One in three millennials to ignore return-to-office demands
A survey of 1,000 staff has found that those born between 1965 and 1980, known as Gen X, were the most willing to comply with return-to-office policies, while millennials – those born between 1981 and 1996 – were the most resistant.
The findings revealed that a third of millennials would either disregard requests to return to the office or seek a new job if forced in, according to a survey conducted by TopCV.
The findings come as a growing number of chief executives voice their frustration over remote working, which has grown in prominence since the pandemic.
A study of US workers published earlier this month by Nicholas Bloom, the Stanford economist, shows that home working has persisted despite the rise in companies demanding staff return to their desks.
Jamie Dimon, the head of America's biggest bank JP Morgan, last week railed against staff who work from home in an expletive-laden outburst.
'Don't give me this s--- that work-from-home Friday works,' he said in the leaked recording. 'I call a lot of people on Fridays, and there's not a goddamn person you can get a hold of.'
Raising concerns about the 'damage' working from home was doing to young recruits, he then accused managers of abusing the system: 'A lot of you were on the f------ Zoom ... and you were doing the following: looking at your mail, sending texts to each other about what an a------ the other person is, not paying attention, not reading your stuff.
'And if you don't think that slows down efficiency, creativity, creates rudeness – it does. You don't do that in my goddamn meetings.'
A number of major businesses have tightened their remote working policies in recent years, including BT and PwC.
Advertising giant WPP also launched a fresh crackdown earlier this year, calling on staff to come into the office at least four days a week from April and on at least two Fridays each month.
Meanwhile, in America, Trump's decision to order federal employees back to the office full-time has given bosses added motivation to draw a line under remote working.
Amazon, Google, Meta and Apple have all clamped down on home working in recent months.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
3 days ago
- The Guardian
End of an era: AOL to discontinue its dial-up internet service after 30 years
The hisses, pings and screeches that introduced millions of Americans to the nascent online world are to be formally retired when AOL's dial-up internet shuts down in late September. AOL, or America Online, said recently it was discontinuing the decided old-school connection option after an evaluation of its products and services and would no longer support dial-up software on 30 September. The date portends the end of an era for millions of Americans of a certain age – millennials, gen Xers, boomers and those of the greatest generation. The characteristic sound of modems conducting an analog handshake to establish a connection was a preliminary soundtrack to a new world of instant connection, wires, handheld computer mice, emails, chatrooms, instant messages and glowing screens. The dial-up internet wasn't invented by a single person. It was developed by Usenet in the late 1970s. In 1979, CompuServe began 'offering a dial-up online information service to consumers'. By the mid 1980s, with the Well, or the Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, founded in the Bay Area by Stewart Brand and Larry Brilliant, virtual communities began to form. At the same time, in 1985, America Online was founded. At its peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s, AOL had over 23 million subscribers in the US, making it the dominant internet service provider at the time. According to Jigso AI, it was estimated to have gained a new user every six seconds. America Online became so dominant – with its equally characteristic but more cheery 'You've Got Mail' message – that in 1999 it acquired Time Warner in a massive $165bn all-stock deal that later became regarded as one of the most disastrous deals in media and communications history. By then, the introduction of faster cable internet service in 1995 that relied on existing cable TV infrastructure made the characteristic handshake of dial-up begin to disappear. Currently, only a small fraction of US households – about 175,000 – still rely on dial-up for internet access and web browser platforms. Web browsers themselves are a relic of the 80s and 90s, when they were subject to fierce wars between Microsoft and Netscape. AI has started to encroach on browsers' territory. The growth of dial-up internet – sometimes attributed in part to demand for pornography – and its subsequent decline to faster internet services, may now be mourned in concert with other pop cultural relics of decades past, including CDs, pagers and landlines.
Reuters
6 days ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Crackdown on US banks encourages riskier behavior
NEW YORK, Aug 8 (Reuters Breakingviews) - A White House offensive against U.S. banks will just tick another box off their deregulation wish list. To stop perceived, albeit unsubstantiated, discrimination against his supporters, President Donald Trump is instructing agencies to scrap, opens new tab 'reputation risk or equivalent concepts' from the customer assessment equation. The baseless crusade will lead to less paperwork, which lenders will welcome, but make it harder to spot fraud. Trump has accused JPMorgan and Bank of America of rejecting his business after he left office in , and claims that other conservatives have suffered a similar fate. His executive order issued on Thursday says transactions with companies such as Cabela's and payments using terms like MAGA have been flagged despite lacking evidence of criminal conduct. It also directs Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to explore legislative or regulatory responses. Banks deny any systemic bias. Although there is no clear pattern of discrimination, crimes involving money in the age of cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence are on the rise. Americans lost nearly $13 billion to financial fraud last year, up 25% from the previous year, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission reported. Efforts to spot money laundering and other wrongdoing also have been growing, creating extra burdens for banks. The number of suspicious transaction reports sent to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network from deposit-taking institutions has more than doubled to 2 million since 2017. Lenders worldwide are also on track to spend more than $50 billion in 2026 to prevent fraud, up from $28 billion in 2024, according to a Juniper Research study last year, opens new tab. Despite disliking the president amplifying allegations of discrimination, BofA boss Brian Moynihan and his counterparts will embrace any policy that pares their hulking rulebook. There are good reasons to rethink ways of assessing credit risks, but it also would help if lenders were required to explain and document decisions to close accounts or turn away borrowers. Trump already has rolled back enforcement, opens new tab of all sorts of financial misdeeds. Further clearing the way for more of them is a far bigger threat than the fanciful idea that profit-seeking banks turn away good business on purely ideological grounds. Follow Stephen Gandel on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X, opens new tab.
The Independent
6 days ago
- The Independent
College endowment tax is leading to hiring freezes and could mean cuts in financial aid
A big increase in the tax on university endowments is adding to financial uncertainty for the wealthiest colleges in the U.S., leading several already to lay off staff or implement hiring freezes. Spending more endowment money on taxes could also lead colleges to reduce financial aid, cutting off access to elite institutions for lower-income students, colleges and industry experts have warned. President Donald Trump signed the tax increase into law last month as part of his signature spending bill. The new tax rates take effect in 2026, but colleges such as Harvard, Yale and Stanford already are citing the tax as one of many reasons for making cuts across their universities. Each will be on the hook to pay hundreds of millions more in taxes, while also navigating reductions in research grants and other threats to funding by the Trump administration. A tax on college endowments was introduced during Trump's first administration, collecting 1.4% of wealthy universities' investment earnings. The law signed by Trump last month creates a new tiered system that taxes the richest schools at the highest rates. The new tax will charge an 8% rate at schools with $2 million or more in assets for each enrolled student. Schools with $750,000 to $2 million will be charged 4%, and schools with $500,000 to $750,000 will continue to be charged the 1.4% rate. The tax applies only to private colleges and universities with at least 3,000 students, up from the previous cutoff of 500 students. 'The tax now will really solely apply to private research universities,' said Steven Bloom, assistant vice president of government relations for the American Council on Education. 'It's going to mean that these schools are going to have to spend more money under the tax, taking it away from what they primarily use their endowment assets for — financial aid.' This small group of wealthy colleges faces a tax increase The law will increase the endowment tax for about a dozen universities, according to an Associated Press analysis of data from the National Association of College and University Business Officers. Harvard, Yale, Stanford, Princeton and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are expected to pay the 8% rate next year. The schools facing the 4% rate include Notre Dame, Dartmouth College, Rice University, University of Pennsylvania, Washington University in St. Louis and Vanderbilt University. Some universities are on the edge of the law's parameters. Both Duke and Emory, for instance, were shy of the $750,000-per-student endowment threshold based on last fiscal year. Endowments are made up of donations to the college, which are invested to maintain the money over time. Colleges often spend about 5% of their investment earnings every year to put toward their budgets. Much of it goes toward scholarships for students, along with costs such as research or endowed faculty positions. Despite the colleges' wealth, the tax will drastically impact their budgets, said Phillip Levine, an economist and professor at Wellesley College. 'They're looking for savings wherever possible,' Levine said, which could impact financial aid. ' One of the most important things they do with their endowment is lower the cost of education for lower- and middle-income students. The institutions paying the highest tax are also the ones charging these students the least amount of money to attend.' For example, at Rice University in Houston, officials anticipate the college will need to pay $6.4 million more in taxes. That equates to more than 100 student financial aid packages, the university said, but Rice officials will explore all other options to avoid cutting that support. How colleges are adjusting to financial pressures In the meantime, some universities are going forward with staff cuts. Yale University says it will have to pay an estimated $280 million in total endowment taxes, citing the tax in a campus message implementing a hiring freeze. Stanford University announced plans to reduce its operating budget by $140 million this upcoming school year, which included 363 layoffs and an ongoing hiring freeze. The university spent months trying to determine where to reduce its budget, but said it would continue to support undergraduate financial aid and funding for Ph.D. students. Research universities are under increasing financial pressure from reductions in funding from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies. No university knows this pressure better than Harvard, the country's wealthiest college. Its $53 billion endowment puts it at the top of the list for the new tax, but it's also seeing massive portions of research funding under threat in its ongoing battle with the White House. The federal government has frozen $2.6 billion in Harvard's research grants in connection with civil rights investigations focused on antisemitism and Harvard's efforts to promote diversity on campus. But the impact of other administration policies on the university could approach $1 billion annually, Harvard said in a statement. 'It's not like Harvard is going to go from one of the best institutions in the world to just a mediocre institution. That's probably not going to happen," Levine said. 'But that doesn't mean it's not going to be a bad thing — that there won't be pain and that students won't suffer.' ___ Mumphrey reported from Phoenix. Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye in Philadelphia contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
