Not me, but I've had a direct peer fired because they did not comply. They received recurring monthly notices for about 6 months and were then terminated (no severance or other allowances were given that are typically given to performance-based termination).

This peer was typically evaluated as a high performer during performance reviews, but was denied for their request to remain remote, and they decided to ignore the order and accept the consequences.

The organization is also actively monitoring and blocking bonuses and promos for those who are not fully ignoring the mandate but are not meeting the full expectation.

USA based financial institution.

> The organization is also actively monitoring and blocking bonuses and promos for those who are not fully ignoring the mandate but are not meeting the full expectation.

That's what they're saying, at least. My easiest promotions have all been from changing companies; to give up a job because I (hypothetically might) get offered another is a luxury I can't afford right now. And, I'd bet better than even money that there's going to be a lot of "not in the budget" syndrome going around near the holidays.

In other words, them saying that they're actively monitoring, blah blah, might actually be a subtle and distant crack of the whip. The real story is that the job market for highly paid professionals is still absolutely fucker. Employers, of course, know this, and will take any opportunity to capitalize on it, even at the expense of their best workers. It's not 2-3 years ago, when people could peace out at the drop of a hat, because a job would roll in soon enough just by making a LinkedIn post and sending out a handful of resumes.

Idiotic decision by that employer. Who cares where the employee is, if they're a top performer?

I'm convinced the back to office mandates come from people who thrive in office environments. Those people succeed, get promoted, become leadership, and then assume everyone else works just like they do. It's absolutely not the case.

That's without going into the many, many studies of office environments which provide empirics disproving common myths about office work, such as the oft-repeated lie that open offices encourage collaboration. Those facts just don't compute for people who love working in those spaces, so they ignore them and repeat happy lies instead.

I understand this take, but let me present the flip side:

There are two ways of working, remote or in person. Hybrid is a swan song of bullshit where you get the worst of both worlds and few of the advantages. So organizations need to make sweeping changes one way or another: either restructure towards remote-first or return to pre-covid paradigms by not only getting people back to the office, but also teams back in the same office. Both require some pretty sweeping changes to get there, and it's understandable (if maybe not defensible) that a majority of established organizations don't want to reinvent themselves.

At the end of the day, if in-person is the final vision, yes you should be fired if you don't comply with it. Almost everyone is replaceable, including even the top levels of management. Keeping employees who are actively hostile to (remember, not just disagreeing, but actively disregarding) a core organizational standard doesn't help anything --- regardless of their performance.

All that being said, I find it amazing that companies were presented the opportunity to use a new remote paradigm on a silver platter and decided to scoff at it rather than embracing all of its advantages, but maybe that's why I'm not making those decisions.

Do you know if they had a new job lined up?

Not sure if it was lined up but they started a new role roughly a month after they were fired.

He definitely started looking when the notices started hitting his email.

I had an in office mandate about two years ago. I ignored it, I’m still employed in the same org.

It was quite odd. My boss told me to come into the office. I explained how I didn’t want to do that because of personal and professional reasons, I think a pretty rational case. They gave a vague reason “leadership wants it.” I was friends with their boss so I asked the superboss and they said they don’t care.

I never came in. My boss never said anything. Not sure if they didn’t notice. It’s quite possible since I rarely interacted with anyone in person even when in the office. After six months of that, I moved to a new position in my org that is remote friendly.

I think this worked because I’m a “digital worker” who basically just shells into stuff and write code and attends meetings. I don’t actually do anything in person.

As a manager in a company with an in-office policy which I don’t like - I will tow the policy line if I’m asked in an official capacity, otherwise it’s my ass. But if my DRs shirk the policy then the only reason I’ll take action is if HR catches on (they do occasionally look at data from the building access logs), or if it causes waves in the team.

It’s also possible (I’d say - likely) that your boss knew, and had no desire to do anything about it.

Toe, not tow :)

Oh, it’s fun that both words make sense with the meaning of the phrase. But I’ll toe the line of its usage better in future.

"Towing the company line" evokes a much more brutalist image of workers dragging a giant rope, pulling the company along. So it works either way.

That’s not what brutalist means. Sorry I’m in “insufferable pedant” mode today :)

Thanks for an interesting diversion. I always thought it had to do with towing barges down canals. What an interesting eggcorn.

> It’s also possible (I’d say - likely) that your boss knew,

Yeah, that part of the GP's comment stood out. To even imagine that "bosses" don't notice that their employees are not showing up to the office is pretty far fetched especially for the length of time described. At some point, even the other employees will start talking about it.

Not if they’re also trying to work from home as much as possible, along with all their colleagues.

This can totally happen, though in this case it’s a bit of a collective action problem. Let’s say “full compliance is low” means 80% of people aren’t coming into the office. The banks likely can’t fire 80% of their employees over something like this, so they won’t. But then anyone who isn’t coming in and is bragging about it on Slack probably will get fired since letting go of a few conspicuous people to make an example is totally affordable. After that some people may decide it’s not worth the risk and decide to come back to the office. And then once the number of people failing to comply goes below some arbitrary unknown threshold, they may decide that they can afford to layoff the remaining stay-at-home folks, at which point if you haven’t decided to come back in yet, you could be fired.

I tried to use conditional tense a lot in there because none of this is set in stone. If management only kind of wants people in-office and has higher priorities, maybe y’all will get away with it. But if they’re really dead set on it and you don’t have a union fighting for you, expect to either return to the office or get fired eventually.

OP here. By "full compliance is low", I meant that people will still come into the office sometimes but not at the frequency mandated by management. For example, management says 3 days/week and people come in 1 day/week, or only for particular meetings etc.

Treating employees differently is a recipe for a lawsuit. Thinking of the example you gave above.

While true, I think we've already seen plenty of ways that any halfway savvy employer, like a bank, can create documentation that justifies the firing.

Sure, if the employee has a file of pending issues. For a squeaky clean record, though, it would be pretty easy for a lawyer to point this out and point to others who were not fired for the same thing.

Which is why some organizations who have workers that must be on a company location to do their jobs tend towards having post pandemic RTW policies for tech workers.

Only if it can be proven. There are lots of options for a good HR department to create a trail of paperwork to make the person you want to let go be different.

Well no, there are some employees that are actively encouraging people to ignore the rules is different than just ignoring the rules.

My previous company has linked bonuses to it (i.e. you don't get full bonus unless you're in 3 days a week), but all that's done is make people look for new jobs - from what I've heard they're bleeding talent which even in this job market has better options.

Yeah, even in this market, your best people still have options. I recently had to find a new job, and while it was definitely more sparse than normal, I had a decent offer within a month.

Five years ago, I probably would have had my pick of 3-5 offers after about two weeks. This time it was a month for one offer. Definitely a bummer, but the offer was still an upgrade, and so far the new company is working out well, so it’s fine.

If you mess with your people badly enough, the only ones who will stick around are the ones who can’t get a better offer.

Sounds like mission accomplished from management's point of view.

Awhile back I was on project A that got absorbed by the management of project B. Project b mandated that all engineers wore pagers. A guy on project A decided he didn't want to. The job he was hired for didn't require it when he was hired, and if the pager went off, he'd just have to call someone on project B anyway.

He said no. Got fired.

Good for that guy, sounds like he got out of a bad place. I'd absolutely quit if someone tried to force me to be on-call without an enormous pay raise (e.g. at least local minimum wage for every hour I have to be responsive to calls, regardless of whether a call actually comes in).

Maybe I'm naive, but doesn't it depend a lot on the situation? If I'm being told to be on-call for a system I don't know and can't debug, then I would set the expectation that I'm going to reduce my availability for other work while I learn this new-to-me system to the point where I feel confident that I can debug prod issues (to the degree that any of us can debug prod issues, anyway), understand the major risks to that system and common operations, etc. If they say, "sorry, you have to be on-call for this new thing and also keep working 100% on something else", then I fully agree - bad situation, incompetent management, time to go. But needing someone to be on-call for a system isn't a bad sign - in a different viewpoint, it's a good sign that someone is anticipating a future problem and actively planning ahead.

The issue is the change in workload. If I'm going from "40 hour work week" to "40 hour work week plus on-call" then you need to compensate me for the increased workload. If you're not going to increase my compensation, then I'm not going to agree to increase my workload.

Yup. There's a hojillion jobs out there, and I'm a good engineer. I can find another one if my current one decides to piss me off. I value work/home separation very, very highly. No work stuff goes on my personal devices, and I leave my laptop at the office. You want me on-call, you're gonna be paying me for it :)

But regardless, outside of rare exceptional circumstances (sometimes there's a deadline and shit's gotta get done), I'd recommend anyone to tell their employer to pound sand if they ask for more work from you than you agreed to.

Is on-call in your country part of the duties and unpaid? In other words you are expected to possibly work 24h a day while being paid for 8 hours?

Basically, yes, although I imagine that specific scenario rarely happens in practice. That's why I'm saying the guy in the OP got out of a bad situation: his workload increased without any benefit to him, and he got out of that abusive relationship.

In the US, the vast majority of these positions are salaried. You get $X/year to perform the duties you're expected to. Because we don't have unions and 99.9% of people are not expert negotiators, "the duties you're expected to" are never actually defined. That means your employer is incentivized to stack as many duties on as they can, until they approach your breaking point. So long as they don't break you, it's free work for them. Employers regularly abuse inexperienced people and desperate people, who don't have the confidence or financial wiggle room to say "no." I applaud those who normalize saying "no," and encourage forming unions so there's a group of experts in the room whose job it is to fight back against this kind of abuse.

We also have salaried positions where the time unit is a day (this is the typical cases for white collar jobs). You have to work for 217 or 218 days every year and the normal day is 8 hours.

If you are on call then you get paid x% more during that tile and it cannot be more than y hours per month (I do not remember the values). You also have to have at least 11 hours of rest between the days.

The duties are not clearly defined either (despite continuous ideas on how to measure them, which consistently fail year after year) which is a good thing: it is not easy to have this as a reason to fire you (you have to have a good reason to fire in France).

We value work/personal life proportions a lot, but we also are very serious when it comes to work. It is only from the outside that it looks like we are constantly on vacation or having lunch (this is true for some parts of the workforce, to the point of becoming a stereotype).

> If you are on call then you get paid x% more during that tile and it cannot be more than y hours per month

This is required by law? Yeah we definitely don't have something like that in the US (except for life-endangering roles like doctors, truckers, airplane pilots, etc). It's up to each individual to negotiate their acceptable amount of on-call time and compensation.

(Just to be clear, "being on-call" doesn't mean you are actively working, just that you agree to be responsive if someone reaches out to you about a problem. That could take 15 minutes or 4 hours to resolve, but if no one calls then you are not actually working during the on-call time.)

OTOH, I walked into the office at about 9:30AM one day and found a group of people, including the project manager, waiting for me, clearly irritated. PM asked why I didn't respond to my pager (this was about 20 years ago), and I told him that in six months, it had never gone off, so I stopped wearing it. And that was that.

My guess is that they wanted a reason to fire your guy anyway, and he gave them one.

Must have been quite a while back…

Banks in the US are _very_ insistent on the return to office mandate. Noncompliance would be met with termination.

Rest assured their goal is full return to office despite the current "hybrid" model they are pushing, and you are not important enough to them to keep your job while being civilly disobedient.

Banks are by far the vanguard force advocating for RTO in part because the banking industry owns a colossal amount of office and commercial real estate, and if the world doesn't magically go back to how it was they stand to lose many tons of money.

This. Those same banks also own all the credit lines, card merchant services, and other financial instruments attached to every smaller, adjacent business (restaurants, dry cleaners, gyms, convenience stores, etc.) with clientele in those offices. Companies with a big footprint in one place also typically get tax breaks for bringing their workforce to that city, with the expectation that the economic activity will generate other tax revenue. When big employers don't force their people to be in a certain building for a minimum amount of time, all of that deflates.

Big banks, in particular, want to make a big, public show that "we're all going back to the office" in order to, at a minimum, delay the inevitable collapse of commercial real estate concentrated in major cities. On the inside, they're willing to quietly make exceptions if you fit the right profile (key talent, DEI quotas, political buddies, etc.). If you're a regular, high performing employee with no reason to be in an office, go pound sand.

Source: I'm that person. We lost a LOT of good people because of this over the last few years.

I'm in Europe and my colleagues who haven't managed to get fully remote yet and still got stuck in hybrid jobs generally do what they can to extend their WFH time. Since the most common arrangement is 3:2, they often reverse it and sometimes their bosses don't even notice as they tend to WFH more than their reports.

They key is to "soft-ignore", so you're not officially ignoring orders but you're also not following it. If your boss asks, you're not ignoring it. If caught, you apologize and come to the office for a few weeks.

I feel like this type of behaviour lacks respect both for oneself and for one's boss.

On France this is the exact opposite. It is showing respect to everyone and ensuring we get back to normalité once the waters calm down.

Chuck it to me being a little neuro atypical, but I can't fathom how lying is "showing respect". :)

Not the parent but if your boss is telling you you should come to the office tomorrow and the next week, she has a reason - maybe their boss told her to tighten the procedure? So out of respect to her you tell her yes, and come to the office tomorrow, and maybe even next week. But out of respect to yourself, you ignore these stupid, completely baseless, arbitrary rules that even your bosses don't follow in the long term.

This is pretty much it. There are some rules that arise because this is fashionable, PC or is the latest vision under the shower of the CEO.

Management relays this, you nod with understanding, everyone follows the rule for a week or so when the company is measuring its incredible effects and then everyone comes back to normal.

When this is done right, it is a win-win for everyone.

Sorry, I can't really function in an environment that thrives in this kind of duplicity.

I feel you, but how would you function the if you like all other aspects of your work?

In one of my previous jobs the boss was asked publicly during a townhall why RTO if a few months later they praised WFH and insisted this is the way forward to the whole company. He seemed surprised, chuckled a little, then paused, and then said that he talked to his colleagues, that is C*Os, and they all confirmed office is much more fun, hence the decision to go 3:2. It was one of the most stupid public answers from a CEO I've ever heard. So if they play their games instead of being honest, it's not surprising employees follow.

It really depends on the culture. Being French I do not see it as "duplicity" - it is rather a way to accommodate the reality of life (dumb ideas), their impact (make it the lowest for you and for the company) and your comfort.

Such white lies help everyone to be on top of their duties - your manager knows that they checked the mark called "evangelize the idea to your team" and you know that you checked the mark "I have provided useful feedback by nodding my head a few times". It stops there and life continues.

In an ideal world, we would not need to do any of these because all ideas would be fantastic and everyone would be enthusiastic about them. Unfortunately, I do not live in such a place.

I did exactly that and now I'm in the process of being fired because my boss was pressured into snitching on their team members that don't comply. So, YMMV. :P

Given the circumstances, you'll probably be better leaving this kind of toxic place.

Most of my former colleagues just ignore it. Big USA company and turns out they only started mandating it because the USA offices were going in so little.

Others go in, have lunch (free canteen), then go home. Having ticked the system for enough days in. Then do their work from home because the office is such a disruptive place to get anything done.

Most managers don't care so long as the work is getting completed on time.

We fired staff members for not coming in. This is one of those things where if everyone refuses then what are they going to do? Fire them all?

Long term, I'd be wary though.

> ...what are they going to do? Fire them all?

No need to fire everybody. They just laid off some of the workers and called it a market adjustment. Now the job market is flooded with desperate unemployed. Current employees will be more likely to adopt corporate policy, so they don't have to compete with the masses of job seekers. Job seekers will accept whatever terms they can get, because it's rough out there.

How many people did the shop fire? How long did it take to find suitable replacements?

I wasn't, I left before they had the chance. I was told it wasn't going to be enforced by several leaders after I threatened to quit.

For context - my original remote status was a bit of happenstance through a transfer. It started before COVID but got looped up in the big RTO push.

The critical mistake? My 'new' team didn't write down their not-pandemic-related-WFH-ness, apparently. The clowns in charge decided our disparate team had a magical worldwide office to return to.

Not satisfied in the uncertainty with the "no punishments expected" promise... I found a whole new job. Something explicitly remote.

The main thing I want to express/leave is this: consider whatever your circumstance right now a coin toss. There will be more.

I once ignored a shirt and tie mandate and nothing happened besides some stern words from my manager after I told I wasn't going to comply. We worked in a basement and never saw customers, the mandate was just a power move on his part.

Similar, my boss insisted I wear trousers but I’m more comfortable in my underpants. They’re clean, and I don’t have much in the way of a bulge. Power move, too, I suspect.

I live for comments like these.

I'm in the EU and my employer is currently taking action against me for disregarding the 3 day a week RTO. Currently we're in negotiating phase. It can end either in dismissal or, hopefully, a severance package that would take into account my status as a top performer of my cohort. I wrote them a manifesto why I think they're misguided, but of course that nobody that actually makes decision was moved, or, perhaps even read it.

As it sometimes happens, I actually have a next day update. An HR representative organized a meeting from one day to the next, and iterated in no uncertain terms that they will not negotiate any severance and the only result for my actions is dismissal. All one needs to know about loyalty from a company. :)

Any ideas on what employees can do if it turns out that a company cannot support their in-office mandate?

My gf's company (EU, with a US parent company) have started mandating in-office days for new contracts. But this is after moving to a smaller, more remote (and thus much-much cheaper) office space, which is plainly inadequate to accommodate every employee.

Older contracts are off the hook for now, but there are worries for when they try to apply the mandate to everyone.

It depends where the mandate comes from. If from the US out will get spontaneously adjusted due to specific conditions.

I worked in Europe and Asia for a very large US company and the mandates from HQ were exponentially weakening with the distance.

If it is from the in-country entity it depends on the country. On France it would get readjusted after some sighting and discussions.

Unionize. Demand better working conditions.

Not me. I'm quitting because employer made the options clear. Either 100% in office or find a new job.

I know people who have been let go for this reason, yeah.

What's the story behind this? Did they get enough warning beforehand?

Yeah, I think it was 3 month notice.

It seems in the US people don't go to the office as much as in Europe (like, US offices are a ghost town compared to EU offices)

Any idea why that is? My guess is it's related to the commute (no good public transport in the US, ...), but if not, what's so much worse about US offices than EU offices that people prefer working isolated from home rather than have a more social life among coworkers? (I'm an introvert yet was still happy when offices reopened after covid and people were coming in. Having a coffee with a small group is great for introverts imho!)

People have about as much families/kids/... in EU as US so that's not related to it I think

On the margins, it’s probably a lot easier for an American to find a quiet spot in the house to work — US homes are on average about 50% larger than European ones, and often have a spare room to use as an office.

While about the same proportion of Americans live in “cities”, a city in America can be the size of some European provinces thanks to sprawl. This means that even if you live and work in the same city, your commute can be well over an hour each way. This, combined with kids getting dismissed from school at 3pm and having nowhere to go but home thanks to unwalkable streets and a hyper-aggressive CPS essentially criminalizing leaving your 12 year old unsupervised for 15 minutes, makes going into the office a ridiculously inefficient proposition for families.

> that people prefer working isolated from home

Not everyone is an annoying extrovert with no empathy :) You can go to the office, I'll stay home.

On a more serious note, commutes are longer and costlier in the US. And I think quite a few people simply moved house to cheaper (and further away) areas and it's not worth it to move back to within commute distance.

They might have simply moved for their spouse's job as well and the previous commute isn't really possible anymore.

At-will employment. There's more jobs and it's easier to get hired in the US due to at-will employment. EU employment laws mean that employees are better off picking their battles and WFH is a losing battle for them, since it can be documented and used as cause for termination, which in other situations more difficult in the EU.

I'd be curious if there are any statistics to back up that it's in general 'easier to get hired' in the USA. I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would make employees significantly more fearful of losing their jobs in the US.

> I'd be curious if there are any statistics to back up that it's in general 'easier to get hired' in the USA.

It’s common knowledge in the industry. When I worked for a company with EU offices, we always had to be much more careful about hiring and pay very close attention to laws in each country that could force our hands if we hired someone who didn’t work out.

Meanwhile, back in the US we would often hire people who were junior, had non-traditional backgrounds, or who were borderline passing out interviews but showed potential. We knew we could take the risk and if it didn’t work out we didn’t have to be attached to the employee for an extended period of time.

If you want statistics: You can look at compensation as a proxy. US tech companies have to offer significantly higher pay, even adjusting for cost of living, to hire anyone because the situation is stacked in favor of employees. European tech salaries are much lower because they can get away with lower pay.

> I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would make employees significantly more fearful of losing their jobs in the US.

That’s what the internet will focus on, but it goes both ways. Making it less risky to hire and fire employees makes companies more likely to hire more people quickly.

> That’s what the internet will focus on, but it goes both ways. Making it less risky to hire and fire employees makes companies more likely to hire more people quickly.

Because this is more often the case. It’s so easy for companies to fire employees that it becomes the employer’s goto strategy for dealing with any kind of turmoil (caused by the employee or otherwise).

I do agree that it’s somewhat easier get hired in the States compared to other markets with more employee protections.

Here in Japan, it’s common for small companies (startups etc) to hire new employees on contract with the “promise” of being seishain (company employee) at the end of the contract. This lowers the risk for the employer, is often terrible for the new joiner, and is a huge red flag.

It’s often used by startups who just can’t afford, or can’t find someone to do the role they’re hiring for. I.e. they list the role as a SE but really want a PM; new joiner enters the company and is let go after a month because they don’t know how to be a PM. It also disproportionally affects foreign workers, as they don’t know all their rights as workers and could be limited in the scope of companies they can work for (due to language or visa restrictions).

Yes, it might be “harder” to find a job since respectful companies are more cautious, but I’d take that over the “come into work on Monday to find the pink slip on my desk”.

> European tech salaries are much lower because they can get away with lower pay

The cost structure is also different (when you compare spendings such as retirement, medical, ...)

> I've always assumed that 'at will employment' would make employees significantly more fearful of losing their jobs in the US.

Would that still be true in the particular case of RTO mandates? I don't think so since "showing up to work" fits nicely into existing employment law on both sides of the pond and is easily documented by employers. The point being that in this particular case of RTO mandates, at-will employment affords you the advantage of being more easily hired elsewhere, whereas you don't lose any practical protection.

Childcare is much more expensive and complicated in the US.

Also we all hate each other. The US is a country of individualists, we'd much rather be on our than in a group unless it's for purely social reasons.

> Also we all hate each other. The US is a country of individualists, we'd much rather be on our than in a group unless it's for purely social reasons.

I worked for a multinational company that frequently flew people in to the US offices from abroad.

Many people had difficulty adjusting to how friendly and social the United States was, on average. The US norms are much more social and friendly to than many countries.

I’ve even worked with countries where smiling and laughing in a work situation is a faux pas. The US is an extremely friendly and social place by global standards.

Were friendly (mostly) but doesn't mean we don't hold contempt for our fellow Americans.

I already have a great social life outside of work... I don't need or want one from my work colleagues who are likely to be much more transient than my "real" friends anyway

You know the stereotype of the very loud American tourist? When they are not on vacation they are in the office.

As far back as 2017, my office had around 150 seats for 200-250 people. They mitigated this by requiring people work from home one day a week back then, instead of getting a larger office. Didn't want to pay the cost.

We've actually moved to a smaller office since then and are sticking with hybrid.

I believe that commute and the livability of cities is a big one. Most EU people I know find their commutes either pleasant or if they complain, it’s about 45 minutes. They don’t know what far even means. The city centers are fun, safe and vibrant.

Also, most EU residences are comparatively tiny, usually flats. It’s just not that fun to stay home all the time in 60 sq meters with a tiny balcony and no central hvac.

Then I think there is a big work culture angle. Europeans are low on bullshit and hustle culture. American workplaces are like worksona performance art, probably not too far off from the performative productivity of Japanese workplaces.

I was interested in the figure regarding numbers of people in houses vs apartments/flats (quick google search):

In the EU in 2021, 53 % of the population lived in a house, while 46 % lived in a flat (1 % lived in other accommodation, such as houseboats, vans etc.).

As of 2023, about 65% of Americans live in detached houses, while 35% live in apartments. Around 40% of individuals living in poverty in the U.S. reside in apartments.

You'll get a lot of answers. I think our poorly designed cities and the garbage commute of driving a car is a big factor. I take the bus in to the office & I love my commute; I just read a book for 40 minutes. Poor suckers who have to drive have a much more miserable life. I wouldn't wish a car commute on my worst enemy.

But I think, at least in the US, we have a much more combative relationship with our employers. Employers try to squeeze every last drop they can out of their workers with as little compensation as possible. Employers would rather spend $2*X on government lobbying to avoid having to pay their employees $X, just on principal; we select for & encourage sociopaths to run our companies. In return, employees rightly feel they should behave the same to their employers. "Employer wants me to spend 40 minutes in traffic? Nah, screw 'em, I'd rather sit home alone in my basement." Dunno. Seems bad to me, too, but I have a hard time blaming them.

Near as I can tell, it is being very studiously avoided being talked about in the public media. Partially because it’s a bit complex. Partially because it is being done through the media and no one wants to take ownership for that. Partially because it’s too scary for people to actually address/consider.

For example - if you’re in Ukraine, it’s hard to complain about the propaganda being abusive without looking like you’re supporting Russia, and complaining about Russian propaganda isn’t going to do anything except encourage them.

It’s straightforward to make the connection if you’re familiar with a couple things though -

Complex PTSD (symptoms)

[https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/24881-cptsd-c...]

Also, signs of emotional abuse which are easy to identify as rapidly increasing and more visible society wide trends [https://www.bhscp.org.uk/preventing-abuse-and-neglect/spotti...].

And then add in [https://psychcentral.com/blog/recovering-narcissist/2017/08/...], which has been done across the board by all the political parties for a long time now (they are not the same, but they are both using similar tactics albeit in different ways), plus is commonly being done by many large corporations and advertisers.

None of those links are unique or anything, there are dozens of good sources, including NIH papers saying the same thing. They were just the first ones I found that weren’t blogspam.

Because the US has been in an ever escalating culture war for well over a decade now, and it’s solidly in ‘each side thinks it’s an existential threat’ mode and is policing it’s members like crazy. Partly because it is an existential crisis for Trump now, and he’s making it an existential crisis for everyone else in response.

For example:

- all the liberal women that were told over and over again (and gaslit like crazy) when raising concerns about birth control after the left screwed up and didn’t address the legal issues or maintain control of the Supreme Court when they could have. And liberal men who raise concerns about losing their jobs due to ‘positive discrimination’ are in the same boat. And everyone who is being hurt by inflation/having economic issues right now.

- or all the conservatives that are under a constant fire hose of ‘the libs are coming to take your guns!’ panic while the right does nothing whatsoever to actually protect gun rights, and often passes even more gun control laws than the left. Same with conservative women trying to get sane abortion rules (like rape exemptions, emergency medical exemptions, endometriosis type medical exemptions, etc.). Or anyone that doesn’t want fear fear fear pumped down their throats constantly, or be pushed into a fraudster dictatorship.

Among dozens of other issues.

And the politicians are doing this because as long as they don’t actually solve the underlying problem, but look better than the alternative choice, they are guaranteed to have a lock on their constituents and can do what they want.

And when the constituents start to waver, they just need to push more emotional buttons to keep them in line.

But eventually after pushing those buttons too hard for too long, people start to break in real ways. Which is why it is actually emotional abuse, and causes things like CPTSD. Repeated violence can cause it, but also being repeatedly betrayed and lied to (with negative consequences for the victim) by those in positions of trust/authority, with no apparent way to escape or improve the situation.

For a ‘ripped from the headlines’ example - just look at the recent Presidential debate, and the various back and forth things each side is doing to police it’s members while not addressing any of the actual real problems - for either candidate.

I don't mean to come off as ignorant (so please correct me if I am wrong) but could it be that the so-called "two-party system" in the US is to blame for some of the polarization implied in your message?

As someone living in the Netherlands and being used to dozens of political parties with various ideologies and convictions, the two-party system of the US has always surprised me as being extremely limiting (e.g. if you don't naturally identify with Democratic ideologies you vote Republican or vice versa).

Edit: None of this is to imply that Western Europe or the Netherlands doesn't have major political issues, for example I'm quite disillusioned about the uptick in popularity of populist political parties (throughout Western Europe but also specifically in the Netherlands).

It certainly doesn’t help! The underlying culture war tension (IMO) is growing out of city vs rural politics and economic issues, and the two party system naturally lends itself to splitting along those lines.

And having two parties means it’s easy to play us vs them on topics.

Almost anything can be ‘maximally polarized’ into exactly two poles with enough work though - including immigration, male/female issues, business policies, import/export policies, foreign policies (isolationist vs interventionist), etc.

Populism in general is being driven by the same factors everywhere IMO, and many of them are macroeconomic.

Yes, but I also work for a big bank in the US. We are a little strict on WFH.

Yeah me, ndd couldn't be happier about it. Let others slave away for such horrible employers.

Not me personally, but people at the nuclear plant I used to work for were let go for refusing to take the Covid vaccine.

In the U.S., it happens regularly.