Not just spending time with people selected by HR teams, where your deepest common bond is a shared reliance on the economic success of that employer – where if that changes relationships end
Remote isn’t just about the future of work
It’s a bridge to a higher quality of life
Rather than a job – and an office – being the anchor of our social lives, it’s about democratising access to opportunity
[ a thread ] 🌍🏠💻
Not just spending time with people selected by HR teams, where your deepest common bond is a shared reliance on the economic success of that employer – where if that changes relationships end
- single parents
- caring for family members
- health conditions and impairments
The offices makes staying in office work incredibly difficult if not impossible
Absolutely.
But is this an issue with remote or the implication of expensive cities and needing to live close enough to commute daily?
Absolutely.
But is this a natural issue with remote work, or an implication of COVID-enforced lockdown WFH where we can’t see family, friends, go to coffee shops or travel?
Is every person going to do it? No.
But should every individual have the flexibility to select the mode of work that they happiest with?
Absolutely.
Going forward, millions of people will have that.
I’m very concerned companies replicate ‘office culture’ and expectations remotely and we end up with surveillance tech in people’s homes
Replicating the office remotely is equally as bad
We need to use this paradigm shift to create a new system that leads to a higher quality of life.
This isn’t about replicating what we have – it’s about creating something new which is exponentially better
We need to build ‘the future of living’
More from Chris Herd
More from Society
Two things can be true at once:
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.
1. There is an issue with hostility some academics have faced on some issues
2. Another academic who himself uses threats of legal action to bully colleagues into silence is not a good faith champion of the free speech cause
How about Selina Todd, Kathleen Stock, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Ara, Sarah Honeychurch, Michele Moore, Nina Power, Joanna Williams, Jenny Murray, Julia Gasper ...
— Matt Goodwin (@GoodwinMJ) February 17, 2021
Or is it only Eric you pop at?
Are they all making it up too Rob?
Are they "beyond parody"? https://t.co/drQssTD0OL
I have kept quiet about Matthew's recent outpourings on here but as my estwhile co-author has now seen fit to portray me as an enabler of oppression I think I have a right to reply. So I will.
I consider Matthew to be a colleague and a friend, and we had a longstanding agreement not to engage in disputes on twitter. I disagree with much in the article @UOzkirimli wrote on his research in @openDemocracy but I strongly support his right to express such critical views
I therefore find it outrageous that Matthew saw fit to bully @openDemocracy with legal threats, seeking it seems to stifle criticism of his own work. Such behaviour is simply wrong, and completely inconsistent with an academic commitment to free speech.
I am not embroiling myself in the various other cases Matt lists because, unlike him, I think attention to the detail matters and I don't have time to research each of these cases in detail.