78 Comments - James - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:02 am: Yes. Government should be working to get people back into offices. The “remote” work economy is trash, and has a tremendously negative effect on our downtowns. - Larry Bowa Jr. - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:02 am: “We don’t have a society right now” This is quite an insane comment. Although I guess I agree to an extent, as I don’t know how we can keep a society intact when so many of its ‘elites’ occupy a mental fantasy world created by televised/online newsotainment. - Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:03 am: ===The “remote” work economy is trash=== That’s not an explanation. Explain what you would do. ===when so many of its ‘elites’ === Stick to the question. - H-W - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:09 am: I think it is a false assumption to suggest government can get people back into buildings. Short of buying these buildings for government purposes, the only model I can imagine is giving tax breaks for corporations to move offices that are filled from one location (e.g., the suburbs) to another (the city). The only guarantee to such a model would be the loss of state revenues, and the creation of lost revenues in the suburbs (a loss-loss model that only serves the purpose of helping Chicago at the expense of other places). As to Duffy’s comments, there are a lot of absurd notions there, including the idea that dropping sales tax in stores would compel people to shop in stores and avoid online purchases. - Just Me 2 - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:11 am: I think your question is worded wrong. There isn’t anything the government can do to move people back to offices, but the government can be supportive by providing good transportation, and taxing policies. Creating a new real estate transfer tax on downtown office buildings will surely not help get people to go back to the central business district and grow the city’s economy and tax base. - Pundent - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:11 am: We have a tight labor market and for the first time in my lifetime employees have some degree of leverage. Ultimately whether those workers are remote or in the office is between them and their employers. I don’t think the government could or should put their finger on the scale. Much like wearing suits in the office I don’t think we’re going back to the way things used to be. And I’m sure that is unsettling to people like Duffy. But he and others have no choice but to adapt. Some will, some won’t. - TheInvisibleMan - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:18 am: No. “You can’t walk outside and not have commerce in one of the largest cities in the world.” Paradigm shifts are always confusing to the people who insist on holding onto a past which no longer exists. The old system was not sustainable, any more than yearning for the days of coal delivery to your building was sustainable after technology improved. The old system worked, until it didn’t. Forcing it will simply prolong the pain of transformation. It’s up to the employers to figure this out on their own. Too many people have already changed their lifestyle. Working remote, means I can collaborate with a company or person located anywhere on the planet. Specifically those companies and people not under the yoke of a sate or local governments desire for a past which has gone by the wayside. I’ve done it for almost 20 years now. The pandemic simply expanded that same opportunity to more people, and they are better off for it. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:18 am: The government can start by taking the increase in the real estate transfer tax off the table The office market is clearly under duress, why does Mayor Johnson think a huge tax hike will somehow help the situation - Pundent - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:20 am: And the irony in all of this is that Duffy and his peers were always free market champions arguing that government should get out of the way. They enjoyed the power and freedom to dictate employment terms and workers had little choice but to go along. But the tide has turned. The free market they championed has identified a better way to get things done. And now Duffy wants the government to do what he fought tooth and nail. I guess it’s free market for me not thee. - ChrisB - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:21 am: That’s a hard no. Like it or not, WFH is now a benefit that people are basing their employment decisions on. It certainly factors into my compensation considerations, as in the amount of money that my employer would need to pay me to make up for the train tickets, daycare, and general piece of mind would be astronomical. The incentives provided by the state and local governments would cost way to much to be spent on me. I’d rather the money be spent on kids and services. - New Day - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:23 am: 100% on employers. As an employer I don’t want the state telling me what to do with my employees. Would I prefer they were in the office almost everyday? Absolutely. Can I command them to do so in 2023 without losing the best of them? No way. So we compromise and promote team cohesion the best we can. - Original Rambler - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:24 am: Great question. I think that government needs to play a part in getting employees back into the offices first by example. I hear that JB has state employees in the office three days a week so that’s a good start. Perhaps some incentive can be created for employers to bring employees back. This guy Duffy sounds like he’s setting the table for a move. Would not have expected that from a native Chicagoan. - Larry Bowa Jr. - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:26 am: Sorry, I’ll address the question. State and local government should absolutely not try to get involved in the decisions of private sector businesses as to where their people work. There is no incentive the government can offer that trumps the benefit to me of not wasting 12 hours per week commuting. A lot of people have rearranged their daily schedules out of necessity since covid, which is an underreported aspect of the resistance to RTO mandates. Anyway I’m sorry the Duffys of the world feel themselves losing a tiny bit of the control they have over others. I’m sure that’s a very unsettling feeling when you’ve become accustomed to having it. As for the city, they’re going to have to figure it out. Asking corporate America to assert the whip hand over its employees in order to help out the city’s tax base is not a plan. - Rich Miller - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:26 am: ===I think your question is worded wrong=== Take it up with Duffy. - Middle Way - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:29 am: It should be on the employers, but it will be a unique combination of “carrot and stick”. Incentives mixed with educating employees about how their coming into the office impacts everyone from workers on Metra to local restaurants that thrive on lunchtime business. Here’s an article about why businesses may be best placed to do this - sometimes their tax breaks require them to have a particular amount of employees working in the office. See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks I’m honestly not certain what the situation is in Chicago and suburbs regarding these incentives as article does not discuss. Maybe a reader with more knowledge can weigh in (I’d be interested in knowing). - New Day - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:29 am: “We don’t have a society right now.” I reread his comments twice. While I agree about the Mayor and some of the issues and not having a financial transaction tax, I’m stuck on that line. What the heck does that mean? Sounds like a Trumpian talking point. - vern - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:34 am: I don’t think government has either a duty or a mechanism to discourage remote work or encourage commuting. But if capital is concerned that there aren’t people out and about spending money, they should consider giving their employees more money and more free time to spend it. That seems like a more reasonable solution than government-enforced commuting. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:36 am: ===Do you think state and local government should play a role in moving people back into offices, or should that be on employers?=== Employers. You want talent… or is the goal to *get* talent… but talent that will be in an office? Employers. All day. - LastModDemStanding - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:38 am: Government shouldn’t do anything to force private employees back into the office, however, Government can help cultivate an in-office culture by having their employees in-office. As stated, it’s a tight labor market, and perhaps that’s a bargaining chip for new hires, but there’s plenty of incentives for both parties to offer, such as subsidized/free public transportation, snacks & meals [I’ve been to meetings at CME- solid snack selections], lunchtime fitness & wellness events, flexible in office hours (for the folks who want to be able to pick up their kids at 4:30pm). A vibrant office environment goes a long way, and successful states rely on successful downtown/population centers. - Pundent - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:49 am: =I’m stuck on that line. What the heck does that mean?= I take it as a desperate cry from a guy losing the control he once had. He sees the autonomy of workers as an existential threat. - Demoralized - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:50 am: It should be on the employers. And they’re going to have to incentivize employees to come back into the office with higher salaries or some other benefit if they want to keep their employees from simply going somewhere else who continues to offer a substantial amount of remote work time. You can’t just snap your fingers anymore. The old model of 5 days a week in the office is dead. If you want it back you’re going to have to pay for it. - TheInvisibleMan - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:50 am: “What the heck does that mean?” I can’t speak for him, obviously. But I’ve seen a similar attitude many times. It’s very strong in middle-management types too. What he is saying, is the mechanisms he has been accustomed to to gain and preserve power, control, and wealth for himself and associates, is going away. Instead, new mechanisms for those things have arisen, and he refuses to adapt to them. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:50 am: It’s more reasonable for businesses to give people more money for working less hours? The comments here never disappoint - Jocko - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:54 am: Government should wait and see how things ’shake out’…possibly propose new revenue streams to offset infrastructure costs and the like. As for Duffy, I doubt there’s ANY tax he would be fine paying. To him, water/sewers, sidewalks/streets, streetlights/public safety are things that little people should have to pay for. - ORD-ELP - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:55 am: SNARK DISCLAIMER: How government could “encourage” people to work in office. If you work at home your residence is considered a business and Chicago/Cook County adjusts your property taxes to the commercial assessment rate. Sure it’s political suicide, but it’d get people back to the office in a hurry. It also answers the question of what could possibly be less politically popular than the financial transactions tax that isn’t happening. - Dupage Dem - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:00 am: It should be on the employers. WFH has many advantages and employers will need to work with that. Rising costs in childcare and transportation can and should be addressed by the government which does have impact on bring folks back to the offices too. So I guess I change my answer to both need to work together if the goal is to really bring people back to the buildings. - levivotedforjudy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:00 am: The only way government can make people go back to offices is if we emulate China or i.e. have the City of Chicago take over ComEd. This is on companies 100%. It has been sort of proven that back-office functions can be done remotely, but when collaboration is needed in areas like R&D and new product development (i.e. Google), having in-person face time is needed. But, younger workers are fighting going to the office. They don’t want to, maybe because they never experienced the benefits of it. - Huh? - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:00 am: No. Unless there is a public health problem with WFH, government should not be imposing/encouraging a return to the office for private businesses. - Suburban Mom - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:01 am: Making knowledge workers who don’t need to be in an office be in an office is bad for everybody except these rich dudes who bought office towers. Commuting sucks and it pollutes; childcare is hard to find; sitting in an office being on calls all day when I could be sitting at home being on calls is obnoxious. For the people who do actually need to be physically present to work, their commutes are less crowded, childcare spots are more available, etc., when you don’t have a ton of computer jockeys being forced into an office so their Boomer boss who doesn’t know how to manage people or measure outputs can stare at them and feel comfortable that they’re MANAGING. I’d like to see some jurisdiction experiment with requiring employers to pay for employees’ commute times. You can pay enough that your people can live close to the office, or you can pay them for the time they spend getting there. (Salaried employees who’ve been RTO’d without a good reason are already acting this way.) - Frida's boss - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:04 am: Tell Duffy to pound sand. The days of Baby Boomers deciding that everyone has to do things their way is gone. They were able to make Gen X bend because Gen X didn’t have enough people. Now that Gen X, Millenials, and Gen Z significantly outnumber the Boomers and are forcing them to change their ways, they are mad. They want it all back the way it was. - The Dude Abides - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:09 am: =Government shouldn’t do anything to force private employees back into the office, however, Government can help cultivate an in-office culture by having their employees in-office. As stated, it’s a tight labor market, and perhaps that’s a bargaining chip for new hires, but there’s plenty of incentives for both parties to offer, such as subsidized/free public transportation, snacks & meals [I’ve been to meetings at CME- solid snack selections], lunchtime fitness & wellness events, flexible in office hours (for the folks who want to be able to pick up their kids at 4:30pm).= As an employer, government is severely restricted in what meaningful “carrot” incentives it can offer for RTO. Subsidized transport? I have multiple employees who commute from 20-30mi away. Snacks/meals - hahahahahaha. Outside of overpriced crappy vending machines, never going to happen in my lifetime without a seismic shift in the public’s mindset. To the question - 100% it’s on the employer. Where government needs to step in is when buildings go vacant, they need to work with the business community to ensure the newly-vacant spaces get utilized. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:11 am: Anecdotally, A late 20s software engineer that has a record of building IT products, etc, was recruited and the potential poacher got to the part of expectations. “If I need to be in an office for more than 1 day a week, I’m not your person. My career highlights and accomplishments were done not in an office but collaboratively through other mediums.” The point? If the goal of the exercise is a bunch of upper middle management doing head counts in office spaces, some workers want to work more than be baby sat. It’s up to employers to make choices to entice, it’s not on these workers to feel compelled to be baby sat (as they see it) - West Sider - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:14 am: A role. Maybe. If employers can demonstrate a larger public interest. Maybe. WFH is a permanent fixture, because it serves the interests of workers. The challenge for employers is to create housing and lifestyles around workplaces, which make a centralized workplace attractive again. Does government have a role? Maybe. - DHS Drone - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:20 am: Leave it between employers and their employees. If the job can be done from home, why on earth force someone to commute for 2 hours when they can just work from home. We are not your economic engine. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:25 am: ===It’s more reasonable for businesses to give people more money for working less hours?=== Hmm ===“If I need to be in an office for more than 1 day a week, I’m not your person. My career highlights and accomplishments were done not in an office but collaboratively through other mediums.”=== - Homebody - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:26 am: Absolutely not. The “government should stay out of business” folks are always conspicuously silent when it comes to using the weight of government to push labor around. - Pundent - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:31 am: = It’s more reasonable for businesses to give people more money for working less hours?= If that’s what the free market requires then yes. Unless you don’t believe in free markets and feel the government should dictate the terms and conditions of employment. That doesn’t sound like freedom to me. - The Truth - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:39 am: I take it as a desperate cry from a guy losing the control he once had. He sees the autonomy of workers as an existential threat. That’s a big ol’ bingo right there. - thunderspirit - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:39 am: Employers. The market demands flexibility, so the way to get prospective employees to give up that flexibility is to compensate them for doing so. That can only be done by the employers. - DuPage - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:40 am: Chicago is #1 nationwide…in traffic congestion and average number of hours per year stuck in traffic. The state should go ahead and do road projects that would help alleviate the millions of man-hours lost getting to a downtown office. The city could give employers passes for discounted or even free parking at nearby parking areas. The passes would be issued monthly with an updated employee count. (one per employee). The city/county could reduce their sales tax, but the state sales tax should be uniform statewide. - vern - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:45 am: == It’s more reasonable for businesses to give people more money for working less hours? == If they want people to spend more time and more money, they’ll need to give people more time and more money. That strikes me as pretty linear, not sure what I’m missing. - Friendly Bob Adams - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 11:52 am: No role for government. Most people are happy to be working remotely. It’s a big change for downtown traffic and for office rentals. But big changes happen sometimes. To me this is a fascinating situation. Completely unanticipated but having a huge impact. People understand periods of history such as before and after electricity or the automobile or television. Maybe this will be seen as the before and after period of remote work? - Suburban Mom - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 12:17 pm: ===It’s more reasonable for businesses to give people more money for working less hours?=== A lot of workers in the Loop are salaried. I’m not paid hourly. I’m paid for doing a highly-skilled job, and I take as long as it takes to do it. If for some reason you feel the need to STARE at me while I do it so you know it’s getting done, that’s fine, but I’m not giving my job any more of my day than it has right now, so that’s about two hours of useful work/day that you’re losing to my commute — and actually, it’s more than that, because sitting in an open office makes it hard to concentrate, and tiring commutes mean my Thursday and Friday work is worse than earlier in the week, because I’m tired and thinking slowly later in the week. If a business wants my highest-quality work, and the most hours I can give, they’ll let me work at home. If it is more valuable to them that I be physically present in an office, then they are getting less hours and lower-quality work out of me. Which is the reason why only managers who do not actually know how to manage and do not know what constitutes a high-quality work product are calling people like me back into an office. LP, it sounds like you’re in the camp where you accept lower-quality work so you can enjoy greater control over your workers’ day. And that’s fine, but you’re going to get lower-quality work, and you’re going to end up with lower-quality workers over time, because people are going to leave for greener pastures where their manager knows how to actually evaluate their work product. - JS Mill - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 12:19 pm: No to government intervention. If companies want people to work in the office, then dismiss those that won’t and try and hire people that will. Maybe they will realize you have to make adjustments some times. (the companies that is) - Excitable Boy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 12:22 pm: Let’s pass a law to ban electronic trading and Terry can open the pits back up. That ought to fill up an office or two. - Steve Polite - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 12:23 pm: “Government can help cultivate an in-office culture by having their employees in-office.” Why should in-office full time for government employees, or any employees for that matter, be a strict policy for all employees with all the technology and online collaboration tools that exist today? Just because; or to help downtown businesses? It feels like babysitting and mistrust. I work for the state and am on a hybrid remote schedule, two days in office, three days at home. Whether I am at home or in the office, I sit in front of a computer all day. My colleagues and I collaborate online through MS Teams and hold meetings over Webex. What purpose or operational need does it serve to force us to commute to and from the office, even two days a week, and sit in our cubicles when all our work, including meetings, is performed online anyway? Plus state contractors doing the same work are allowed to work 100% remote. That doesn’t seem fair either. Remote work should be between the employees and their employers. “Human beings weren’t meant to sit in little cubicles staring at computer screens all day.” - Peter Gibbons - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 12:29 pm: What you are missing that people working less hours will result in less economic activity for the employers and less tax revenue for the government - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 12:42 pm: ===What you are missing that people working less hours will result in less economic activity for the employers and less tax revenue for the government=== So remote work is less impactful economically for a company? You’ll need to cite that one. Baby sitting folks “because tax revenues and productivity” is so 20th century. - Six Degrees of Separation - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 12:48 pm: There is a strong gender component in the push to go back to the office, namely that women ain’t for it. Politically, this is a place where “government” may not want to tread. https://thehill.com/chang ing-america/respect/equality/3746780-compared-wit h-men-more-us-women-prefer-working-from -home-to-the-office-poll/ - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 12:57 pm: I’ll start… “cite” https://shorturl.at/ilzIT “Remote employees work longer and harder, studies show” By Daniel De Vise’, 07/24/23 I voted “Employer” in part because the culture of the corporation is more likely going to dictate a want to “the want”, even if any study agrees… or disagrees. This idea that business is… whatever… to “in office”… the financial to government, taxes, and corporate culture is larger than the simple “if I don’t see them working, they won’t work” - Chambananon - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:02 pm: ===- Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 10:50 am: It’s more reasonable for businesses to give people more money for working less hours? The comments here never disappoint=== LP, the irony of your statement is monumental. This comment is a quintessential example of your contribution here on most topics: total failure to grasp the primary concept (the workers are still performing the same tasks, so no “less work” is happening, they just aren’t wasting time/money/energy commuting), while also failing to grasp the economic principle underlying it: people who are highly-productive are worth more to a company. If a company can pay someone less to have them do the same work remotely that they would otherwise do in-office, then the *company* is profiting off of that deal at least as much as the employee. Please consider taking a basic Econ course sometime, if only for the sake of the readers. - Larry Bowa Jr. - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:04 pm: “What you are missing that people working less hours will result in less economic activity for the employers and less tax revenue for the government” Well that explains it. Glad I spent 8 years in post-secondary education and another 2-3 learning my trade so that I can fulfill my life’s true purpose: riding the train downtown in order to buy overpriced lunches in the Loop to prop up the economy. - JB13 - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:07 pm: If government cares that city centers will be hollowed out, then yes, there should be policies enacted to encourage people to work downtown. If not, then leave it to business to figure out, and electeds can figure out where we’re getting the tax revenue to replace the cash cow that is vanishing before your eyes. So enjoy your WFH autonomy, but be prepared to pay the difference to support the cities you claim to love so much - ChrisB - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:08 pm: Oh LP, how many hourly workers, minus foodservice, do you think work in the Loop? And unless they are a lawyer on billable hours, economic activity isn’t measured in hours. I make the same, and by extension, the government collects the same, no matter how many hours I work. - FormerParatrooper - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:18 pm: The Government at various levels have regulations for such things as work place safety and the such. That is a government responsibility. As far as Government being a mechanism to force people to work in offices, that is a big NO. Each employer has to make the decision based on the new reality we live in. Each employee has to decide what they will accept as a condition of employment. I don’t have a dog in the fight, I work remotely because of the nature of my career. It is impossible for the customer to bring a faraday cage to me to repair or modify. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:20 pm: ===If government cares that city centers will be hollowed out, then yes, there should be policies enacted to encourage people to work downtown. If not, then leave it to business to figure out, and electeds can figure out where we’re getting the tax revenue to replace the cash cow that is vanishing before your eyes. So enjoy your WFH autonomy, but be prepared to pay the difference to support the cities you claim to love so much=== This is like cheering Chicago morphs more into a downtown like Dallas than trying to learn and grow and continue to evolve to look more like NYC (Manhattan) Overall city living is bigger to business than the Dallas downtown example without actual neighborhood living… and forcing folks to the workplace won’t magically make anyplace more like Manhattan. - Steve Polite - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:21 pm: “people working less hours will result in less economic activity” Who’s talking about less hours? Remote work is about performing the same work at a different location. And less economic activity, how? If I am working the same hours and earning the same income, my economic spending activity won’t change other than where my spending takes place. Unless like Larry said, you are implying we should be in office to prop up businesses in one specific industry (restaurant) in one area (downtown). Restaurants that have good food, good service, and reasonable prices don’t need propping up. - Bruce( no not him) - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:22 pm: Disclaimer: I have never had a job that could be worked remotely. Before my retirement, my job was hands on. (Service industry) If employers want folks to come back to the office, they need to make it worth while. Employees, for at least the short term, have bargaining rights now over where they want to work. In other words, incentives to work in office. $$$ talk. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:23 pm: OW as usual you completely miss the point and put words in my mouth I never said remote work resulted in less productivity, I said working less hours does. Did you miss Vern’s comment that companies should pay workers more and cut their hours worked? The USA had the most productivity per worker in the world because we work more hours https://www.conference-board.org/researc h/economy-strategy-finance-charts/Product ivity-April2022#:~:text=Among%20major %20economies%20and%20regions,small %20European%20economies%20outperforming%20it. - Demoralized - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:31 pm: ==It’s more reasonable for businesses to give people more money for working less hours?== I’m pretty sure that wasn’t the question. But it’s unsurprising that you would go off topic. ==I said working less hours does== Not necessarily true. Just because you say it doesn’t make it so. - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:33 pm: - LP - You’ve been here long enough. Use “shortr URL”. Ugh. Yeah, that was “April 2022” My cite, this past July in 2023 was a study of Microsoft. I also wrote this… ===Baby sitting folks “because tax revenues and productivity” is so 20th century.=== Gaslighting me to this idea of not responding to your twisted thought to - Vern - is a thing you’ve been using for a long time. Your want to supervised office hour productivity is 20th century backwards to works just not buying into that culture. It’s up to employers to sell that culture, not the government to endorse it - Demoralized - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:37 pm: ==because we work more hours== And I’m not sure that’s the goal we should be striving for. Other countries place a different priority on work where work isn’t the end all, be all of everyone’s existence. Where my wife comes from they have mandatory 4 weeks vacation time. And people don’t live to work, they work to live. Much happier people. And they don’t make any less money. Contrary to the American attitude work doesn’t have to be your life. You can serve your employer well and be productive without having to work more and more hours to do so. We’re considering moving back to her home country because of that work attitude. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 1:42 pm: Hey Vern, are you with the UAW? Going on strike demanding 20% less hours in return for a 40% pay hike Maybe you can explain how that will result in more cars produced - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:01 pm: - LP - “UAW’s Fain says GM agrees to put battery plants under national agreement” Breana Noble, The Detroit News, today, 2:33pm eastern ===United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain said Friday that General Motors Co. had agreed to place its battery plants under the union’s national agreement, averting a planned strike at the automaker’s full-size SUV plant in Arlington, Texas. During a planned “stand up” announcement on Facebook Live, Fain said the Detroit automaker had agreed to 23% in wage hikes, more than Ford Motor Co. or Stellantis NV.=== Can we move on? - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:08 pm: It is in the state of Illinois, Cook County and city of Chicago’s best interests to have a safe, thriving economy in the downtown area. The governments main responsibility is public safety and they are failing - 48th Ward Heel - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:10 pm: “I want people back in the office. We need to have a society, dagnabbit. Also I’m keeping my options open to move this company halfway across the country, and that’s if I’m still working for it in a year and a half.” This might be wildly unworkable, but would it be possible to pass a law capping work hours on on-site days? As in, if you come into the office on a given day and work your 9-5 you can’t be compelled to answer any more calls or emails once you walk out the door? - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:18 pm: ===It is in the state of Illinois, Cook County and city of Chicago’s best interests to have a safe, thriving economy in the downtown area. The governments main responsibility is public safety and they are failing=== Narrator: Illinois, which includes Cook County and the city of Chicago, is one of 5 states that has a Trillion (with a T) Dollar GDP ~44 other states would like that problem. - Demoralized - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:23 pm: I always knew you were anti-work @LP. You just keep proving it over and over and over again. Here’s hoping you aren’t an employer. - Demoralized - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:24 pm: Sorry . . . anti-worker - Demoralized - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:29 pm: ==Maybe you can explain how that will result in more cars produced== Nothing to do with the topic at hand. Go be dishonest somewhere else. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:38 pm: “The office vacancy rate in the heart of the city during the past three months rose to an all-time high of 23.7% from 22.6% midway through the year, according to data from brokerage CBRE. The share of available space is up from 21.3% a year ago and 13.8% when the public health crisis began, and has now hit a new record high for the 10th time in the past 12 quarters.” https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/downtown-chicago-vacancy-rate-hits-another-record-high All hands should be on deck on this trying to control what they can control, which is basically just public safety and reliable, safe public transportation, both of which leave a lot to be desired - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:46 pm: ===All hands should be on deck on this trying to control what they can control, which is basically just public safety and reliable, safe public transportation, both of which leave a lot to be desired=== That’s where a discussion to those thoughts can begin. You’re adding. I’m proud of you. If those two governing items can be addressed, and to the post on that, it’s still up to employers to then incentivize its workers. The city administration needs to first fill vacant jobs on 5 to tackle things, which they seem to be unable to do. - Pundent - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:50 pm: =It is in the state of Illinois, Cook County and city of Chicago’s best interests to have a safe, thriving economy in the downtown area.= There’s no disputing that. But it is not the government’s role to dictate where work is performed. And I’m surprised you would endorse such an idea since you despise government regulation. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 2:53 pm: I always try to add to the discussion from my perspective which is in the minority here and in this state That usually gets a lot of pushback from the defenders of the status quo , who can’t handle any criticism of the democrats who are in charge here Hopefully the url length met with your satisfaction - Oswego Willy - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 3:05 pm: ===from the defenders of the status quo , who can’t handle any criticism of the democrats who are in charge here=== No, your victimhood is the only note I’ll make. Have a good Friday - Pundent - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 3:07 pm: =I always try to add to the discussion from my perspective…= Your “perspective” is nothing more than hyper-partisan hyperbole riddled with inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and contradictions. You are routinely called out on it all the while playing the victim. - Lucky Pierre - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 3:11 pm: Again I never said anything about the government requiring companies to end remote work for even their own employees and I never claimed to be a victim. It’s just a fact that I get under your skin far too easily. I actually enjoy reading the over the top reactions from you and others to some of my comments - Demoralized - Friday, Oct 6, 23 @ 3:18 pm: ==I always try to add to the discussion == No, you don’t. You try to twist yourself into a pretzel so long as it makes your hyperpartisan point of everything Democrat = bad. ==who can’t handle any criticism of the democrats== Sure people can handle that. What they can’t handle is your incessant dishonesty in trying to make those criticisms. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.