Re:JPMorgan Reportedly Ending Remote Work for More Than 300k...
by itake on Saturday January 11, 2025 @07:51PM
(#42670222)
Why do the landlords have control over tech ceos?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:JPMorgan Reportedly Ending Remote Work for More Than 300k...
by kcb on Saturday January 11, 2025 @07:53PM
(#42670236)
JPMorgan are the landlords. They just finished building one of the biggest skyscrapers in NYC for their use https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/270_Park_Avenue_(2021%E2%80%...
Someone needs to at least be able to portray a return on that investment.
Re:JPMorgan Reportedly Ending Remote Work for More Than 300k...
by senderista on Saturday January 11, 2025 @08:31PM
(#42670424)
Institutional investors in Big Tech also have investments in commercial real estate?
Re:JPMorgan Reportedly Ending Remote Work for More Than 300k...
by hdjjhhvvhga on Sunday January 12, 2025 @06:14AM
(#42672740)
In this particular case we are talking about a large company that owns a lot of commercial real estate and invests heavily in it. From their point of view, allowing people WFH is acting against the best interests of the company - if these commercial buildings are sitting empty, their value goes down.
I see their point but as an employee I would never work for them unless completely broke and desperate - and even then only temporarily, just to have time to find a better job that allows WFH.
Re:JPMorgan Reportedly Ending Remote Work for More Than 300k...
by goodklopp on Sunday January 12, 2025 @03:04PM
(#42676410)
They could instead rent it out right? Employees are happy, money is flowing in. win win.
Re:JPMorgan Reportedly Ending Remote Work for More Than 300k...
by Ekaros on Sunday January 12, 2025 @03:05PM
(#42676420)
Problem is demand. If everyone else also have people working remotely... So what they have to first do is to show it themselves.
Re:JPMorgan Reportedly Ending Remote Work for More Than 300k...
by disambiguation on Sunday January 12, 2025 @09:50PM
(#42679558)
I think most corporate America works this way. Every company has a board of directors (i.e stake holders (i.e investors, with many investments, including land)) they pass down edicts from on high. "If you want my money you have to do XYZ." From there c-suite executives figure out how to pull it off. Sometimes investments in one area affect decisions in another, which is technically a conflict of interest, which is technically illegal, but hey that's why America is famous for its corporate integrity.