PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) has announced a major shift in its hybrid work policy, intending to track employee locations starting January 2025. This move is part of a larger crackdown on remote work, particularly aimed at ensuring that staff members adhere to an in-person working requirement of at least three days per week. PwC is not alone in this transition, as several major firms are rolling out similar strategies to bring more employees back to the office following the post-pandemic surge in hybrid and remote work models. This new policy will affect PwC's U.K. division, where approximately 26,000 employees are expected to adjust to stricter office attendance. Previously, employees were asked to be in the office or with clients two to three days a week. The updated guidelines now require a minimum of 60% of working time spent in person. The firm will begin monitoring employee locations using internal data systems, sharing this information with workers monthly to ensure transparency and compliance. PwC's U.K. Managing Partner, Laura Hinton, emphasized that the policy was designed with both client service and staff development in mind. PwC tells employees it will use location data to police 'back-to-office' rule https://t.co/l2prgU0Ryp — CTV National News (@CTVNationalNews) September 10, 2024 The move comes as more businesses, particularly in the tech and financial sectors, increase their efforts to rein in remote work. Companies such as Meta, Amazon, and JPMorgan Chase have made headlines with similar policies, encouraging or mandating more office time. Amazon, for instance, has warned employees that failure to comply could result in disciplinary action, including the potential for job termination. PwC's decision has sparked debates about the future of work, particularly in industries that embraced hybrid models during the COVID-19 pandemic. While some employees prefer the flexibility of working from home, companies are citing concerns over productivity and collaboration. The return to office is framed by many firms as essential for maintaining client relations, fostering teamwork, and enhancing opportunities for career development through in-person coaching and mentoring​. PwC to start tracking working locations of all its UK employees https://t.co/iFqsikpgHT — Guardian Money (@guardianmoney) September 5, 2024 Critics of such policies argue that a forced return to the office could hurt morale and overlook the benefits of hybrid work, which many employees now view as a standard benefit. According to surveys, a significant portion of workers—especially in industries like consulting—report a preference for hybrid models, allowing them to balance personal responsibilities with work commitments. Nonetheless, companies like PwC are moving forward, balancing employee preferences with operational needs​. The broader trend shows that the hybrid work era is under scrutiny, with many organizations evaluating its long-term viability. In a September 2023 global survey by research firm Leesman, 94% of respondents expressed satisfaction with hybrid arrangements. However, firms pushing for more on-site work suggest that remote setups may hinder business performance in the long run, particularly in client-facing roles. The policy is not without flexibility. PwC is giving its staff several months to adjust to the new rules, and exceptions can be made if employees consistently face challenges adhering to the three-day minimum. However, for those who fail to meet the requirement without valid reasons, stricter consequences may follow, signaling that companies are serious about enforcing in-person attendance. As businesses worldwide rethink their return-to-office strategies, it’s clear that the balance between employee preference and business necessity is still being fine-tuned. PwC's tracking initiative represents just one of many moves by corporations to regain a foothold in traditional office dynamics after years of pandemic disruptions. Whether this shift is embraced or resisted by employees remains to be seen, but it's clear that in-person work is far from obsolete in the corporate world​. The post PwC to Track Employees’ Locations in Return-to-Office Crackdown appeared first on The Conservative Brief.

Legendary star of stage and screen James Earl Jones passed away on September 9, 2024, at the age of 93. Although his voice was deep and sometimes sounded menacing, James was known as a kind and gentle soul. He was a talented man and one of a distinguished group of performers to be called an EGOT for winning an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony award during his impressive career. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Empire State Building (@empirestatebldg) James made his debut in 1964 in Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. He continued to act in movies and on Broadway and for many, his most recognizable role came in the late 1970s. James voiced Darth Vader in the first three episodes of the Star Wars franchise. In 1980, he uttered one of the most famous lines in cinematic history telling Luke Skywalker, “I am your father.” The Empire State Building Paid Tribute To James Earl Jones In A Big Following the news of his death, many flocked to social media to share their favorite memories. But no one does it quite like the Big Apple. The Empire State Building’s Instagram account posted an image of the building lit up black and red with an image of Darth Vader in all his glory. Looking at the photo, it’s almost as if you can hear the Imperial March playing. View this post on Instagram A post shared by Empire State Building (@empirestatebldg) The post made many people emotional. Someone wrote, “So sad here was a wonderful man within a remarkable voice he will be missed.” “’Let the Force’ be with you, Sir RIP James Earl Jones,” a Star Wars fan commented. Many remember James as the voice of Mufasa in The Lion King. Those fans were equally as touched. A fan wrote, “Now I’m going to sob until I no longer can cry for a very long time! Especially at the death of Mufasa scene.” This person agreed, “James. As a kid, I recognized him as the beloved voice of Mufasa. May he rest in peace. Love your loved ones while you can, everyone.” You can find the source of this story’s featured image here. The post New Yorkers Brought To Tears By Empire State Building’s Epic James Earl Jones Tribute appeared first on InspireMore.

'I simply want to raise awareness'

'I hope they are going to learn a lesson from this'

‘It must have been terrifying for him’

'I love my wife and my children'

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Vice President Kamala Harris’s decision to employ Karen Dunn for debate preparation—while Dunn simultaneously defends Google against a major antitrust lawsuit from the Biden-Harris administration—has sparked accusations of a conflict of interest. Karen Dunn, who has a long history of assisting Democratic candidates with debate preparation since 2008, represented Google at the start of their trial on Monday. The ongoing lawsuit, pursued by the DOJ, claims Google unlawfully monopolizes its search engine market and is one of the biggest ever challenges to Big Tech’s dominance. Despite no formal ethics rules barring such dual roles since political campaigns are not legal battles, the decision to have Dunn so heavily associated with the Harris campaign raises eyebrows, especially coinciding Dunn’s influence on Harris could lead to Harris’ being less likely to take action against Google should Harris win the presidency. The House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Rep. Jim Jordan, has escalated concerns regarding the potential conflict of interest between Vice President Harris and Dunn. The committee sent a pointed letter to Attorney General Merrick B. Garland demanding a briefing on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) handling of potential biases and conflicts in the ongoing lawsuit, United States v. Google LLC. We obtained a copy of the letter for you here. “According to recent press coverage, Karen Dunn, a ‘lead attorney’ representing Google in the antitrust case United States v. Google LLC, is also simultaneously leading Vice President Harris’s preparations for the September 10 presidential debate,” the committee outlined.  Rep. Jordan further stressed the issue, stating, “This apparent conflict of interest raises serious concerns about whether Dunn’s relationship with key figures in the Biden-Harris Administration creates a conflict of interest that could inappropriately bias the Department’s approach in United States v. Google LLC.” The committee’s request for a detailed briefing by September 24 is part of a broader scrutiny under the umbrella of investigations into possible governmental overreach and collusion with big corporations to censor lawful speech. “Pursuant to the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee has jurisdiction to conduct oversight over the Department of Justice and of matters concerning ‘civil liberties’ and antitrust to inform potential legislative reforms,” the letter highlighted. Prominent tech leaders have significantly supported Vice President Harris’ rise from San Francisco’s district attorney to the national stage, and they remain key backers, recently demonstrating their support at a high-profile Democratic National Convention and a fundraiser in Atherton, California. These events signal a Harris Presidency could be a potential return to more industry-friendly policies reminiscent of the Obama administration, which refused to challenge Big Tech’s dominance. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Harris Taps Big Tech Lawyer Amidst Antitrust Battle, Sparking Ethics Firestorm appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

The Three Debate Keys For Trump Tonight -- And One for Kamala

The World Is Getting Ever More Stupid

CNBC anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin grilled historian and author Yuval Noah Harari, a contributor for the globalist World Economic Forum (WEF), over his contentious proposals for social media.  During the Sept. 9 edition of Squawk Box, Sorkin pushed back against Harari’s call for social media companies to be held liable for content promoted by their algorithm, particularly when it comes to suppressing or amplifying what Harari deemed “unreliable information.”  Sorkin brought up contrasting perspectives by asking for Harari’s thoughts on X owner Elon Musk’s vision for free speech and Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg’s regret over censoring legitimate content once dubbed misinformation.  Sorkin said that Zuckerberg admitted censoring, "Some of the information that their algorithm was effectively suppressing during the pandemic as it relates to COVID and vaccines and all sorts of other things.” Sorkin pressed Harari further, “And so the question is should the algorithm be suppressing certain information or not, right? This goes to the sort of Elon Musk-argument which is to say ‘Just let it all out there and that we are smart enough to figure it out?’” Harari, the author of Homo Deus, has claimed that "history began when humans invented gods, and will end when humans become gods.” Tellingly, Harari has also referred to human rights as “fictional” stories.  Harari’s remarks during the interview were similarly disturbing. He fretted that social media companies appeal to “freedom of speech” as an excuse to evade responsibility for their algorithms.  In response to Sorkin’s pointed questions, Harari repeatedly compared Big Tech’s algorithms to editorial decisions made by media outlets such as The New York Times. By this logic, he claimed that X and Facebook should be liable for the content their algorithms promote, though he constantly denied supporting the censorship of users. Sorkin brought up Musk’s defense of free speech, but Harari was dismissive. When Sorkin asked him whether algorithms should “be suppressing certain information,” Harari provided an evasive yes.  Harari repeatedly suggested that companies like X and Facebook should cease operations if they are unwilling to distinguish between “reliable” and “unreliable information.”  The WEF contributor said, “But as the manager of a major media company that decides what the attention where the attention of the public goes, you have a responsibility to know how to tell the difference between reliable and unreliable information.”  Conservatives are under attack! Contact your representatives and demand that the State Department be held to account to adhere to the U.S. Constitution and that Big Tech mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.