A lot of times, when people discuss the phenomenon of employers ending work-from-home and try to make their employees come back to the office, people say that the motivation is to raise real estate prices.

I don’t follow the logic at all. How would doing this benefit an employer in any way?

  • bouh@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This thesis lacks logic. If a company already paid the office, people going into it or not changes absolutely nothing. And if the rent is going to end, you can save buttloads of money by forcing everyone at home.

    • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There are taxes, utilities which have to be paid just because one owns the property. Commercial taxes are many times 2-10 times more than residential.

      Those who have bought it would rather use it bcoz no one is buying it.

      Rental agreements are usually multi-year contracts with increasing rent. Breaking contracts are costlier than calling people back to the office.

      Edit: for those saying that rental agreements have already been paid, rental agreements don’t have an occupancy clause.

      Logic behind rental offices needing occupancy is that usually the agreements are for big spaces for 10-15 years. If you have 3000+ sqft office space kept closed gives a negative perception of the company going in loss or the office being closed.

      Public understood closed offices during the pandemic, but post that it harms the business. For a publicly traded company perception is everything.

      One can pay utilities for keeping the lights up without making people come to the office. However people coming in and out also gives an impression of work happening and normalisation of the companies.

      I run a small company with a 3000 sqft office space bought and paid for. For 6 months after the pandemic I did give an option for wfh. The word however spread that the office and the company has closed.

      In business perception is everything.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Again, when you have a rental agreement, the money is payed already, whether you are in it or not. No need to négociateur anything. People working in the building will actually cost even more because you have the electricity and cleaning and etc.

        The building is money already lost for the company. There is no justifying anything. The decision was taken years ago. If the decision was to be taken now, now then you need to justify why you would loan a building when you can simply send people to work for home.

        And finally, yes, those who owns will be angry. But who cares? A company usually doesn’t own its building and thus doesn’t care about their prices.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or you can just not use the office. It is very rare that rental agreements require full occupancy.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why didn’t you just put on a sign on the front saying “we’re still open, here’s our contact info”?

        Seems like a really easy problem to fix.

        • reddit_sux@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Didn’t help even when I had the front office open and populated with a receptionist. The overall look of the office without lights gives a rundown look.

          If I am wasting money on power and other utilities I might as well use it.

          For a sign people have to read it. Public would rather assume than read 3 words.