Every day or so, I receive 3 or 4 notifications about the same article, usually from the New York Times or CNBC.com. For the most part, they’re annoying but harmless — Kevin O’Leary is annoyed at quiet quitting, or some sort of piece about why the office may or may not be dead. These pieces are frustrating but have become a form of white noise — I do not believe they actually harm anyone anymore, because they are so nakedly, cravenly agenda-driven, pushed by outlets and editors that see an opportunity to support their advertisers or friends who have not experienced a moment of real work in their lives.
In the last 24 hours, though, I have experienced true mental heat-death at the hands of the New York Times, with the single least-knowing piece on remote work I’ve read in a year, entitled “So You Wanted To Get Work Done at the Office?”
For some history — the writer, Emma Goldberg, has been part of the Times’ anti-remote standard bearing for a while, but had improved over the course of a few months into someone that at the very least tried to speak with workers. Sadly, this latest piece is, and I do not say this lightly, one of the silliest things I’ve ever read, especially in the context of it being written by someone who has championed anti-remote causes for the best part of a year.
Let’s dig in!
… when more than 50 million people started working from home in March 2020, some of them discovered a luxury their companies couldn’t offer: peace and…
