WFH Because Of This 2026 Conflict Affecting Petrol Prices

I could set up a poll, but I'm wondering if there are any Australian workplaces who are sympathetic towards this country's citizens, due to the high petrol prices?

After Covid lockdowns, the business chambers and hospitality industry groups lobbied employers, to force workers back to the office because these lobby groups were upset that people were keeping their grandmas safe by WFH and not buying coffees anymore or there were less foot-traffic through retail precincts.

Now, with high fuel prices and growing interest rates, how many would like to a return to WFH scenario or for a part of the week?

Several Asian countries have started to ask their population to reduce commuting, to better manage the fuel resources.

Australia could follow suit?

Is there a petition for asking Australian companies to be compassionate or even show some solidarity with the workers, or are these companies only focused on inflicting more pain on a working class which is already under the pump? minus the pun).

Comments

Search through all the comments in this post.
  • +28

    WFH never ended for many office workers. My neighbour just started a new fully-remote job the other day.

    And no, no employer cares about your feelings re cost of living. WFH is almost always a negotiated benefit like any other - how much leverage do you have in a negotiation at your current or next job?

      • +12

        Not sure how ‘diversity’ or the lack of it figures in this at all. Maybe you’re jumping at shadows on that one.

        • -5

          You can see how decisions are made, at political level of countries that are not based on immigration, eg. Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Egyot, etc…

          They are all deciding to alleviate petrol-related issues.

          Majority of those countries are in Asia, and those countries don't have a migration program either.

          So, I was describing it factually, but people get triggered by this 😬

          I mean look at China.
          It has achieved super-power status and achieved everything without Mexicans as their gardeners, without Indians as their food-delivery drivers, without European backpackers to pick its fruits and vegetables.
          We keep buying so much from China, and make them richer, funding their development and what not, while they don't have a migration program and while multicultural Australia have their wealth plundered by trans-national companies digging holes in the ground.

          • +8

            @whyisave: people are not getting triggered. You're getting downvoted because you're reducing incredibly multifaceted national policies into one single issue.

            You're being sold the narrative by political entities that solving this one single issue (that their party can do overnight!) will fix all the problems in your world. It will not.

            • -1

              @KiKH:

              You're being sold the narrative by political entities that solving this one single issue (that their party can do overnight!) will fix all the problems in your world. It will not.

              Have you been sold the alternative narrative (by political and financially interested entities) that diversty = strength always and forever regardless of specifics?

          • +6

            @whyisave: Again, I don't understand your train of thought.
            How is a poorer country with no oil production that can't afford high prices forced to take emergency measures like closing schools or subsidies for the very poor related to their migration program?

            You gave the example of China, a country well prepared for oil shocks who is not closing services - yet they don't have high immigration.

            What I am asking is what is the connection between immigration and oil that you seem to want to make?

            • +2

              @mskeggs: I could be wrong but i think he means the high amount of immigration makes those in charge think of the workforce as easily replaceable.

          • +5

            @whyisave:

            I mean look at China. It has achieved super-power status and achieved everything without Mexicans

            Dude, they have 1.4 billion people.

            Shanghai alone has more people than all of Australia.

          • @whyisave:

            It has achieved super-power status and achieved everything without Mexicans as their gardeners,

            Too far to swim.

      • +11

        whyisave

        whyiracist

      • +2

        If the country was less 'diverse', eg. Japan

        Annnnnd, you lost me… Sounds like from a One Nation party short of a cooker.

  • +22

    Have public transport prices increased?

    • +13

      I was thinking if the state governments actually cared about the situation an easy and helpful policy is just to reduce public transport prices during this time to encourage less car use, and in turn reduce fuel demand.

      • +6

        If only there was a state that had done this and we could analyse the impact on usage /s

        • f only there was a state that had done this and we could analyse the impact on usage /s

          Oh I’m not up to date with qld news. So AI tells me.

          Yes, the 50-cent public transport fares in Queensland have significantly increased patronage, with a 16% to 22% rise in usage across the network during the trial period.

          So it does make big difference. Glad to know my suggestion makes sense.

      • +5

        One could argue that the higher fuel prices would be having the same effect as reducing already cheap public transport fares.

      • +2

        And here was me thinking 50¢ anywhere (except Airflow) in SEQ was a pretty good fare.

      • +1

        Why would they need to reduce fare prices? They're helpfully keeping prices stable which makes it relatively more attractive as other options deteriorate in value for money

      • You're speaking too much sense.

        This will need to go to the Productivity Commission, Independent Pricing Review, etc…etc…before a decision about lowering anything will come into effect.

        Basically, with all the checks and balances, decision-making in a democracy is shared,and hence never so quick.

        During Covid years, in NSW, they even increased train fares and toll-roads,…just because the price-increases were in the pipeline, which did not have a 'pandemic' scenario to cater for.

    • Public transport should be free.

  • +21

    Fuel efficient modern cars don’t take a lot to get to the station for the train.
    WFH only moves the needle for CBD workers, who typically take public transport.
    If this drags on, it will be more likely to see things like alternate day rationing, maybe gov shutting some service temporarily.

    While I am sympathetic to a country tradie who does kms in a ute, or anyone else with few options, the people most impacted seem to be driving a Ram to the shops because they need it for the caravan once a year.
    And WFH isn’t going to help a country tradie or local courier or long distance trucker.

  • +9

    Most companies don't care unfortunately.

    Realistically if they were forward-thinking they'd have already told you you can be 100% remote even before this moment as there's no point being in office end of day.

    Higher fuel prices are unlikely to push the needle for them unless prices really sky-rocket and stay high for months.

  • +7

    Sorry, but WFH idea is the biggest scam in history of Employment.

    I have the privilege to wfh, like now literally while typing this. I am working at the same time editing my last travel videos. Can I do this at my workplace? Hell nah.

    • +6

      Is the quality of your actual work suffering? Are you doing less of your actual work when you wfh because you are doing other things? Or do you find that you can utilise your time more efficiently when you wfh, as opposed to when you're in the office and find yourself sitting around with nothing to do becuase you already finished your work?

      • -3

        WFH is honestly such a huge scam, I can message people on Teams on a Friday and not hear back until Tuesday because everyone is mysteriously MIA on a Friday and Monday when they are WFH.

        The whole 'is your output/quality' the same argument realize on the idea that you do a job which requires no interaction or collaboration. I don't mind if they are gonna sit at home and play video games but if I need to ask you a damn question during business hours I expect a prompt response.

        • +4

          Confirmation bias.

      • -7

        As I said, WFH employees are the bigger scammers out there. Since Covid, me and my wife can always opt to WFH but ended up going to cafes and spending time at the GYM or other errands, yes we do work but 20% of what we do when we are at our WORKPLACE. We have heaps of friends too and guess what, most of the time we are at indoor playground with our kids while WFH lol.

        If anyone tells you they are more productive WFH, tell them to F' off.

        • +4

          Huh. You’re telling on yourself a bit.
          I’m surprised your employer can’t see you doing 80% less on WFH days, unless when you are in the office you just load up on meaningless meetings and catch-ups so it isn’t visible?

        • +3

          seems that's like a you problem instead of the general public.

    • +5

      People who are lazy WFH are equally lazy in the office, just in different ways.

  • +7

    Is there a petition for asking Australian companies to be compassionate or even show some solidarity with the workers, or are these companies only focused on inflicting more pain on a working class which is already under the pump? minus the pun).

    Bahahahahahahaha

    No one and i mean this from Left Wingers, to Right Wingers, From ALP to LNP, from Rich or Poor gives a f—k about us workers

    Rich want to abuse us, Poor want us to pay more tax so they can continue to milk the system they dont contribute too

    ALP want to f—k our wages with migration, LNP will sell us out to big business f—k our wages

    NO ONE CARES ABOUT US WORKERS NO ONE AND IF YOU BELIEVE THEY DO YOU ARE KIDDING YOURSELF EVEN THE UNIONS HAVE SOLD US OUT

  • +5

    If your role / company requires you to come to the office 5 days, even though there is not an actual need for it (i.e. retail, hospitality, medical services, sales, face to face client meetings etc). Then your role / company is not a great one anyway.

    Say your job needs to be physically at work, i.e. KFC, you can still use public transport.

    • Then your role / company is not a great one anyway.

      When people leave their company, they are actually leaving their manager.

      With that said, what if the CEO or board is forcing all management to force workers back, and tying the performance bonus to making their subordinates back to the office?

  • +4

    the real winners are people who recently upgraded cars to EV (specially those amazing value chinese evs we seen like the mg 30k drive away or even some recent deals around 40k even 50k. im not in the market for a new car i got 2022 camry hybrid, which still needs petrol to run

    • +1

      Camry hybrid is still good. Think of it as halving or quartering the price of petrol.

      • +1

        cries in camry 3.5L V6

        • Your V6 is probably similar on fuel if you are rural or do mostly freeway driving (uncongested).

          • @ssfps: No 3.5 v6 is getting 4.5L/100km. Maybe mid 7s?

            I did 4000 km in the US recently, average over the whole trip in my 2025 Camry Hybrid was 4.3 L/100km mostly 60-70 mph.

            I love EVs but the flexibility and minimal fuel use make it basically the rental king.

            • @andyfc:

              No 3.5 v6 is getting 4.5L/100km. Maybe mid 7s?

              If hybrid camrys are getting ~4.5L/100km on open rural highways, an equivalent v6 non-hybrid would get very similar. Worst-case for hybrids is no efficiency boost from the electric motors, which occurs on long highway drives with little breaking or acceleration, and youre lugging around the extra weight dropping efficiency back to the ~v6 range.

              btw my old 3.5L v6 use to clock 6L/100km if i was driving 110km/h on flat roads, and that was a 2002 model with an old-fashioned (lower) compression ratio and old o2 sensors.

              I think a lot of people just have this association that more cylinders means more fuel usage unilaterally without considering the main reason for increase fuel usage is spirited driving and extra weight.

              • +3

                @ssfps: Yes, hypothetically sure. I get what your saying.

                I'm more talking about reality of ' mostly rural' - almost no one drives exclusively 100kmh on a flat road. Some do, but would be unusual.

                There are still some stop lights, turns, and changes in elevation that takes advantage of the hybrid battery and the hybrid petrol engine uses an Atkinson cycle, which is more efficient.

  • +4

    Seems like a lot of wealthy people on ozbargain these days, they seem to not be affected by interest rate hikes or fuel prices going up dramatically. I am not sure why people are saying commuting to work isnt that much more with the fuel increase. It definitely is for people who are on average or below average income. Everything has been going up, like private health or energy prices, their mortgage on the only home they have / are living in and now the fuel.

    • -2

      Because most people own newish cars that cost ~$5k a year in depreciation, plus $2k p.a. in interest, plus $1k p.a. in rego, plus $1k p.a. in comprehensive insurance, plus $1k p.a. in maintenance. Whether you pay $2k or $3k a year in fuel isn't that big a difference, and if that extra 10% TCO is a big deal to you, you really couldn't afford the car prior to the hikes anyway.

      • So most people are suckers.

        • A lot of people are apethetic to most things, except the footie or farmer needs a wife.

  • +3

    I think there is a lot of panic in some circles. The worst case is pretty disruptive, but not life threatening.

    Australia produces about 10% of the crude we need. I don't know if the remaining refinery (Brisbane is still operating, I think) can handle that blend, but it is probably possible under extreme conditions.
    So food, law and order, emergency services can be fuelled indefinitely.
    The second order effects, like can the locum get to their shift in a country hospital get trickier, and almost everyone will have reasons they need private transport so I wouldn't envy having to make the decisions of who gets a ration ticket.

    Probably, it will run like it has in wartime or overseas, the essential services get the first 9% of the usual daily supply and everyone else gets a share of the remaining 1%. You can decide how you use the 5l a fortnight you get - maybe you give yours to the local nurse and bike to work, maybe you carpool with 4 others to get to work and sleep over at work every second night to save fuel.

    Right now a lot of the disruption is because business as usual uses the strait. If this drags on for 3 months there will be big incentives to expand pipelines, truck crude etc.
    It is only this interim when stuff is gridlocked.

    That said, I wouldn't thoughtlessly shape my life around driving 2 hours a day to get to work etc. because it seems pretty likely these kind of disruptions aren't decreasing. Have a plan B, whether that is an electric bike or car, voting for better public transport etc.

    • +1

      I'll also note the country has a strategic fuel supply stored in the USA. I haven't heard about it recently . When Scomo paid for it, there was a lot of talk that it wouldn't do much good in the USA, so I am interested in what happened.

      • +2

        I'll also note the country has a strategic fuel supply stored in the USA. I haven't heard about it recently . When Scomo paid for it, there was a lot of talk that it wouldn't do much good in the USA, so I am interested in what happened.

        Albanese sold the oil reserves held in Texas in 2022 after the elections. Proceeds were spent wasted by the government.

      • +1

        Rationing won't work for all industries. Transport and logistics will still need to function. Might mean your mail or parcel post takes infinitely longer to prioritise food (and transporting fuel to continue transporting food).

        Agriculture uses thousands of litres a day during peak periods (per farm).

        Successive govts have all contributed to the lack of strategic reserve for the last 30 years. And they all seem to prefer widening freeways to investing in public transport.

        We love our cars. Almost as much as yanks love their guns

        • 100% true, but Australia produces approx 1.5m litres a day, so I am pretty confident we can keep the food going, come what may.

          The complete lack of foresight by all sides of politics (except Jim Molan, RIP, who pushed on this issue for years) is a joke.

          • +3

            @mskeggs:

            The complete lack of foresight by all sides of politics

            I don't think its a lack of foresight at all.

            It is not a costless exercise to keep extra fuel in storage for a rainy day. We have reaped a JIT dividend from having 30 days of reserves for a long time, and now in an emergency we are paying the price.

            Its not too disimilar who saves money on insurance, betting on they wont need it or the cost(risk/reward) is too high. It's too early to tell if the cost currently does out weigh the many years of saved costs of not storing 50-100 days extra fuel on site.

            • +1

              @cloudy: AI tells me…

              As of early 2026, the estimated cost for Australia to build and maintain a full 90-day onshore fuel reserve is approximately $20 billion (estimated over 4 years).

              While Australia is a member of the International Energy Agency (IEA), which mandates a 90-day reserve, the country has been non-compliant since 2012. Successive governments have argued that the cost of domestic storage is prohibitively high compared to the perceived risks.

              So we have saved $5bill every year we haven't had 90 days of storage….that's a lot of money. I dunno how much these last 3 week of disruption has costed us so far, but I think we've still heavily in the green with our current policy.

            • @cloudy: It's a pretty minor cost in the scheme of things, a bit like keeping a month or two ahead on your mortgage. It's also something we committed to do as a member of the oecd/EIA.
              Shrug.

              It is like insurance, and this isn't even a major event. This is like the storm that cracked a few roof tiles, and we are saying look at all the money we saved as the dry grass and leaves pile up in the bush across the road.

              I'll go further and say the productivity cost of a few million people spending an extra five minutes to refuel at the cheaper servo in the next suburb already covered the cost of managing a reserve.

              • +4

                @mskeggs: Healthy debate is what's great, there is never a clear cut answer.

                I'm sure at the start of the year if you polled the general populus how many would support spending $5b yearly on having some extra storage tanks with fuel that does nothing you'd have overwhelming support for current policy.

                Now days, everyone talks in hindsight like the government has no eyes.

      • +1

        It wasn't fuel, it was crude oil. Pretty sure it was sold a couple of years ago anyway.

    • Brisbane is still operating, I think

      I think that is where the temporary supply of fuel will be coming from. Up until now they could only sell the fuel overseas due to the higher sulphur content but a law change will allow them to sell the “polluting/dirty” fuel for I believe 60 or 90 days.

      • Yeah, I think there was a big bill to upgrade that site that produce lower sulphur so they are exporting higher sulphur rather than pay the billion dollars to upgrade.
        I see Geelong is still going too, and paid the $400m to upgrade their plant.
        https://primemovermag.com.au/viva-energy-confirms-refinery-u…

        So refining capacity isn't a chokepoint to refine locally produced fuel, just potentially the lack of crude.

        It seems like we should be getting 80%+ of usual supply, so I guess the gov is correct that it is like the toilet paper shortage.

  • +2

    Food production runs on diesel, if the farms and haulage don’t have diesel Australia doesn’t have food. Because of this there have been rumours of fuel rationing and “vehicle lockdowns” for non-essential services if the current plan to temporarily reintroduce higher sulphur content fuel doesn’t work. If the vehicle lockdowns happen it could mean employers would allow some people to WFH.

  • +2

    I've been WFH, since the COVID shutdown, but still go to work a few times a week for human interaction :)

    I don’t think everyone gets the same luxury as I do. Imagine some of the hospital staff with no fuel, not that they can WFH.

  • +2

    I have managed large teams in my career, and work from home was a double edge sword. On one hand it is awesome and provides great flexibility and work-life-balance, on the other, majority the people (in few organisations that I have worked at) took advantage of this opportunity. I say this with my experience as a people manager dealing with numerous performance management discussions. It was insane!

    Anyways, I have few friends that mostly work from home, in senior data analyst, IT roles, and have become content creators or doing other side gigs, earning a full time income from their jobs while WFH hours. They hardly work for 2-3 hours a day. Lmfao.

    My personal opinion is that WFH is awesome - when required/needed and should be granted to anyone when in need. Not like permanent set 2/3 days/week. Or it should be negotiated as part of the role requirements, should be in the PD, during the interview and when issuing the contract.

    • +2

      majority the people (in few organisations that I have worked at) took advantage of this opportunity.

      Yeah, nobody ever slacks off in an office setting…

      They hardly work for 2-3 hours a day. Lmfao.

      Are they getting their job done or not? If not, who cares if they are putting in 10 hours a day. If it's done, you've got no ethical business busting anyone's chops.
      Unless, of course, you're paying for hours, not performance, but i've never personally seen an IT job that didn't measure performance.

      I have managed large teams in my career, and work from home was a double edge sword.

      There are successful companies that are 100% remote. If it's been a double edge sword for you, that speaks more to your management style an/or and hiring choices than it does WFH in general.

      • Yeah, nobody ever slacks off in an office setting…

        Yeah..nah. I never said people don’t slack in offices. Of course they do. The difference is visibility, accountability, and team dynamics which do change in a WFH environment whether you like it or not.

        Are they getting their job done or not? If not, who cares if they are putting in 10 hours a day. If it's done, you've got no ethical business busting anyone's chops.
        Unless, of course, you're paying for hours, not performance, but i've never personally seen an IT job that didn't measure performance

        And no, it’s not just 'is the job done or not.'
        That’s a very narrow, individual contributor mindset. I get what you saying but It’s not just about getting tasks done.
        It’s about being present, accountable, and contributing when the team actually needs you.

        In large teams.. performance isn't just output. There are so many other factors and you can’t measure all of that in a KPI dashboard.

        There are successful companies that are 100% remote. If it's been a double edge sword for you, that speaks more to your management style an/or and hiring choices than it does WFH in general.

        Managing 5 high performers remotely is easy. Managing large, mixed-performance teams across roles, personalities, and accountability levels is a completely different game. No doubt, some companies have nailed 100% remote. They’ve built entire systems, hiring filters, and cultures around it.

        That doesn’t mean every company, team, or industry can copy-paste that overnight.

        I think WFH isn’t the problem. Blindly assuming it works perfectly everywhere is.

        • I've seen in-office workers produce literally no output for months at a time.
          I've worked with people that do about 1 hour a day working, 100% in office. Most of their time is chatting/interrupting people, going out for coffee, etc.

          That’s a very narrow, individual contributor mindset.

          It's a fair "mindset". High performance teams that are paid well and treated well don't need to be "held accountable" in a half-assed way by showing their face in an office. Low-performing teams are often correlated to poor remuneration and treatment, so no, they shouldn't be expected to be can-do proactive staff solving problems beyond their job description and daily procedures. Pay peanuts hire monkeys etc.

          team dynamics which do change in a WFH environment whether you like it or not.

          Whether you like it or not, you're just projecting your own biases onto "WFH". Even the mid-performing teams at my job during covid lockdowns and the long WFH tail saw no productivity decrease.
          Maybe your teams just don't know how to use email and instant messaging to stay in contact?

          Blindly assuming it works perfectly everywhere is.

          I don't think it works everywhere with 0 effort, but I maintain it works as well as in-office dynamics given the same effort by leadership to facility team health (which, despite the common belief, doesn't just come free simply by being in-person).

          • @ssfps: We agree good teams perform anywhere.
            The difference is how average teams perform, that’s where WFH vs in-office actually gets tested.

  • +1

    Cafes are already getting slammed with increasing costs, I don’t think anyone wants to reduce their foot traffic too.

    Hitting cafes to save grandma is reasonable. Hitting cafes because white collar workers don’t want to get on public transport isn’t going to get much sympathy. And I say this as a white collar worker who wishes he’d never have to go into the office ever again.

    • +3

      people go to suburban cafes instead. Cafes aren't a capital intensive business. Much of the capital is mobile. The workforce is casualised. CBD safes are not a reason to set energy policy.

      • My suburban hair dresser has made a lot more money since WFH.

  • +1

    I've worked for years from home - 15km from central Brisbane, but in QLD only 50 cents to take public transport to the city, there in quick measure, so working in the office still defintiely possible.,

  • +1
    • 6 years after the fact, and 4 years before the "deadline".

      Funnily enough, EU President is/was in Aust. now, talking about the " World Order".
      {Yes, she said it).

      • Funnily enough, EU President is/was in Aust. now, talking about the " World Order".
        {Yes, she said it).

        Ah yes, the EU President Ursula from the WEF was addressing parliament, I saw that clip also today

  • Whats wrong with public transport?

    • +4

      Only works if you live somewhere that has public transport. That said.. bike, walk.

      Won't work for all, especially those with children to take to care/school on the way to work. Buses aren't everywhere unfortunately

      • +2

        Drive to the nearest train station. Although parking at train stations is a nightmare right now, thanks to many people actually doing that.

        • Most of our landmass has no passenger trains

          • +8

            @Cobber870: Because most of our landmass has no passengers

    • +1

      Whats wrong with public transport?

      An awesome concept if your locality has it.

    • I use both vline and metro but vline runs off diesel

    • -1

      Whats wrong with public transport?

      Zone 1 and 2 myki ticket costs $11.4 a day. If someone worked 3 to 5 days a week, that's $136.8 to $228 for 4 weeks. Employers almost never pay for this, but may also increase the number of "in office" days arbitrarily from say 2 days to 3 or such.

      Beside this cost, the travel time is also a significant factor for people living far away from the CBD.

      The "big build" BS introducing townhall, states library, etc stations seems to have done nothing for people living far in the South East other than:

      • decrease travel time by a whopping 4 minutes or so out of the total 60 odd minutes.
      • Made sure that people getting in on a train in the CBD cannot get a seat for a significant part of the journey as the train starts far upstream now.
      • Spend billions of dollars
      • +1

        Zone 1 and 2 myki ticket costs $11.4 a day. If someone worked 3 to 5 days a week, that's $136.8 to $228 for 4 weeks. Employers almost never pay for this, but may also increase the number of "in office" days arbitrarily from say 2 days to 3 or such.

        So? Petrol isn't free either, employers also don't pay for that.

        At least the Myki price only changes once a year.

        As for travel time, it is going to depend on where you are going to / from and at what times. For me getting the train is about 10 minutes quicker door to door than it is driving but in the arvo when traffic is always worse for some reason it is comfortably 30+ minutes quicker. I work with some people where the difference is negligible both ways.

        • +1

          So? Petrol isn't free either, employers also don't pay for that.

          You asked me what's wrong with public transport and I answered. If it costs as much as petrol then that doesn't give people a lot of incentives to use public transport.

          traffic is always worse for some reason

          Yeah, I wonder why that is. Perhaps public transport isn't enticing enough?

      • -1

        seems to have done nothing for people living far in the South East other than:

        You forgot run services more frequently.

        Made sure that people getting in on a train in the CBD cannot get a seat for a significant part of the journey as the train starts far upstream now.

        Is your contention because the trains no longer loop, people coming in on the Sunbury line are taking up all the seats before the train hits the CBD, and continue to take those seats far into the South East? Bollocks.

        • You forgot run services more frequently.

          Yeah sure, i can get a train 5 minutes sooner and have to stand half the way.

          Is your contention because the trains no longer loop,

          Bollocks. This seems to be your imagination. I couldn't care how a train reaches my station.

          people coming in on the Sunbury line are taking up all the seats before the train hits the CBD, and continue to take those seats far into the South East? Bollocks.

          The point that you are unable to empathise with is that people getting into a train in the city will have to stand for a significant portion of the journey (not sure if this is because you imagined me complaining something about trains not looping instead). I'll trade 5 to 10 minutes if I could sit down after a day of work to rest my eyes, do some useful work, or read a book.

          • -1

            @CocaKoala:

            Bollocks. This seems to be your imagination. I couldn't care how a train reaches my station.

            You’re the one who mentioned starting upstream

            I'll trade 5 to 10 minutes if I could sit down after a day of work to rest my eyes, do some useful work, or read a book

            I’m on the line, trains are less busy than before because the services run more frequently.

            • @Randolph Duke:

              I’m on the line, trains are less busy than before because the services run more frequently.

              Hahaha what. It's difficult to just find a place to stand if I get in at town hall. Perhaps you get in at water gardens or something. Anyways, good for you if it works for you.

  • Anyone who wants to be enlightened, listen to this piece for 4 minutes of your time, you will see the big picture

    https://x.com/huizenprijzen/status/2033276138919702969

    Catherine Austin Fitts on the Strait of Hormuz shutdown:

    This is Covid 2.0.

    • +1

      I think more like Car owner virus 1.0

    • Pretty disturbing if true

    • -1

      you'll own nothing and be unhappy.

    • -4

      Conspiracist anti-vaxxer alert. Not worth your time.

  • I’ve worked from home for the majority of my professional career.
    I goto the office one a week if I wanna show my face to people in the office.

  • Despite completing several major projects whilst working from home during lock down, my company insists everyone goes to the office because there is no fuel crisis according to then.

  • So many downvotes happening up top OR arguing for going into the office.. Maybe its all the managers, executives or people in jobs that must go to work getting annoyed. I still see people driving around in their v8/v10 lambo/ferrari during peak hours here in Adelaide.

    Im lucky enough to be hybrid with a "recommended" office attendance. Most companies are just going to wait on what the government recommends which could take another week or 2.

Login or Join to leave a comment