost half a trillion pounds of output if workers fail to return to their offices, a study estimates.

Douglas McWilliams, a former chief economic adviser to the Confederation of British Industry, has warned the economy will not return to its pre-pandemic size until 2025 if home working continues in its current form, which would add up to at least £480bn in lost activity.
McWilliams said: “‘If we carry on working at home when at least half want to return, we run the risk of turning into a 90% economy with GDP stuck a 10th down off its peak.”

McWilliams added that the damage from a permanent shift to home working would be severe because the economic activity generated by commuting and socialising could not be replicated by people working from home. However, the CEBR forecast is based on nothing changing with home working, which McWilliams stressed “more likely it will”.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/aug/30/no-return-workers-offices-could-cost-uk-economy-480bn-pounds-cebr

Project Fear strikes again.

>>27363
Can we compare the economy to a god that demands human sacrifices yet?

>>27363
>Last week one of the best known, the sandwich chain Pret a Manger, added to the worries about how sustained remote working would impact businesses by saying it planned to cut nearly 2,900 jobs following the desertion of high streets.

If an overpriced high street sandwich shop failed to see the forest for the trees when high streets started imploding a decade ago, I'm not inclined to shed a tear for them now. That goes doubly so for any of the more white collar/City firms in crisis.

I don't know what the future holds but as long as it has fewer mind-numbing commutes and a bit more quality of life, I couldn't give a toss about the state of the economy at large.

>>27365
>Pret A Manger demands go beyond traditional requirements for fast-food workers (such as courtesy, efficiency, and reliability) to such tasks as having "presence", demonstrating a quirky sense of fun, and exhibiting behaviour consistent with being inwardly happy with oneself. Pret A Manger uses mystery shoppers to ensure that employees deploy markers of a positive emotional state. Employees who exhibit markers of latent sadness face consequences such as not having a bonus.

It's about time they went to the wall. That's without mentioning tax avoidance and their ownership structure.

>>27365

Pret angled themselves as the defacto "lunch for workers" chain, and it worked - even a dead high street could support a Pret if there's offices about.

They're a notoriously bad company in terms of management though, so fuck em.

>>27364

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

>>27367
They did, and they were excellent at first - but they are WAY too ubiquitous to survive this as they are and I really don't think they deserve to.

I work(ed) in a particular part of London where there are eighteen (18) branches within a one mile radius of where I work. I'm sure they did that for a reason (they get the business) but it isn't healthy or sustainable.

I didn't realise that when ITZ happened you had to BUY_YOUR_OLIVEPESTOMOZARELLAFOCACCIO

>>27380
Any right thinking person already has most of those things stashed in bulk already.

>Latest figures show that just over a third (37%) of white-collar workers in the UK are back at the office, compared with over three-quarters of employees in Germany, Italy and Spain, and 84% in France.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/sep/01/trickle-not-a-torrent-workers-in-canary-wharf-and-manchester-return-to-the-office

>Civil servants tell staff there is no point coming back to work as a second wave will mean more WFH

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/31/civil-servants-tell-staff-no-point-coming-back-work-second-wave/

>>27420

We're the progressive ones for once. Now if only we could adopt the French work week too...

>>27369
I'm dying to know why there are Betfred shops on three of the four corners of this small block.

>>27422
Go chat with your boss if you want less hours, I'm all good thanks.

>>27425
Fewer.

>>27424
That is appalling - and you already know the answer. I think there should be byelaws protecting people from that kind of thing.

>>27424

High-street bookmakers haven't really been about sports betting for some time. Most of their revenue comes from fixed-odds betting terminals, which are basically slot machines on steroids. As of 2018, the industry was averaging profits of about £1,400 per machine per month. Each shop is only allowed four FOBT machines by law, so in areas with high demand and low rents you'll often see multiple shops in close proximity.

A reduction in the maximum bet size in 2019, combined with the shift to online and mobile gambling since lockdown, means that a lot of these shops are likely to close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_odds_betting_terminal

>>27425

Why?

Before you answer, be aware that I won't accept any answer other than you are a professional blow job quality assessor, Ferarri test driver, or other ridiculous fantasy dream job.

The reason I suspect you're going to give instead isn't actually an answer, because you should already be getting paid more in the first place.

>>27437
I don't think I'd want to be a blowie tester. I bet there'd be lots of grating teeth.

>>27438
>>27437
It would be exhausting and you'd get very sore then very calloused, assuming it is possible to get penis callouses. How many blowjobs a day are we talking? If it's more than three or four you'd start to dread it.

>>27439
>>27438

You know how a taste tester for tea or soft drinks or whatever works, where they just take a sip, swill it around, then spit it out? You can't actually drink the stuff all day long.

You don't actually spaff in their gob as part of the assessment, because that'd affect your judgement of the next dozen. You'd have a checklist of how much tongue work they're doing, if their teeth are getting in the way, if they go for the cheeky bum finger. That sort of thing.

I'd give them a good ten minute window each if it as me, but that might be overly thorough. A good blowie tester can probably give you an accurate rating in as little as three.

>>27440
Nonsense, if you're testing blowies you need to experience their technique from soft to spaff. Just having them go at you for three minutes would be like wine-tasting where somehow you can't smell the aroma or taste the aftertaste.

>>27440
>I'd give them a good ten minute window each if it as me, but that might be overly thorough. A good blowie tester can probably give you an accurate rating in as little as three.

30 seconds max to decide whether they were any good. It's quite obvious from the "off" whether the person is experience or putting any effort in. 3 minutes of a bad one would be torture.

>>27441

I mean fair enough if you want to do it that way, but you're only going to manage three or four appointments in our new utopian 5 hour workday, and the other blowjob rating agencies would drive you out of business with volume alone. You could squeeze more in, but it'd be unfair on the candidates who got you on your refractory period from the last one.

>>27442

I guess if you really want to push the numbers up yeah, but I'm sure there are some people out there who get a case of nerves to start with. I'd be compelled to give them at least a minute to get over the shock of the size of my knob anyway.

>>27444
You're just not going to get an accurate reading beyond the very basic rating of enthusiasm and some or no experience. My method may be slower but at least I'll be able to provide a full review.
Besides, it's not as though I'll be struggling to recruit and keep others to fill the same role for low wages. I believe your approach is a false economy and will give sloppy results.

>>27447

Blow Job Certification and Classification Worker's Union would like a word m8

I think someone would need to suck a variety of dicks to be properly assessed and graded. Someone proficient with an averaged sized dick may struggle with a lengthy or girthy member. Also, I'd imagine men like different things from a blowie.

>>27449

Good point, it'd really have to be more like a British Board of Felatio Certification.

God bless are great nation.

>>27452

My only counterpoint is that covid changed both public perception and circumstances, so I don't think it is purely hypocritical of the rags.

>>27453
I'm fairly sure the top two predate covid, I've seen a much older version of this.

>Downing Street denies existence of back-to-work campaign as office staff stay home

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/09/03/boris-johnson-rishi-sunak-tax-deal-brexit-local-lockdowns/

If your campaign is overwhelmingly unpopular pretend it never happened.

Pret are now offering a subscription service; up to 5 coffees a day for £20 per month.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54012055

>>27463
Not bad on the face of it

>>27464
>>27463

With the aim of increasing peoples' caffiene dependency?

>>27466

It's a desperate effort to increase footfall - if you're coming in several times a day for your "subscription coffee", you might buy a cake or a butty while you're there.

It's not going to save the innumerable branches of Pret that have infested the nation's city centres like petit-bourgeois pustules, but at least they're trying.

>>27463
It's terrible coffee though. When they start a sandwich subscription I AM IN.

I think this kind of thing will catch on.

>>27468

I say on the face of it because it sounds too good to be true.

5 coffees _every day_ at Starbucks would costs >£400 a month.

So I'm guessing there are plenty of caveats to this deal.

How can anyone have 5 coffees a day and not feel like shit and/or blow their arse out?

>>27472

I must drink at least 4 a day, and I think at this point it's the only thing keeping me regular. I tried cutting back a bit ago and it was like my bowels turned to stone.

>>27471
How many people will pop into Pret five times a day? At the very most I imagine it'll be three; one on your way to work, one on your lunch break and one on the way home. Let's say that's fifteen coffees a week so sixty over the space of a month. It does not cost Pret anywhere near £20 in coffee beans, milk, etc., to make sixty coffees; even if they had 150 drinks in a month that's still a healthy gross profit.

It'll create a regular cash flow, it may lead to an uptick in the number of sales of sandwiches and it should increase their market share; if you have a subscription and you want a drink then you'll be more likely to go to Pret and not have to pay anything extra for it rather than going into Costa or Starbucks for it.

>>27475

Fuck Pret and the metro drone urban 6 pound Gyoza box lunch timers. They should have got a job in IT and learned how to make their own cheese and pickle sandwiches.

>>27516
>Gyoza

Get some Pierogi from your local Polski Sklep and bung them in the microwave. They're almost the same thing, and cost a lot less.

I never thought I'd say this but I'm enjoying homeworking less since my kids went back to school. The house is too silent and I'm finding myself easily distracted.

>>27591
There's a primary school behind my flat. I often work from home anyway and before 'rona I used to get annoyed by the sounds of their screaming from the playground when I was trying to work, but the silence really bothered me once it was gone. Now it's back I don't mind it at all.

Work have started bringing the admin teams back to the office. Apparently because some people have grumbled about having to go in they're making those still working at home, including those self isolating for medical reasons, work an extra hour to compensate for it.

>>27703
How can they make you work an extra hour? You should work to whatever hours you are contracted to work.

>>27703
What the fuck? Talk to your union.

>>27711
I suspect I'm getting half the story, but I do know that the admin staff still WFH are working an hour a day longer than those going into the office. It'll probably turn out that those in the office are working 5 hours per week less than they're contracted to.

>>27714

I would guess it's something to do with people not getting full breaks/lunch hours or what have you due to social distancing in the shared areas of the building.

We were doing that for a while at mine but then some unfathomably small minded tedious bint decided to go on a crusade about how some people were unfairly abusing the ability to have a shorter lunch so they could leave early and then it sort of petered out. There's one of them in every workplace isn't there.

>>27703
That's just straight unfair and your employer should be challenged - people WFH are generally putting in far more hours than contracted at the moment.

>>27714
Is this new? Plenty of people were expected to be on their phones or laptops (Phone Guy or not) working on their commute to and fro. It wasn't right then, and it isn't right now.

Coronavirus: Work from home 'if you can', Michael Gove says

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-54247372

This is the kind of u-turn I can get behind.

I imagine it's going to be a bit of a mess very soon with furlough being scaled back, landlords now being able to evict tenants and lockdown 2 about to happen.

I don't think I can do this for another 6 months. If they try to lockdown again I'll lose everything. Honestly think I might just do myself in, there is no point anymore.

>>27918
Have you considered doing something else in the meantime instead?
Seriously, this is, technically, a chan. The fact that you're reading this means you must be able to find ways to either entertain yourself or improve yourself while-u-w8. Other people may not know how to function outside of this but your presence here means you have the capability, the experience to function solely through the internet. I wanted to make this a Bane quote/reference but it didn't really work. Anyway, you'll be okay if you just rely on the ability to grow you'll have already learned simply by being one of us.

>>27918
>If they try to lockdown again I'll lose everything

Why?

>>27921
Doesn't sound like he is struggling to keep himself occupied, it sounds like he might be small business owner or self-employed and will be driven into poverty by a lockdown.

>>27918
Consider gaming.

>>27926
Yes, I was suggesting he take up something new that makes money.

>>27926>>27922

It'll push me into poverty, which will cause my wife to leave me (she's already threatened this, her friends partners have been okay with furlough money and everything, but I'm self employed and the whole thing has bottomed out because of restrictions) which means I lose a place to live as we rent it from her mother. Fuck this. I had Brexit precautions, even for no deal, but that's a drop in the ocean for literally just shutting everything down over fucking nothing. I'm done.

>>27940
You'll likely be able to live more frugally when single.

>>27940
>over fucking nothing

You absolute bellend.

>>27940
Your bird sounds like a twat, and you don't sound that bright either.

>>27943
Now, now. We can't expect a lad who didn't know how ambulances work to understand a global pandemic.

>>27940

>I'm self employed and the whole thing has bottomed out

Self-employed people get six months of normal profits through the SEISS. Unless you've been fiddling your taxes, you should be doing OK at the moment.

>>27940

Leave your wife, she sounds like the sort of woman who will never be anything but bother.

>>27940
Your wife is only with you for the money? You're supposed to be a team through thick and thin, what the fuck did she vow to you on your wedding day?

>>27940
Liar.

>>27948

Virgin detected

You've either got to be young or incredibly naive to think that love is the sole purpose of marriage.

>>27978
I'm aware of minor things like tax benefits, but in no way would that be worth the ordeal of living with another person whose presence is undesirable to me. I'd much rather be alone. What am I missing?

>>27980
You don't look like a loony and the financial benefits mostly.

>>27981
Are you Mark Corrigan?

>>27982
Almost.

>>27980
This. I can understand marrying for things other than love, but sharing at house with somebody who's so eager to kick you out at your lowest instead of helping you out is just bizarre.

>>27984
I hate to be that guy but it is one of those things that you'll understand when you get older.

Sage for being that guy.

>>27987
How old exactly are we talking? I'm currently 30 and still quite content on my own.

>>27987
I am older, it's a stupid situation to get yourself into.

>>27980
It makes affairs like children easier and you get a cake. Play your cards right and you might even get a cake every year until you die.

>>27987
What age is this? If a lass is giving ultimatums or conditions then I consider it over.

People treat marriage cynically these days but I still hold that the implicit agreement is still valid. You can't be a bastard but, to be old fashioned, you won't leave her if she gets ugly and she will have your potato-headed children. It's about not kicking someone when they're down or otherwise treating the relationship as a parasitic affair where you only love someone as far you materially gain from it.

>>27992
That's all fair but kicking your partner out mid-pandemic specifically after they've lost their job is a cunt move.

>>27993
Depends on how much of a cunt he's being. There's a lot we don't know about that poster seeing as we're going off a paragraph and a bit of information.

>>27995
>a lot we don't know about that poster

We learnt that he's a pandemic denying cunt, his partner is a money grabbing cunt, and his mother-in-law is a mercenary cunt if she's threatening to kick them out.

Sounds like they all deserve each other to be honest.

>>27703 here again.

Apparently it was 'only a suggestion' that those still WFH work an extra hour and not something they had to do.

>>28031

Unpaid overtime can only ever be a suggestion, certainly.

I have some suggestions of my own for whomever suggested it.

>>27993

>but kicking your partner out mid-pandemic specifically after they've lost their job

Probably not the best timing, but if a relationship is already on its dying breath, then what is the point of keeping it up just because there's a pandemic. Your partner will find a new flat and job.

One of my mates got dumped by his girlfriend eight weeks into his cancer diagnosis. That was some proper shit. She told him she already wasn't sure about the relationship anymore right before he got the diagnosis, but that it "wasn't fair on anybody" to keep up the relationship just because of the new situation.

>Investment company Aviva is to close offices across the UK and allow staff to work from home, beyond the pandemic. Aviva, which employs 16,000 people in the UK, said the plans would not lead to job cuts and people could still work from an office if they would rather.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-55738780

Do we reckon homeworking is here to stay? People I know who work in London have said the train stations there are pretty much back to normal at rush hour.

>>30541

I think it'll be half and half. I think a few will definitely be permanently WFH with video interviews for new employees, especially smaller firms. Some bigger firms may do the same, but I think many will still like a physical presence.

I do fear it might backfire on some people, those who assumed it is permanent, have moved and bought a place 100+ miles away, who will then find out that they are expected back in the office at some point.

I also fear that it will create two classes of employee, with bosses finding reasons to pay those WFH less, or offer more opportunities to those who come in physically.

I could be very wrong though, just a hunch.

>>30541
>People I know who work in London have said the train stations there are pretty much back to normal at rush hour.

I used to commute into London every day - I am hearing the complete opposite; guess it depends which stations you're talking about. Waterloo (which is the busiest station in the country) is nowhere near "back to normal".

I've been WFH since March, and I work for a bank in the City of London. We have no immediate plans to return to the office, I am expecting come May/June when it is thought many adults will be vaccinated, that I'll be told I only need to be in the office one or two days a week.

>>30541
>People I know who work in London have said the train stations there are pretty much back to normal at rush hour.

Nah, I've personally seen that at least Westminster-Victoria-Euston stations are all pretty dead. It's by no means empty but there's none of that being rammed into someone's armpit while sweat drips down your back.

Well aside from delivery drivers crowding around the fast food places anyway.

>>30542
>I also fear that it will create two classes of employee, with bosses finding reasons to pay those WFH less, or offer more opportunities to those who come in physically.

Even before this all happened my work was looking to get people WFH two-days a week due to building capacity. I don't see 'bosses' pushing against it considering how much money they can save but it is absolutely the case that coming into a central office helps your career prospects which is why many people work in London. Satellite offices maybe less so.

Discrimination will go the other way imo. Most people are working longer hours from home and the divide between home and office has been broken, people who want to work in the office will be an inconvenience who will scrap over chairs and may see job openings dry up. Don't celebrate too hard, you'll probably also be expected to be able to come in at short notice so your dream home in the countryside might be a hinderance.

>>30542

>I do fear it might backfire on some people, those who assumed it is permanent, have moved and bought a place 100+ miles away, who will then find out that they are expected back in the office at some point.

Somehow I can't really bring myself to feel all that sorry for such people, honestly.

>>30562
The media is focusing on the stories of well off people with stable jobs they can do from home, and a house. If you're in that position the lockdown isn't particularly bad, you just have to watch a lot of tv with your spouse and bask in the warm feeling of doing your bit. Is anybody thinking about all the poor fuckers on the low end who are out of a job, stuck in tiny rooms, without significant savings?

>>30542
>I do fear it might backfire on some people, those who assumed it is permanent, have moved and bought a place 100+ miles away, who will then find out that they are expected back in the office at some point.
Employers will need to think very carefully about that. For jobs that don't physically require you to be in a specific location to do them, they can expect significant pushback and talent drain if they try and insist on a return to the office. We need to get our heads around the idea that "2-3 days in the office, 2-3 days remote" as a strict pattern is pretty much unjustifiable in most cases. We also need to recognise that working remotely is not a perk or a bonus - if you're working remotely, you should be treated just as if you were in the office.

>I also fear that it will create two classes of employee, with bosses finding reasons to pay those WFH less, or offer more opportunities to those who come in physically.
There was always the idea that "nobody ever got promoted over Skype", though that's been challenged recently. I know there are companies saying that they'll be paying remote staff based on their own local markets rather than where the company is based, which again is something that needs to be pushed back on. Most companies until now have always insisted that the implications of where their staff chose to live were not their problem - they weren't going to give you extra if your rent went up, and they weren't going to not bollock you if you couldn't reliably travel to work - so I see no reason whatsoever why they should be the ones to benefit from the cost savings of staff working from home in cheaper areas. They shouldn't be cutting wages unless the employees are somehow contributing less value.

>>30566

> For jobs that don't physically require you to be in a specific location to do them, they can expect significant pushback and talent drain if they try and insist on a return to the office.

Also discrimination cases. Any job that requires attending an office is likely to be seen as prima facie discriminatory against women and people with disabilities.

>>30566

I think what we'll see in terms of permanent changes to the job world when the whole Covid what-have-you is over is fewer fixed-desk office jobs. If only about two thirds of your staff are at a desk in your offices at any one time and the rest are working from home that day, then you can save a good bit of overhead by reducing the office space that you rent. Especially with the trend of paperless offices in recent years where all your relevant files and data are on an Intranet server somewhere and you don't need to have access to a physical filing cabinet or other paperwork. More senior positions will probably always require a fixed desk, it's difficult to imagine a head of sales taking turns with somebody else, but many companies even before the crisis already had lots of hot-desk junior positions.

I'm pretty sure employers will attempt to cut corners at both ends though, in that they will also tell you, not entirely without reason, that because you only have to commute in two or three days a week, your commute expenses have gone down, and that raise you were promised will be put off. Especially now that we've got not only a health crisis but also a massive economic one.

>>30598

Commuting expenses have gone down, but if you are working at home then you are paying for office space, a desk, screen, chair, heating, etc instead of your employer.

For the middle classes in management (like myself) that already have all this stuff at home anyway this might not seem much of an expense, but for junior/less well-paid people these costs can be significant.

>>30607
My employer let everyone take home their entire workstation, including desks if you didn't have one at home.

>>30607

> but for junior/less well-paid people these costs can be significant.

Even if you live in a bedsit, you are going to have a chair and a table at home to work on. And if your employer doesn't give you a work laptop, any low-end £300 laptop from Curry's today has a built-in webcam to let you take part in video calls.

My heating and electricity costs have gone up slightly, but I am saving loads because I get to cook my own meals at home and don't have to go to any restaurants or take away places. I also use far less petrol.

>>30613

All office workers should be able to attend the mandatory office worker festival in the Seychelles - yes, I'm chartering a jet there, but even the poorest of them should be able to afford a rowing boat and a bit of effort.

>>30615

That comparison sounds like you had much more fun writing it than there is actual merit to it.

>>30613

>>30613
>you are going to have a chair and a table at home to work on

Actually many flatshares in cities have every single room as a bedroom. I bought a couch at the beginning of lockdown so that I had somewhere to sit, but the only other rooms I have access to in my house are the kitchen which has a table but isn't really an appropriate workspace, and the bathroom. I'm okay because my job is lab based, and I've been able to go into work in a covid-safe manner throughout the pandemic but I appreciate not everybody is so fortunate.

Another big issue with the WFH thing is for people with kids. Even if you have space to work at home for one person, what's the likelihood that there is deskspace for multiple people? I've been reading posts about people with a two or more children who don't have computers for everybody and have been told that education is moving all online with zero fair warning. Maybe a singleton with disposable outcome can go into Currys and buy a cheapie laptop, but if you are already budgeted at capacity it's unlikely that you will be able to afford the purchase of multiple computers especially with the uncertainty that the government is liable to reopen schools with short/no notice
As with most aspects of the pandemic, the detriment of this will fall more heavily on the backs of those who were already struggling financially before all this began.

Zarah Sultana has been going on about 'the digital divide' on Twitter recently and I think she is a cracking MP tbh

>>30618

>As with most aspects of the pandemic, the detriment of this will fall more heavily on the backs of those who were already struggling financially before all this began.

Any economic crisis tends to do that. Being at the bottom of the food chain has always been shit.

>>30618
>Zarah Sultana has been going on about 'the digital divide' on Twitter recently and I think she is a cracking MP tbh.

Isn't she the one who filmed herself throwing a load of flyers in a bin because "fuck da Tories" as she didn't understand how voting for select committees works and also said she'd celebrate the death of Tonty Blair?

She's largely struck me as a posturing idiot interested in superficial gotchas and zingers.

>>30624

Ironic.

>>30624

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgxIGI2phyk

Those are some unfortunate gaffes.

I guess there's a trade off between people who grow up in the political class (a la old etonians) and know the ins and outs of how the system works but have interests at odds with the elecorate, and young outsiders who don't know specifics but are much more likely to use their position to advocate for the people they represent.

She strikes me a little bit like a British AOC, although the trying to be edgy does more harm than good.

>>30627
As long as she doesn't go full Chuka "British Obama" Umunna on us.

>>30628
https://goodlawproject.org/update/computacenter-laptops/

Laptops supplied to vulnerable children by Tory donor firm cost twice what they should and are infected with Russian worm.

>>30629
I don't get it - when something like this happens, doesn't the bribed politician/establisment get dragged over the coals? Surely they'd be rather pissed at being used like that?
Or is that exactly what they're paid for - to take the heat after awarding a contract?

On second thought, a large part of the 'missing' half of the money might be found in Computacenter operational costs.

>>30630

Isn't the spyware linked to Russian servers a concern for National Security?

>>30630
>I don't get it - when something like this happens, doesn't the bribed politician/establisment get dragged over the coals?
In theory, yes.

>>30627
I think we've had enough 'young outsiders' for one lifetime. At this point I'd rather we get some doddering old fossils in, someone who has sat on a bajillion committees and managed to survive scandals. Someone utterly boring who will listen to their advisers and only tweet insipid bullshit to such a degree the Party tells them they don't have to do it anymore.

>young outsiders who don't know specifics but are much more likely to use their position to advocate for the people they represent.

An MP who can't be bothered to read up on her job or think about what she says isn't fit for office. It's not a case of not knowing the specifics, if you don't know you either use the resources at your disposal or you ask. The whole job is about good judgement for fucks sake.

Fucking young people, deport them all I say.

>>30633

She dumped the flyers because she didn't want to vote for a Tory minister. She didn't realise what you're supposed to do is vote for a Tory minister who will fuck with Ministers on the cabinet. It's not her fault that the British political system plays out like Franz Kafka's hallucinatory fever dream wank.

In your first paragraph you are describing the function of Civil Service Mandarins, not elected representatives.

Name a single young person not connected to the establishment who has had any significant influence on British Politics since 1997.

>>30634
>Name a single young person not connected to the establishment who has had any significant influence on British Politics since 1997.

>>30635
>Picture of national front from 1979

>>30636
I'm guessing the young person in it is Farage.

>>30637
Well I guess everybody in government was a young person at some point historically, so I guess my point is a moot one.

>>30635
Farage made his fortune working for the City of London before he got involved with politics as an 'outsider', his father was also a stock broker in the City of London, so he has generational wealth and I would consider that to be Establishment Ties in and of itself.

Even were that not the case and Martin Webster groomed this innocent young man. Webster was a member of the Young Conservatives and by that reason alone can be considered to be an Establishment figure. He was also active in a group called 'League of Empire Loyalists'. Make of that what you will.

Even discounting both of these points, Farage hasn't been anything resembling a 'young man' for 26 years. He was 35 when he first took office as an MEP.

And if Nigel Farage is the best refutation you have against the point I made initially, it serves only to support my point that the people in politics with any considerable influence have interests at odds with the electorate.

>>30640
What about Are Jayda? By the time Britain First were banned on Facebook they had about 2.5million people following them; they certainly played a large part in people getting radicalised on social media.

>>30634
>She dumped the flyers because she didn't want to vote for a Tory minister. She didn't realise what you're supposed to do is vote for a Tory minister who will fuck with Ministers on the cabinet.

i.e. She's didn't check on why it isn't done. A dangerous thicko.

>In your first paragraph you are describing the function of Civil Service Mandarins, not elected representatives.

It's character and yes they ought to be similar given we're talking about professionals. The politician commissions work on X, gets a proper assessment and list of viable options followed by it going back and forth periodically with a suitable level of consultation. Politicians are decision makers, that is what they do.

None of that policy-based evidence making or any other bollocks. Just boring stuff like we're a proper democracy.

>Name a single young person not connected to the establishment who has had any significant influence on British Politics since 1997.

Jo Swinson did a good job imploding what remained of the Liberal Democrats.

>>30641

Better in that she's young and non-establishment.

But being that she's a convicted criminal who has never been elected into office I would argue that her influence has been negligible, [spoilers]and if she really managed to influence 2.5 million British voters you can rest assured they would be voting Conservative. The system works as intended.[/spoiler]

Who was funding Britain First?
https://www.vice.com/en/article/43jzbp/britain-first-donations-shell-company-investigation

Again, if you are drawing parallels between an elected major party MP calling for an end to austerity and corruption and some mong with a facebook group hating on immigrants you might want to go and get yourself checked for brain worms.

We'll get there though lads. We'll find a young anti-establishment person that we can wag a finger at and use to justify the status-quo in all its dementia-addled glory.

>>30642
>Liberal Democrats
Lib Dems are a party for Tory voters who don't want to be thought of at Tories by their liberal friends.

>>30642

>we're a proper democracy.
lol

>>30643
>and if she really managed to influence 2.5 million British voters you can rest assured they would be voting Conservative. The system works as intended

How'd the "red wall" fare in the last election?

>>30646
Yes. I am saying that the pro-racist online communities were very successful in recruiting white working class traditionally labour voters to vote against their own economic interests due to racism.

>>30643
>>30644
So you mean someone you agree with. In which case I look up the baby of the house:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_of_the_House

And we trail through. Pamela Nash is now leading some unionist thing and Mhairi Black should be interesting unless you're just going to whinge that she hasn't achieved anything.

>>30645

Now look here! We might be a Constitutional Monarchy, But once in a while when they see fit we get to (with 10,000-100,000 other people), Pick a person, who is in the same club as a bunch of other people, and the lead of that club might get to pick who is in the government as long as more people get a seat from their club in a house and the monarch approves. Also there are a bunch of people who have equal power as the person we picked who are there because they are feudal barons.

>>30649
Can't say fairer than that.

>>30648
Have you got any that aren't Scottish though? As no Scottish Politician has ever really done anything of much substance.

>>30652
Heard you the first time m7.

>>30652
I thought we were playing no true Scotsman?