Inevitable Change – And The Fights Against It
David Danto
Top 50 Collaboration Industry Thought Leader, Evangelist and now Analyst - Engaged with UC, AV, Multimedia, Video, and AI... A general technology influencer, storyteller and force-multiplier.
I read an article the other day about the time that steam and then gasoline powered engines replaced horses as the way to get around cities.?We have experienced many such moments in the history of our culture – when a staple of our lives and routines is permanently and irrevocably changed by modern technology or advanced knowledge.?People (myself included) tend to want to stick to the old, familiar ways of doing things, and will do so until the inevitably of improvement is simply too much to fight against.?We’re at just such a point now, and it will have profound impacts on where and how we work and live, and what our communities will look like in the future.?We might never have gotten here if it were not for a virus that leapt from bats to people at a wet-market in China.?That tiny, invisible-to-the-naked-eye virus has reset how we will live going forward in multiple ways. ...Except it may take longer in New York City.
Before the pandemic, knowledge workers had to commute to a centuries old model of an office – the desks that were clustered-around the traditional factory floor – in order to perform their jobs.?Dozens of business publications and hundreds of firms looked-down upon remote workers as unproductive, lazy, second-class employees that would only be tolerated in rare circumstances when an employee had an issue that could not be helped otherwise.?To the surprise of these entrenched leaders, the pandemic proved once and for all that remote workers were absolutely more productive and happier than their commuting counterparts.?(I’ll spare my usual readers from re-reading the details and points affirming this, but if this topic or my opinions on it are new to you, feel free to read here and here as a couple of examples.)?Remote and hybrid working is replacing the old model of an every-day commute to an office in a big city just as surely as the electric light replaced the gas-lamp, vaccines replaced cupping, and automobiles replaced horses.?Anyone fighting it doesn’t truly believe the old ways are better, but rather probably believes the change will negatively impact them in some way that they are trying to prevent.?Those lined-up against this societal change include large city real-estate owners, office furniture manufacturers, restaurants and stores that serve commuters, and business leaders and owners who feel they will lose ‘power’ and ‘advantage’ over their employees.?None of those forces will have an impact on the eventual emergence of the truth of the situation, but they can sure cause some pain as they fight it tooth-and-nail.
Once such fight that leads the world in irony is being waged by New York City.?As one of the largest business centers in the world, NYC had a huge number of pre-pandemic people commuting to and from it every day, filling the ubiquitous skyscrapers and patronizing the stores and restaurants.?Now that the pandemic has proven to employees that most of them can do their jobs very well without that commute, most naturally don’t want to go back to the wasted time and uncomfortable experiences of commuting multiple hours a day.?The mayor of NYC however wants none of that.?He supports those stores and restaurants and needs to see employees get back to their old, outdated levels of patronage.?As a result, he has mandated that city employees may not have hybrid work – they MUST come back to their old offices.?When asked about it, he blatantly admits “I'm trying to fill up office buildings.” “How does that look that city employees are home, while I'm telling everyone else it's time to get back to work," he said.?The whole situation could be explained away as just one of the entities that perceive a ‘loss of power/advantage’ as I explained above, if it were not accompanied with a simultaneous push to ‘reduce congestion’ in the city.?
Speculative costs for the long discussed “congestion pricing plan” came out a week or so ago, with tolls into Manhattan rising to a whopping $23 for cars and $82 for trucks – specifically meant to reduce the number of people and vehicles in the area.?(Crowded cities around the world have looked at charging drivers fees for coming into them as a means of keeping the crowding down – incentivizing drivers to either stay away or take public transportation – with mixed results.)?In NYC’s case, they are essentially saying ‘come back’ and ‘stay away’ in the same breath.????
When one seeks an example of the term Draconian, one would be hard pressed to find a better one than a city management that says ‘you must come-back to be working in the office’ even though you’ve proven you don’t need to be doing so, ‘but you may not drive into the over-congested city, instead you must take uncomfortable, unreliable and dangerous public transportation.’
If history has shown us anything, it has proven that you can’t keep better ideas and better models a secret for very long.?New York City – along with our world’s other major urban areas – will eventually see societal forces push them to an inevitable future that includes less commuting, more distribution of where employees live, more cities with mixed use properties (businesses and residences) and a future that fully supports remote and hybrid working when it is an applicable, superior model (as it typically is.)?Company offices will be transformed from places of individual work to places of collaborative and group work – which require different layouts, modern equipment and cloud services.?However, until all the dust settles, just do as the mayor says: ‘Come back and congest New York City but don’t come back and add congestion.’ Then, I suppose, go play a game of Twister...
领英推荐
==============================================================
Please click the "like" button if you liked this blog as it will allow others in your network to see it. Feel free to comment / share as well.
Follow @NJDavidD on Twitter for real-time collaboration news and insights, business travel insights, and the occasional social media snark.
==============================================================
This article was written by David Danto and contains solely his own, personal opinions. David has over four decades of experience providing problem solving leadership and innovation in media and unified communications technologies for various firms in the corporate, broadcasting and academic worlds including AT&T, Bloomberg LP, FNN, Morgan Stanley, NYU, Lehman Brothers and JP Morgan Chase. He is also the IMCCA’s Director of Emerging Technology. David can be reached at [email protected] and his full bio and other blogs and articles can be seen at Danto.info.
Managing Editor of The Ferroequnilogist
2 年I have been saying that for years. We constantly hear that California is suffering from a housing crisis. This writer is disturbed that the “solutions" currently moving through the legislature, such as SB9 and SB10, are nothing more than heavy-handed attempts to overrule local priorities and impose higher densities on suburban communities. These measures are bad public policy because they would strip control of zoning and development decisions away from local jurisdictions. Unlike the ineffective and disingenuous “solutions” promoted by these two bills, let’s examine promising solutions to two problems facing the Bay Area and other densely populated areas statewide where land is prohibitively expensive and where the number of jobs vastly exceeds the available housing. First, let’s address a solution to the need for more housing units in these areas. Syndicated columnist Tom Elias proposes an innovative solution to the housing crisis. He suggests that office space left behind by companies who have sent much of their staff home to work could be converted to housing. Turning these abandoned office complexes into residences would keep the properties from declining in value and subsequently reducing the property tax revenue they produce for cities, counties and the state. Areas that would have become blighted are transformed into vibrant residential communities potentially bringing opportunities for small businesses and related jobs. With the proper safeguards for small businesses and those recovering from the pandemic, this kind of property conversion could be a real win/win for everyone. To help this solution to the housing crisis become reality, call your elected officials and urge them to oppose SB9 and SB10 and to support legislation that would convert abandoned office space into housing units. There is a lot of discussion recently about remote work and how it could solve the housing crisis by allowing those jobs currently located in expensive overcrowded areas to be disbursed throughout the state if employers would allow employees to work remotely. The Covid pandemic demonstrated that remote work is not only doable, but that productivity is high and companies can achieve substantial savings to boot. For some workers, there are some encouraging signs that remote work is here to stay. For example, CNBC recently reported “Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced that the company will allow all full-time employees to work from home if their jobs can be done remotely.” Unfortunately other organizations are requiring that most employees return to the office. In addition to its contribution to solving our housing crisis, remote work should be viewed as yet another effective means of fighting climate change. Public agencies, led by the “Congestion Management Agencies," could be leading the push for remote work. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) maintains this county’s Congestion Management Program (CMP), in accordance with California Government Code 65088. The intent of this legislation is to develop a comprehensive transportation improvement program among local jurisdictions that will reduce traffic congestion and improve land use decision-making and air quality. Government Code 65088, subsection (e), states “In order to develop the California economy to its full potential, it is intended that federal, state, and local agencies join with transit districts, business, private and environmental interests to develop and implement comprehensive strategies needed to develop appropriate responses to transportation needs.” Furthermore, the VTA board passed Resolution 2020.02.04 last year, declaring a "climate emergency." The “resolved” paragraph 2 of the resolution reads: “VTA staff will evaluate administrative procedures to incorporate the consideration of climate change impacts for all relevant proposed policies, programs, or actions approved by the Board of Directors.” Shortly thereafter, in a staff meeting, employees were requested to take action to fight global warming. Despite this, VTA is one of the organizations requiring staff to return to the office in seeming contradiction to the Resolution 2020.02.04, Government Code 65088, and the instructions given to staff to fight global warming. Why require office workers to contribute to the region’s traffic congestion when alternatives like remote work are available? Were congestion or climate change impacts considered when drafting this policy, as required by Resolution 2020.02.04 and Government Code 65088? Why is VTA not encouraging remote work wherever feasible? Government Code 65088 requires VTA to “implement comprehensive strategies" to solve congestion. VTA Board policy officially recognizes that there is a climate emergency. Therefore VTA should be encouraging everyone to work from home, starting with its own staff. Now is the time to contact your elected officials and urge them to direct VTA to live up to its obligations under Government Code Section 65088(e) and Resolution 2020.02.04 by allowing its staff to work .
It's complicated isn't it for cities? This popped up this week https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-08-17/as-remote-work-endures-downtowns-are-adapting about downtowns. I concur that office workers don't need to be IN offices - technology has made it possible to do pretty much anything from anywhere. Many of us knew that pre-COVID; others learned it. Some associations own their offices and can't unload them so to justify to their Boards why they purchased (v. leased), they are requiring people to return. Other entities still need to 'see' workers to believe they are working - it was and always will be nonsense. Those hurt are service workers. While hotels can have sales people not in an hotel, those who make meetings/conventions happen have to be there. If conventions happen, then restaurants, services of all kinds, need to be there. We're all facing decisions about how and where to live and meet. And the cost for those hotel and other service workers to get into NYC or any city may, even w/ gas prices dropping but w/ bus and subway services cut [see Boston, even temporarily] pose hardships so we're circling back to a shortage of workers. I have a headache.
Group Editor, Commercial and Security, Emerald
2 年The tolls have gotten truly obscene in the last several years, and it's a huge disincentive to the subsegment of people who otherwise would prefer to work in a communal office. (My former colleague is one such person who does not want to work from home.) Back in my Sound & Communications days, I had to cross the Throgs Neck Bridge or the Whitestone Bridge to get to the office. I believe it was $6.55 per one-way crossing, plus $1.66 on I-95. So, a total of $14.76 in tolls on the day.
Your Broadcast Technology Concierge | Fractional System Design, Broadcast Engineering for Live Events | Technical Manager, Show Management | Teaching & Mentoring
2 年Cities want people back to support the businesses that rely on workforce. Construction continues for new office space and buildings continue to stay empty.