Remote work, Luddites and inevitable change?

Giuliano Cardoso · 2023-12-04 · 7 min read

We are living through a time of great transformation, and over the last 200 years, on any day of any week, in any newspaper, an author could have opened their text in exactly the same way, because with the advent of capitalism, change is the rule.

The young capitalists in their startups who say they are disruptors and will change or even save the world are no different from the old ones of 100 or 200 years ago, because each era had great disruptions in its own way: transformation, reinvention and adaptation are at the core of this system, the very traits that define it.

With the pandemic and, as a result, remote work, it became commonplace, with in-person meetings replaced by virtual ones thanks to tools like Google Meet, Microsoft Teams and Zoom.

But, as in every era, there are the Luddites, who only see the negative side and want a return to the old format, since, after all, the pandemic is over, repeating the same old conservative litany, as if history had a reset button.

For those still swimming against the tide of history, it is worth remembering that, just as older people once saw young people spending hours on computers as something abnormal to be fought, those who only see evil in remote work will be doing it in 5 or 10 years (and I'm being pessimistic), just as the former today can't put down a smartphone, spending far more time in the virtual world (especially WhatsApp and Facebook) than the children they criticized so much.

Recently I witnessed one of the most ironic and funny things: in a meeting held in a virtual environment, where remote work was on the agenda because of its imminent regulation, we were told we should all remember its immeasurable harms and be extremely careful.

I was stunned and frustrated by the lack of vision, because at no point had this way of working been established as mandatory, nor were we anywhere near the pandemic scenario, when everyone was forced into it regardless of their psychological and social capacity, or their skill with a completely different medium where interaction is mediated by technology they might not even master.

So I don't disagree with the criticism that sociability really is limited when work is 100% remote, among many other points that could be listed; after all, it is a new way of working that requires its own methods, for which many are not prepared.

However, the heart of the matter is that remote work is here to stay, but it is not for everyone, nor should it be.

Just as radio did not replace newspapers, nor were newspapers replaced by television, nor did the Internet end mass media, only transformed them, the new ways of working are expected to keep coexisting with the old ones; after all, the industrial revolution didn't even end craftsmanship, it only created a new form of (alienated) labor and a new social configuration (creating two antagonistic classes, one serving the other).

Beyond that, it is essential to point out that you can't put the genie back in the bottle: once something is invented, it can't simply be un-invented. Ideas cannot be destroyed, and it takes more than a civilizational catastrophe for us to lose our technology, let alone the ideals and possibilities that come from it.

People won't forget that they didn't have to face hellish traffic to get to work, and that work was done from home, with no major trouble for those who adapted.

In my few years of life and experience in the job market, I've heard everything about the next technological or social revolution, from CDs never being replaced by MP3s, nor MP3s by music streaming, since people would surely want to physically own their records, CDs and so on.

I lived to see two places I loved going to disappear: first newsstands and then bookstores, which closed or are on their way to extinction, with a few attempts at relaunching. Capitalism is a cruel system that cares neither for nostalgia nor for your personal opinion. I miss buying comics at newsstands, but I have the maturity and understanding to know that time has passed.

More recently, while presenting a new electronic information system meant to end paper-based processes, I saw an Experienced Manager say he had been hearing about the "end" of paper in organizations for years. The impression was that, for him, paper would be forever irreplaceable, since everything had already been tried to free organizations from its tyranny. In the end he was wrong: the system is there and everyone depends on it, and although we are still in a long and painful process of Digital Transformation of every other process, many organizations have long been fully paperless.

Of course, all the printers are still there, and anyone who wants to can read the printed version, but the processes happen electronically, with paper being just one more way to consume information rather than the foundation of the system.

Who would have said 10 years ago that a technology like PIX (Brazil's instant payment system) would be so ubiquitous that we can no longer imagine how we lived so long without it? Even a revolutionary technology, once it proves superior, becomes the status quo. Almost every Brazilian agrees that the end of PIX, or an outage of a few hours, could even bring social chaos.

The Luddites also made the same level of arguments they make about remote work when distance learning appeared: it was immediately declared an imminent failure, a passing fad and an option for the lazy, considered something inferior. Granted, there is in fact a "gap" between in-person, hybrid and distance learning, but we can't forget that the latter democratized education even further. Today we have countless platforms spreading knowledge about everything; even YouTube and TikTok can be considered versions of this. Today you can get a foreign language proficiency certificate on Duolingo (in Portuguese) without ever attending a physical class.

That is, a new paradigm shouldn't be expected to completely replace its predecessors. People are different; each learns and interacts with the world in their own way, with limitations and abilities that make them a unique individual. That is exactly why we need several options that complement each other and open a new path that will produce new talent, talent that could not exist because it didn't fit the previous models.

But the inescapable fact, the reality at hand, is that the Train of Progress has already left the Station, and it is completely indifferent to the Luddites, because, as shown here with several examples, technology and superior ways of doing things will always establish themselves regardless of the personal convictions of those frightened by change.

Let's face it: although remote work doesn't apply to every field, we live in a globalized world, a global village, where countries that don't adapt their laws and regulations, in both the public and private sectors, will have to watch, stunned, a brain drain more brutal than the one of the last decades. After all, today someone with an IT degree, for example, can work and contribute perfectly to a team in Dubai, New York or London, or anywhere else, since there are few limitations to it. And people would certainly rather be paid in dollars than in reais, so they will be drawn by the money and leave their bosses behind. In the public sector this is already happening: many are giving up even job stability, because in the end their work wasn't valued and their employers cared more about the possible risks of a change that has already happened.

I see office lovers, those who won't even consider hybrid work (where you work remotely part of the time and in person the rest), as museum pieces, because unless your job depends on your physical presence, I don't understand the reasons behind such archaism.

Remote work, Luddites and inevitable change?

Comments (0)

Leave a comment

SEE ALSO