How Much Do Recruiters Make?: Salary vs Commission
October 3, 2024
Share this post:
Return-to-office (RTO) mandates have been a buzzing topic lately in online media and social platforms. As the risks and precautions for working in-office caused by the pandemic are far behind, more companies are realizing that keeping their workforce fully remote is reducing their productivity and costing them money, but how accurate is this?
Despite the actual impact of having workers remote or in-house, employers are taking more rigid measures against those who refuse to get back in the workplace, triggering return-to-office anxiety among their workforce and ultimately an unprecedented conflict between both parts.
In an article for Inc., Joe Procopio states that increasing employee productivity is no longer a valid argument for companies handling return-to-office mandates as it’s been proved that professionals committed to their jobs will achieve high efficiency anywhere.
Instead, Procopio points out that forcing employees to come back to the workplace has led to a return-to-office war, a conflict between employers and employees, in which the first group appeals to studies that prove remote work damaged efficiency. At the same time, workers argue that for each of those, they can show one or even more researches that demonstrate working from home boosted production.
“What the final battle for all the return-to-office marbles is going to come down to is the people who believed they needed to be in a centralized location, realizing that the new ways to work together are good enough.”
For those doubtful that, in fact, there’s a conflict, the reaction of Dell employees to the RTO mandate they received earlier this year. In their return-to-office proposition, Dell required their workforce to choose between staying remote or shifting to a hybrid model. Procopio even points out that workers who opt to keep working from home agree to give up any promotion or move to a different role within the company.
According to numbers leaked by Business Insider, surprisingly, almost 50% of Dell’s workforce opted to stay working remotely regardless of the consequences for their career path. Way to go defending your position, right?
“How long are you going to fight that battle? How many people have to tell you that they’re willing to sabotage their own careers and just take your paycheck until you start calling that an equal-and-opposite hit to productivity?”
Orianna Rose Royle, writing for Fortune, recognizes that the conflict caused by the return-to-office mandates is getting worse as time passes, and both parties still fail to find a middle ground.
“It’s no secret that rigid in-office policies haven’t landed well with workers. Amazon is perhaps the most documented example of how ugly the RTO battle can get.”
Although Royle uses Amazon’s case —where nearly 30,000 employees have signed a petition against the return-to-office mandates and more than 1,800 have pledged to leave their jobs to take a stand— as an example of the conflict’s seriousness, there are more companies in strong disputes with their workforce over in-office policies.
Just to mention a few more, Patagonia gave 90 staff members a 3-day ultimatum to choose between relocating close to their workplace or quitting; Roblox has warned workers unable to attend their office in California that they need to find a new job; and Walmart has asked hundreds of workers to relocate to comply with their RTO mandate or leave their position.
“While it’s clear that some bosses are “quiet firing” —essentially creating a negative work environment to make an employee leave on their own accord— others are being more explicit.”
Even companies that aren’t forcing their employees to make a choice report a negative reaction from their workforce; nearly 99% of organizations that handled an RTO mandate have seen a drop in engagement, workers quiet quitting, or even threats about leaving their roles for real.
What makes the situation more risky is that according to a BambooHR survey cited by Royle, one in five HR executives have admitted their return-to-office mandates were meant to make part of their staff quit. On top of that, almost 40% of them stated that their company made layoffs because they didn’t get enough workers to quit in response to their policies.
In his article for Forbes, Alexander Puutio makes a future-oriented projection about how the tug-of-war between employees and companies can come to an end. Even though he mentions it’s too early to call a winner between fully remote, hybrid, or five-day-a-week policies, he states there are enough arguments to forecast that many return-to-office supporters will overturn their mandates by 2028.
Puutio argues that most RTO mandates obey a financial perspective, particularly, because employers want to avoid any losses from ditching their office’s leasing contracts. Unfortunately, this vision leaves no room to consider how it can affect employee engagement and performance.
“These calculations will change abruptly no later than 2028 by when more than 500 million square feet of commercial real estate leases will have expired.”
To back up this assumption, Puutio cites a stat from Avison Young that points out that during this year’s Q1, leasing was approximately 40% down compared to pre-pandemic numbers. With this in mind, it makes more sense that some companies are constantly pushing to get people back in the office. However, it’s more likely that once they get rid of their leases, remote work will dominate the labor market.
“Unless management is dead set on making their employees miserable whatever the cost, there’s no reason to believe that RTO mandates will become nothing but memory by the turn of the decade.”
The tug-of-war produced by the RTO mandates and how much it has escalated make the need to find a middle ground to calm things down more evident. Ironically, neither of the parties seems ready or willing to budge in the near future.
Regardless of why companies are pushing return-to-office mandates harder, whether it’s to avoid losing money from leasing contracts or the false premise of improving productivity, creating unique in-office experiences can be a more practical approach to bringing employees back to the office.
Inducing a bit of fear of missing out (FOMO) while still giving workers a chance to decide, employers will be more likely to increase their conviction to participate and ultimately drive people back to the office.
Contributed by Luis Arellano
WHAT DO YOU NEED TO FIND?
