There's no wide mandated EU stance on this. Hugely depends on your country.
I work in Austria and most companies have mandatory office days due to outdated employment and insurance laws that discourage WFH, and micromanaging asshole company bosses who think that because they can't see you sitting at your desk then you must be slacking off at home on their dime, so they bullshit you and brainwash youngsters with "WFH destroys team spirit and cooperation so we 'choose' to spend 2h/day commuting to the office to be more efficient, but don't worry, because our office has free coffee and fresh fruits, ping-pong and foosball tables to de-stress and build team bonds" FUD.
100% WFH is incredibly rare privilege here. One of my friends broke his leg skiing and couldn't drive to the office anymore so the company instead of letting him WFH, they paid 40 Euros per day for taxis to pick him up from home and drive him to the office every day for almost 2 months. Absolutely mental.
No, not really. Austrian labor laws says if you work with an employment contract, then your employer must have a legal presence in Austria to pay Austrian employer taxes and conform to Austrian labor laws, and no company wants to do that. There are some middle-men companies to interface this but they take a deep cut and not everyone want to deal with that hassle.
So your other option is a B-2-B contract but then you could end up paying higher taxes and now you don't even get the included healthcare and pension contributions, and don't get any of the perks an employee gets like mandatory 25 vacation days, paid sick leave, paid parental leave, etc. You're on your own, just you and your money having to pay for everything privately even after you paid a bunch in taxes.
And fully EU remote companies get huge amounts of applications, hundreds per open position, that it's nearly impossible to stand out if you're not an experienced senior as you're competing with people from lower CoL areas with much lower B-2-B taxes, making it not worth it for you if you live here and don't cash in over six figures to cover your loss.
EU-wide employment is still not a thing, as you're still locked-in and tied to the tax and legal system of your country of residence and its employment laws.
>But majority of companies use deel, remote.com and so many mediators to hire remotely.
They do take a seizable cut though. After taxes on top you're not left with much than just working for a local company that doesn't have 200 applicants for one position and a crazy interview process.
>B2b in other eu countries has way less taxes than being employee.
Yeah, emphasis on "other countries", but I don't live in one of those "other countries" so it doesn't help me.
Remote work isn't a wild west level playing filed for everyone like HN thinks. You're still tied to the tax rules of your country of residence. If those are brutal in your country then you're at a disadvantage compared to the candidates in low CoL, low tax countries. If you live in a country with low tax, low CoL where you can play fast and loose with the tax authorities, then you're in the perfect place to be a remote candidate.
I love only having a bike in the city. So convenient and helps keeping my energy up. Worst part of living in Stockholm is that it is completely inconvenient in most cases if you actually wanna go to the city.
Of the tech companies I or acquaintances have worked at, I've personally 'believed in the viability' of maybe 25%. If the tech / pay is good enough I could see myself work at them for sure since its a job. not all jobs require personal investment.
I now see that the username is IRL_CHAD. I feel stupid for falling for a obvious troll
> I’m an immigrant in Ukraine. I love this country very much. Speak the language, understand the culture, etc.
> After checking out your page, I’m absolutely appalled. I’ve forwarded this to a personal friend who works in the immigration department here.
> Ukraine isn’t your playground to pimp women to men who aren’t successful with them in their own countries.
> Btw you’ve probably seen me around Kyiv in bars/clubs/whatever. I’m the guy always wearing designer + an iced out rolex
Idk man, I think social media has people responding to comments in weird extremes and I just wish everyone could get away from that. Would you really say to someone's face IRL that you won't hire them because they worked in a specific industry? Takes a certain character to be that way...
How you like to cook pasta aside. This is so dumb. No one is going to solve the climate crisis with not boiling the pasta while certain companies is reaponaible for basically all emissions.
What is the word for this? When you try socialise problems like this to try shift blame? I’m still surprised how many people don’t know thar “climate footprint “ is invented by one of the bigger oil companies in a similar campaign.
It’s not exactly what you are referring to but I like to call out conservation theater. Like when restaurants in California were forbidden from giving water to people unless they asked for it. As if drinking water was even a rounding error on California’s water issues.
On one hand small actions can lead to big change. On the other hand, no matter how many small actions are taken, this problem isn't going to be solved with government intervention.
This is one of those things that we teach small children so they can feel like they are contributing but never go back and explain to teens that we were bs’ing about. These kids then grow up with a bad model of how the world works. This dynamic is pernicious.
No amount of at home composting or whatever the latest peacock thing is will make a real dent.
Is that a typo? I feel that this problem isn't going to be solved _without_ government intervention. Large groups of people have an unbelievably high inertia.
But yeah, forbidding restaurants to distribute drinking water is probably not the right move.
> while certain companies is reaponaible for basically all emissions.
those "certain companies" are exclusively energy companies. the energy they provide can be used for things like boiling water. it's good to hold companies responsible, but don't delude yourself into thinking individuals can't have an impact. the energy we use is a collection of a whole bunch of small things, added up (and a couple really big things, like driving cars and raising cattle)
Apart from that is Barilla one of those certain companies? I'm guessing no, so it's not like they gain much from helping their customers save energy. Except maybe if people want to save energy by not cooking noodles, and Barilla doesn't want to lose those customers.
Although honestly I wouldn't know what else to cook that uses less energy. Rice cooks for even longer, although less water is heated here.
I'd like to add some context here: the whole cooking pasta with the stove off became a major talking point in Italian social media some months ago (I'm serious). It all started with a popular science educator posting a video on Youtube explaining the science behind it. Then some influencers decided to promote the idea because of reasons such as climate change and the energy crisis, which in turn started being ridiculed for the same reasons you are mentioning. Barilla just jumped on the occasion for some easy marketing both at home and on the international market.
A thousand small changes add up, however. Also, don't forget how those companies responsible for all those emissions make stuff that we eagerly buy up. The emissions are "their", but really on our behalf.
And I'm well aware of the hypocrisy in me typing this on a plastic keyboard in a plastic office chair wearing synthetic clothing. I could have carved keycaps out of wood and made a typing device with an Arduino, sourced sustainable wood for a chair and bought "green" cotton clothing. I didn't, because plastic is cheaper and more convenient. But I'm not blaming Logitech for making the products I'm happy to buy.
You also start optimising your computer programs not by targeting the function that takes 90% of the time, but the utility method that takes 0.0001%, I see.
"Every little bit counts" thinking is one of the most destructive in society.
Changing people's habits because it's the "right thing to do" is not the way to solve climate change. The main reason why is that it's very hard to change people, especially so if the benefits are not immediate. What we do need is lots of innovative new technologies to solve the problem. Carbon capture is just scratching the surface.
There is no "the way to solve climate change" anyway. It's a challenge so huge that it will require us to change something about everything we do and the way we do it.
I do think that the way certain people live can be improved, look at the carbon use of rich people in the USA compared to the average person in other countries. Larger houses, cars, more of everything, it all adds up.
Its fine to think that - and you're probably right. But again the solution will never be to ask people to change their consumption habits and their way of life. Its a non starter. The smarter thing to do is tweak incentives. A simple tax on electricity for example: now its more expensive to heat or cool a large house, leads to smaller homes, leads to more energy efficient units. That has a way way more impactful result than telling individuals what to do and how to do it.
Do you think energy companies drill oil and burn it for fun??
They do it to provide consumers with energy and consumer goods. If consumers are more efficient or reduce their consumption then demand for these goods and services fall.
Shifting blame to companies to avoid personal responsibility certainly won't help solve the climate crisis.
Agreed.
Saw similar tacticts during the bank crash in 2018
Blame was shifted to all the peasants byuing flat screen tvs.
Please dont participate in this co-dependent blame shift. Cook your pasta as you like and force media tp hold the real culprits accountable.
Yesterday there was a thread on coal used to generate energy in various parts of the world.
We could start by focusing attention to finance greener sources there.
Shifting all responsibility to producers is about as helpful as shifting it all to consumers. Clearly there is responsibility on both sides. Burning gas for cooking or heating is bad for emissions, so it is reasonable for people to avoid doing so for longer than necessary. Same goes for producers burning fossil fuels for electricity, etc.
> Companies that intentionally take up greenwashing communication strategies often do so in order to distance themselves from the environmental lapses of themselves or their suppliers.
It was one fuel company who popularized the carbon footprint calculator, such that consumers don't focus on the massive harm the company caused.
That’s when you ratio water to home and tell people they need to save a gallon on their shower but you literally ship millions of gallons of water to SA.
cars or other vehicles required to provide services prohibited. The aim is to make people use other modes of transportation than their cars in these areas.
Pedestrian areas basically always allow vehicles for emergency services, deliveries, tradespeople, etc. where practical. And there can actually be a fair number of vehicles especially at certain times of the day.
? who else would've done it? Stop pretending. 'Maybe not russia??' is an exciting idea, but this is not a Tom Clancy novel and no such groups in Europe exists. Especially that would have the resources to carry out an attack like this.
The destruction of the pipeline happens simultaneous as Russia is in a direct conflict with Ukraine/Europe and is constantly flying drones at Norwegian oil platforms.
An underwater pipeline blowing up? In a Tom Clancy novel it would definitely be a submarine doing it. Tom Clancy wouldn't pass up an opportunity for a submarine subplot.
