> In BigCorps, if there's a stupid requirement, there's usually a reason for the stupid requirement to be there in the first place
Yes, but that doesn't mean it was ever a good reason, or that the reason still applies.
In a very large number of cases—like the one mentioned in the article—the primary reason is to let the company's management feel more "in control" of their low-level employees.
In a lot of (closely related) cases, it's straight-up racism, sexism, or classism. (Frankly, one can easily make a case that the working-from-home prohibitions fall into that category—they derive from an assumption that low-level employees are lazy and want to avoid work as much as possible, because they're analogous to the assembly-line employees of yesteryear, and thus assumed to be lower-class...which means lesser beings.)
Yes, but that doesn't mean it was ever a good reason, or that the reason still applies.
In a very large number of cases—like the one mentioned in the article—the primary reason is to let the company's management feel more "in control" of their low-level employees.
In a lot of (closely related) cases, it's straight-up racism, sexism, or classism. (Frankly, one can easily make a case that the working-from-home prohibitions fall into that category—they derive from an assumption that low-level employees are lazy and want to avoid work as much as possible, because they're analogous to the assembly-line employees of yesteryear, and thus assumed to be lower-class...which means lesser beings.)