This would work for a different definition of “remote-first”.
In the definition I believe makes sense there is just one defining trait, and the author manages to tiptoe around it.
It’s unclear whether the changes promised are cosmetic (to convince remote workers they aren’t disadvantaged) or fundamental (actually making remote staff equivalent or even prioritized first before on-location staff).
In the definition I believe makes sense there is just one defining trait, and the author manages to tiptoe around it.
It’s unclear whether the changes promised are cosmetic (to convince remote workers they aren’t disadvantaged) or fundamental (actually making remote staff equivalent or even prioritized first before on-location staff).