[HN Gopher] The worst part of working from home is now haunting ...
___________________________________________________________________
The worst part of working from home is now haunting reopened
offices
Author : RickJWagner
Score : 300 points
Date : 2022-03-29 11:54 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (slate.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (slate.com)
| rspeele wrote:
| I actually kind of like when I go into the office and nobody is
| there. It's the least distracting possible work environment.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I like that, too. The problem is, those who are left enjoy
| catching up. That is fine in general but I noticed I'm much
| less productive in the office than at home because I need to
| listen to small talk whenever I go to the kitchen or just pass
| my coworkers. I'm not an introvert and I enjoy talking to
| people in general, but when I'm at work, I have a certain
| amount of things to do and I really want to complete them all.
| When I'm WFH, nobody is calling me on Zoom saying, "Hi, what's
| up, have you seen the last Batman"? That is perfectly fine by a
| friend after work, but during work hours I prefer to be focused
| on my work and decide when to take a break when I need to, not
| when someone comes to my desk (sometimes with trifle issues
| that could be solved more easily by async communication).
| coding_unit_1 wrote:
| People see this as a waste, but that is how team
| relationships are formed. Jeff from accounts may be eating up
| time today talking about Batman, but 3 months down the line
| you'll be ringing him up saying "hey buddy, I need a favour
| on those TPS reports" and he'll oblige because you've formed
| a bond. It's human nature.
|
| I found WFH was great when we all left the office en masse
| and had already got a close-knit team. Changing jobs during
| the pandemic and trying to build new relationships remotely
| was really, really hard because that human-level interaction
| wasn't there.
| asdff wrote:
| We solved it by every now and then burning a friday and
| having potlucks at the beach or some park. Not mandatory
| but if its convenient people show up, and people actually
| do make the trek from far off sometimes just to have a
| cookout and a little fun. Its all social too, work isn't
| mentioned at all in conversations.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| Yes, I agree with you and I didn't see it as a problem when
| we had just one day in the office - I just took into
| account I'll do 1/4 less than usual - but now that we have
| 3 days in the office, it becomes visible. It's not a huge
| problem, just one of these little hings that make me think
| about finally switching my job to one of these companies
| offering giving you a choice between hybrid and fully
| remote, meaning you can come to the office when you
| want/need rather than when your boss thinks you should.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| The crazy thing is the pandemic still wasn't long enough to teach
| companies how to work remote or hybrid. I literally forwarded a
| list of 10 best-reviewed books, articles, etc about remote
| working to my org's leadership, and I don't think they read any
| of them. They certainly never changed the way they work. We still
| spend upwards of 25% of our time in meetings with no agenda to
| talk about coming up with a plan to start working. We still don't
| document needed information, we just bug people on Slack for the
| same information over and over. In-person people are still
| "huddling" around a laptop that nobody on remote can hear.
|
| I'm not aware of any empirical evidence that working in person is
| better for productivity. But what it _does_ do is make 50% of the
| people feel happier - the people who want to escape their home-
| family to be with their work-family. In this sense I totally
| understand why management is forcing people to come into the
| office: it 's because management just _likes in-person_ , and
| they don't want to learn how to work hybrid or remote-first if
| they keep the office.
|
| I think there continues to be a competitive advantage for remote-
| first companies. They can be more productive, have a global pool
| of talent to choose from, and potentially lower overhead. I think
| we're going to see incumbents remain in-person while disruptive
| companies will be increasingly remote-first.
| toshaga wrote:
| Would you care to share the list of resources you sent to your
| leadership?
| Dave3of5 wrote:
| The head of HR at my last job actually took a paid course (I
| think it's free now) by gitlab based upon a convo I had with
| her.
|
| The company ignored it all and said "back in the office".
|
| I suspect that it was because of the CEO who was saying
| throughout the pandemic that he wasn't a fan of remote work.
| That's how the decision was made, based on one old guys
| feelings.
|
| They don't care about you as an employee, remember that.
| motoboi wrote:
| > That's how the decision was made, based on one old guys
| feelings.
|
| Isn't this how all decisions get made on a company?
| elldoubleyew wrote:
| Its not just any "old guy".
|
| Its an "old guy" thats either appointed by stakeholders or
| personally heavily invested in the success of the company.
|
| Like it or not his "feelings" are formed from decades of
| experience in making a business profitable.
|
| I understand its not every case but lets not be overly-
| dismissive of his opinions, especially on HN where we are
| so concerned with ageism.
| greedo wrote:
| I'm an old guy, and I have to disregard 99% of what our
| C-level officers say about technology. Most of what they
| understand is out of date with technology from the early
| Oughts, much less the 2020's. They make purchasing
| decisions based on what they read in airline flight
| magazines, or what their vendor buddies recommend while
| they're golfing.
|
| Their feelings are formed by cronyism, nepotism and
| ignorance. When it comes to embracing change, they're
| fine when it something motivated by these three factors,
| but when it means a perceived loss of control, or a loss
| of prestige, then they resist.
| granshaw wrote:
| "It Is Difficult to Get a Man to Understand Something When His
| Salary Depends Upon His Not Understanding It"
| threads2 wrote:
| you don't need to capitalize words in a quote
| GrqP wrote:
| For knowledge workers, on-site today seems a lot like off-site of
| yesteryear. This time it's an unscheduled, unscripted team-
| building exercise, where you pay to attend and a fraction show
| up.
|
| Lots to figure out. Exciting times for HR and recruiters.
| dade_ wrote:
| The return to office has generally been an awful failure.
| Business owners and management have broadly failed onto address
| employee experience, and generally have done nothing to support
| hybrid working. For example, there are simple tools and practices
| that help teams coordinate their schedules to be in the office at
| the same time, while not overbooking space (which has often been
| reduced). Bad management is basically being exposed as inept with
| high turnover. They can get away with it for a while as a good
| portion of the cost isn't directly reflected by a line item in
| the balances sheet, but either their days are numbered or the
| days of the company will be.
| theknocker wrote:
| pmlnr wrote:
| :Sarcastically Surprised Kirk meme:
| BallinBige wrote:
| I absolutely agree with everything that it's written in the
| article. It makes no sense to re-open offices.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| As of yet we've only been into the office a couple of times and
| mostly as an excuse for a social event. I didn't actually mind
| the time we spent working in the office, as we deliberately all
| came in as a team. I did however have to bring some headphones
| and plug in to get any work done, same as the old days.
|
| I don't mind the chance of scenery and would be happy to do it
| once in a while. I just hope the flexibility we have at the
| moment is retained. Thankfully my current employer has cut office
| space so much it would be impossible for us all to turn up if we
| wanted to.
| oars wrote:
| Very well thought out and written perspectives here.
| marcus_holmes wrote:
| I think the long-term consequences of the shift to remote and WFH
| are going to be fascinating.
|
| - we need to redesign our homes, because every working adult
| needs a study/workspace that is quiet (and preferably not their
| bedroom)
|
| - we need less office space, and probably don't need an office at
| all. Commercial real estate is going to hurt
|
| - we need less transport infrastructure. If the Rush Hour stops
| being a thing, that has huge implications for transport planning
| (and business models)
|
| - we can hire from different regions/countries/cultures. This has
| been happening over the last 20 years or so, but it steps up a
| notch with remote teams.
|
| - we don't need to live near a city any more. Rural villages with
| decent wifi are viable again.
|
| - "management by walking around" stops working. We actually have
| to measure employee output, rather than how long they moisten the
| chair for.
|
| Any more?
| more_corn wrote:
| Somebody save me a click, I'm not wading through that.
| bearbearbear wrote:
| > a lot of people who have returned to their offices for some
| or all of the week have found that they're the only ones there,
| or others are staying isolated in their offices, and all
| communication still happens over email, Slack, or Zoom. As a
| result, they're spending time commuting to and from the office
| and dealing with all the hassles of in-person work but without
| any of the promised payoff.
| herodoturtle wrote:
| This was the best possible excerpt you could have chosen.
|
| Thank you.
| sgt101 wrote:
| "Some people complain about alot, no one is happy all the time,
| life isn't what we hoped it would be, my boss is mean
| sometimes."
| null_object wrote:
| I don't understand the headline. What's the 'worst part of
| working from home' in this context?
|
| In my case, my employer isn't forcing anyone to come back to the
| office, but there's definitely an unspoken understanding that
| 'collaboration' and 'team feeling' will improve if we're at the
| office more often.
|
| But when I go to the office it perfectly reflects the experiences
| described in the article: I'm almost always the only person from
| my team in the office at the time, or otherwise the only other
| team-member has their work to do, and I have mine, so we sit next
| to each other on the considerably less comfortable office chairs
| than I have at home, and work 'side-by-side' with our headphones
| on, and pretty much don't speak to each other any more than we
| usually do in Meet or on Slack.
|
| I tend to use the days for wondering around and chatting randomly
| with other people at the office: hang with the Sales people,
| mosey past the Support team, spend half an hour in the office
| kitchen.
|
| I guess this is ok if the idea is to be a more socially cohesive
| group, but it's disastrous for my productivity, and I always have
| to work twice as hard for the following days at home - even
| though it takes a while to regain my focus afterwards, so the
| rest of the week is often a little bit disrupted by the wasted
| day at the office.
|
| I don't want to only work at home for the rest of my life though
| - but it feels like we haven't worked-out what the new situation
| should be just yet. And in the meantime, managers are just
| thinking in outdated terms of getting everything back to
| 'normal'.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| > [...] and I always have to work twice as hard for the
| following days at home [...]
|
| Why? If socializing in the office is part of your job now
| (explicitly or implicitly), you're working your hours either
| way. If that leaves you with too little time to get things
| done, address it with your manager.
| watwut wrote:
| > If that leaves you with too little time to get things done,
| address it with your manager.
|
| While there definitely are exceptions, addressing something
| like this with an average manager is useless to contra-
| productive.
| chaircher wrote:
| This is really interesting - I wonder how much the set-up of
| someone's compensation package correlates with how much someone
| is willing to go back to the office. Mine's almost exclusively
| performance based and so I tend to want to work from home. The
| people going into work getting antsy about other people not
| being there are people who treat work more like a hobby or have
| a more basic pay structure. I actually prefer being in the
| office but we're in a sort of death spiral of the place having
| turned into a social hub and me feeling like I'm being left to
| babysit people at my own expense.
| bob2222 wrote:
| This exactly the mindset at Barclays in the UK except we are a
| globally distributed across 5 offices. When they started their
| back to office nonsense they caused an exodus on our team in
| Glasgow and now we are all working fully remote for for 50% more
| money
| riknox wrote:
| Got to justify the absolutely massive campus they've built by
| the Clyde somehow. In my experience, there's been quite the PR
| push recently on how amazing this new campus is (I'm not a
| Barclays employee).
| htrp wrote:
| My personal theory is that hybrid work is deliberately made to be
| chaotic and disastrous, so that when management wants people back
| 5 days a week; there will be much less grumbling.
| fellowniusmonk wrote:
| If that is the case for a given business than it would only
| make sense for everyone to microwave sardines for lunch (near
| managements offices until wfh is reinstated.)
|
| Joking of course.
| 1over137 wrote:
| 2 hour commute! Is that typical in the USA? Is it necessary?
| Preferable?
|
| My bike ride to my office is 10 minutes. I _miss_ my commute.
| ulzeraj wrote:
| Talk about privilege here. Just this week I've receive an
| e-mail from my employer stating that due to the influx of
| Ukrainian immigrants most of the main cities are full and
| people are encouraged to look for accommodation in nearby
| satellite cities. I'm used to 2 hours commute stripping away 4
| hours of my free time. Not US. Good luck finding accommodation
| near business centers.
| ChrisLTD wrote:
| It is not typical. The average commute is closer to half an
| hour.
| idontwantthis wrote:
| What if you go for a bike ride in the morning instead?
| andrewingram wrote:
| Some people (such as myself) rely on the somewhat enforced
| structure of going into the office to "attach" other life
| things onto, like exercise and going out. Without that
| structure, i'm miserable.
| asdff wrote:
| Seems like a larger personal issue with discipline that you
| could work out on your own vs enforcing this on your
| coworkers for your own convenience
| aloisdg wrote:
| Same logic as you. I missed my walk between work and home.
| Now I walk 20 minutes after the end my shift in remote before
| coming back home.
| codingdave wrote:
| > others are staying isolated in their offices, and all
| communication still happens over email, Slack, or Zoom.
|
| I saw this even before the pandemic. Open office situations are
| noisy and distracting, everyone set up their desks so they would
| stare at walls, put on headphones, and used Slack to talk to
| people right next to them. One CEO even doubled down on it,
| giving attaboys to the people who sent the most Slack messages.
|
| I don't have a problem with Slack. I like it, and feel it helps
| remote work. I just feel that this article is 100% correct that
| if everyone in the same room/office is using slack to talk to
| each other, something is broken with communication within that
| organization.
| Timpy wrote:
| Before the pandemic I was working in an office with a 45 min / 1
| hour commute one way with lots of traffic. My tiny little office
| shared a wall with my senior dev, I literally couldn't be closer
| to him, and we still only communicated over Teams. If it weren't
| for passing people on the way to get coffee I could go an entire
| day without speaking to anyone except via Teams. The owner loved
| the office but he showed up around 10am-ish or whenever he felt
| like it, and he could afford a place nearby. No wonder there's a
| dramatic disconnect between his experience and mine. Every day
| that I wasn't needed for some in person meeting (most days) I had
| an extremely bitter, traffic-filled drive home.
| dougmwne wrote:
| My story goes back 7 years. I had a life reevaluation and my
| family decided to prioritize location independence. Pre-pandemic
| my partner and I had been working remotely for years.
|
| I never hated being on-site, I never had a monster commute.
| Actually one of my commutes was a fabulous bike tour of the major
| monuments of the national mall. I had a beer keg and a dog to
| warm my feet when I got to the office.
|
| But once I got out of the office environment for a little while
| it was like being "red pilled". I could no longer ignore the
| absolutely silly justification for bringing everyone into the
| same place, I saw it only as a productivity destroyer for myself
| and others, I saw the relationships for what they were, shallow
| and transactional. My first and only stint back on-site it felt
| like coming back to high school after years and being amazed and
| all the silly things that loomed so large in your former life.
|
| I'm not a hermit or an introvert. The office is still dead as a
| doornail for me.
| DrBazza wrote:
| This is the same as my office in London. There's little point
| going in, and when I have done, my experience is the same as this
| article - waste 90mins in each direction getting in, to sit on my
| own, and reply via email + Teams.
|
| But, well, "collaboration".
|
| I'm sure it's time and cost effective for senior management that
| are paid $$$$ and only have a really short commute from the
| office. But not for the other 99% of the workforce.
| vmception wrote:
| Are there any companies doing it right?
|
| I see all the articles about people quitting, and all the
| articles like this one about ridiculous patches to work life that
| aren't working, and I have to wonder, is there someone doing it
| right that is also paying well?
| asdff wrote:
| github?
| vmception wrote:
| what are they doing?
| e-clinton wrote:
| Is there something about introvert vs extrovert? My wife, an
| extrovert, loves commuting and meeting people in person. I,
| however, could careless as I commute to an office just so I can
| take Zoom calls from there.
| slategruen wrote:
| A lot of the sentiments seem to resent commuting a lot? Perhaps
| most of them works in the US and primarily use cars as a mode of
| transportation?
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| Train and bus rides come with their own set of problems,
| whereas any other form of transportation is generally much
| slower, pushing people to relocate closer to the office in an
| often expensive and very population dense area. The premise
| remains the same: time spent commuting is often time better
| spent differently.
| Macha wrote:
| Ehh, 40 minutes on a crowded tram isn't much better. A 1.5 hour
| walk is better in the actual experience, but that extra 50
| minutes comes out of my sleep.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| I live in London and commute via public transport, it still
| sucks.
| morsch wrote:
| I commute five minutes by foot. I'd still rather work from
| home. And I'm gonna, one way or another.
| phlalexsh wrote:
| I live in Philadelphia, commute was still 45min-1hr. Would
| either have to walk 15 min to the El, stay on its for about
| 25-30min, then walk another 15ish min to my office. Or take a
| trolley to 30th street then transfer to the El then walk.
|
| When I moved to a different neighborhood, I'd take Regional
| Rail, which was about 40 mins door to door. Only advantage is
| there aren't people shooting up or getting raped on RR.
|
| Driving actually would only take ~15min door to door if I left
| after rush hour. But then parking was very variable. It could
| be instant (finding spot right when I get there) or I'd have to
| drive around for 10 minutes.
|
| Honestly, I liked commuting either of those ways (outside of
| finding needles on the El) since I'd just listen to music or a
| podcast.
|
| However, I much prefer working from home.
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| I think you have a point -- a typical US commute is probably
| worse than, for example, a typical UK commute. But that's not
| to say UK commutes are acceptable -- my 2 hour each way commute
| was expensive as well as horribly uncomfortable, and that was
| on pretty much one of the best rail lines I've used for
| commuting! Unless we solve the "it's too expensive to live near
| where you work" problem, I think the trend _has_ to be more
| towards WFH.
| Jiejeing wrote:
| Not necessarily. In Paris I had a 45 minutes subway commute, or
| a 35 minutes -somewhat dangerous- bike commute (time for a one-
| way trip), and while sometimes I could appreciate either the
| disconnection the subway provided me or the physical effort
| need for the bike ride, it was mostly a hassle and lost time I
| am not compensated for.
|
| Living close to where you work is pretty expensive, especially
| when the CEO likes the prestige associated with the building or
| area (and lives nearby, of course, but he gets 10 times my
| salary).
| hikerrrr wrote:
| Not opposed to the office myself, "new" offices are nowhere what
| the glory of the old office days. One hybrid day in the office
| meant none of the familiar faces also shared the same areas.
|
| Instead I saw one maybe two familiar faces and the rest of the
| empty office was a doldrum of emptiness.. The undependable nature
| of the new "who's on first" office musical chairs is gaudy. It's
| a mishap waiting to happen, and there are no world expert
| managers who also have experience re-engaging a whole new social
| scene in a post apocalyptic world of the empty office space.
| Drudgery is the new office scene... Blehhh
| jdrc wrote:
| Told you. Remote work is a trap you can't escape from so learn to
| live with it
| Hardik_Shah wrote:
| According to consistent research, remote workers work more hours
| than their office-bound counterparts. Working at home is clearly
| more productive than working in an office, according to studies.
| lukaslalinsky wrote:
| Many years ago, I tried working at a bigger company. I made a
| mistake and accepted a job in a satellite office. I did not
| realize it would cause exactly this. I was supposed to be in
| office every day, but most of the relevant people were in the HQ,
| so all discussions were done online. It felt so pointless and
| even lonely to spend the time in the office. I tried doing that
| for a few months and eventually left. I really wonder what will
| happen now that people experience this on a larger scale.
| thyagjs wrote:
| Same situation with me. I go to office 3 days but most of the
| time the meetings are taken from the desk, on zoom. This is
| because most tech employees have bigger monitors which is
| convenient compared to tiny laptop screens. IMO remote is
| extremely popular among employees and many will jump ship if
| given remote option. Any eventual plans for mandatory all 5-day
| at office will be suicidal for knowledge work companies.
| gifnamething wrote:
| Of course, the big monitor and quiet room that some of us get
| to enjoy were paid for by our salaries, net of tax. Yet if we
| try to convince the employers paying those salaries to give us
| computing equipment that we like and private offices, it's
| hopeless.
| osigurdson wrote:
| I don't think there is anything else more illogical in modern
| society than waking up in building A, hopping in a car and
| fighting traffic for an hour to get to building B just to sit in
| front of a computer for 8 hours (perhaps with a few minimally
| productive meetings here and there), then commute back to
| building A 8 hours later.
|
| Building B sits empty for 16 hours a day while Building A sits
| empty for 10 with both being heated/cooled for 24 hours. The
| employee wastes 2 of their 16 available waking hours in the non-
| productive commute while incurring significant financial costs
| (lease/insurance/fuel/energy) in order to support this patently
| absurd activity. Similarly the employer wastes time and energy
| negotiating leases, re-arranging offices, purchasing AV equipment
| for meeting rooms in building B, etc.,etc., in addition to paying
| the likely enormously expensive lease itself.
|
| The impacts on the environment, the number of hours of human life
| wasted in commute, the pointless buildings and associated costs
| to employers as well as the public infrastructure to support it
| (roads, trains, busses, etc.) are all incredibly wasteful.
| Surely, all of this could only be justified if physical presence
| had a dramatic impact on productivity. Yet, we cannot tell one
| way or the other if it actually improves outcomes.
|
| Let's face it, it's dumb.
| boh wrote:
| If the environmental impact is the only relevant factor for
| human interaction, then yes you're right. However society
| doesn't abide by isolation.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| The environmental impact might end up being a crucial factor
| for continued human existence.
| ipiz0618 wrote:
| Let's not deal with absolutes here. I enjoy working from home
| because my setup is comfy and I live mostly alone. But I'm also
| aware not everyone has the privilege like this. Not even myself
| last year before I moved out.
| asdff wrote:
| I work from home in a 1br. I prefer my own desk area,
| especially my own toilet (my word the stalls at work after
| the first cup of coffee must have hit...), being able to
| concurrently do a load of laundry while concurrently doing
| some other work task, working out in meetings, getting random
| stuff from the grocery store if i need something for lunch or
| another bag of coffee, and being able to make appointments at
| government offices during the day when its actually
| convenient vs the limited hours they are open on saturday
| when the entire 9-5 contingent of the city floods the dmv.
| Not to mention my day just expanded by a full two hours
| because I am no longer burning that on commuting on a bus
| that bounces too much to even read my phone screen.
|
| At work I have a windowless office and a lopsided desk chair,
| and people have stolen my food from the fridge.
| bradfa wrote:
| I work remotely. I rent an office. It's only about 3.5 miles
| from my house, so my commute via car or bike is rather short. I
| don't have a space at my house where I can do my job
| effectively at home. Renovating my house to make such a space
| would incur costs which would exceed a few years of rent at the
| office. So from a risk reduction and net-present-value point of
| view, renting the office is cost effective.
|
| If I end up renting the office for a decade, then it won't end
| up cost effective. But I've never stayed at any job for that
| long before so I assume my job situation will change in a few
| years.
|
| If my job changes such that I am required to report to a
| physical office which is not the one I currently rent, I can
| cancel my lease (with 3 months notice). This provides me with
| good flexibility and minimizes my risk, my upfront costs, and
| any need to remodel my home.
|
| Having an office where other people are around also gets me to
| socialize for a small part of the day.
| la64710 wrote:
| Exactly this is the thought that crossed my mind today.
|
| You do something good for me and I give you $X for that.
|
| Now on top of that for $X I want you to also come to a building
| I built for you , stay there for 8 hours a day and do the thing
| I want you to do. All for $X.
|
| However there is Joe who will give you $X for the same job and
| a little more.But you get to choose where and how you do it.
|
| Which one will you do?
| bgro wrote:
| when I visited NYC I got the feel for the battle for every
| square inch of room on every sidewalk, street, and building.
| Being able to like sit at a table to eat at a small place you
| picked up your food has got to be a huge cost in space just for
| that to exist.
|
| Then I started thinking about all the massive skyscrapers that
| are just offices that people show up to for just 8 hours a day
| and then reallocate the space crisis to their residence
| elsewhere. It seems like a comical design choice almost.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| tapoxi wrote:
| It's not dumb, but it's dumb with what offices have become.
| Nobody likes the open plan office, but if I had my own office
| (with a door!!!) then I'd certainly go in every day. Maybe it's
| time to re-imagine what the office is?
| bearjaws wrote:
| I was appalled to find our office lease was $20,000 a month. We
| could hire two FTEs for the price of that office, and we are
| not even in a premium space.
|
| To your point about efficiency: I don't believe our office
| produces 2 FTE's worth of additional productivity across the
| whole org.
|
| Leadership thinks it does, but assuming we acquire decent
| talent, that would be a net 10% increase in engineering. I
| don't believe the office could ever achieve a 10% increase in
| output.
| buzzdenver wrote:
| You're making the assumption that everybody in the office
| prefers working from home.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| They didn't say anything about preference, they merely said
| output. Does people preferring to work from the office mean
| they are so much more productive so as to make up that
| cost? That's the question that we're faced with, and if the
| last few years are any indication, the answer seems to be
| "No".
| brandmeyer wrote:
| This is definitely not universal. Our team switched to a
| soft hybrid model whereby we almost always work from the
| office, but use WFH for deliveries, snow days, kid sick
| days, etc. We did that as soon as the vaccine became
| widely available and it completely turbocharged our
| productivity. We delivered more in the first three months
| after coming back than the preceding year of fully-remote
| work.
| Salgat wrote:
| That sounds like a red flag for a poor remote work
| culture. Our company saw improvements in productivity
| going full remote.
| taylodl wrote:
| That's interesting - and quite the opposite of what I've
| personally experienced and heard. Are you saying then
| that when the lockdown happened and your team was sent
| home your productivity tanked? What happened? What wasn't
| it addressed? What's caused your team's productivity to
| soar now?
| brandmeyer wrote:
| We're building a highly specialized product (GNSS
| Radiooccultation). Its specialized enough that we have to
| rely on hiring people with generic skills and then
| developing the specialized skills to work in the domain.
| In essence, we are relying on internal on-the-job
| training to build up our team. Remote work failed for us
| for the same reasons that remote education has been
| failing everywhere: 1/4 to 1/2 of the job _is_ adult
| professional education.
| taylodl wrote:
| Makes sense. Seems like we can generalize this to if
| you're working in a niche area requiring lots of training
| to bring new hires up to speed then perhaps WFH isn't the
| best of environments? Going forward maybe your team needs
| to think through how to best do your onboarding. Maybe
| you would need to get together for a couple weeks (or
| have "high touch" time) and then go back to primarily
| working from home? It's something to think about.
| jghn wrote:
| I'm a big fan of hybrid, albeit default remote. But this
| is one example as to why. For most groups, most of the
| time remote is fine. There will be circumstances where
| there's no substitute for in person communication. You
| cite a great example.
|
| For your situation I would imagine in a hypothetical
| example where your team composition stays steady for a
| long period of time you'd find that you required onsite
| less often. And in that case I'd advocate that defaulting
| back to remote is a good thing.
| scsilver wrote:
| Then why can't they share a wework type office nearby their
| home instead of companies trying to utilize and manage all
| than space in the center of a city.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| A challenge with coworking spaces can be that there's
| much less corporate privacy. Some companies don't care
| but others do.
| aaomidi wrote:
| A comped coworking space is cheaper.
| null_object wrote:
| > You're making the assumption that everybody in the office
| prefers working from home.
|
| I don't see anything in the OP's comment that referred to
| any assumptions about peoples' preferences: they were
| addressing the practical wastefulness and harm to the
| world's environment from the office-working conventions
| we've 'conformed to' in the past.
|
| You may prefer to commute to work, and sit in an office
| instead of somewhere else (doesn't necessarily need to be a
| home), but that doesn't affect the inherent environmental
| wastefulness of all this 'busy' activity.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| He isn't making an assumption that everybody in the office
| prefers working from home. Where did you read that?
| int0x2e wrote:
| I don't think the person you're replying to assumed
| anything about preferences - people can still prefer to
| work from the office, and still not have working from the
| office generate >10% boost in productivity... I think many
| of us see how various managers are pushing people to get
| back to the office, but I'm not sure the impact is really
| there. I suspect there are a lot of people who are far more
| effective at home than in the office, but it's my personal
| opinion sadly.
| mring33621 wrote:
| SO people that prefer the office get to ruin it for those
| that don't?
| tetromino_ wrote:
| In the end, someone has to pay for office space: either you
| as the employer, or your employees in the form of higher
| rent/mortgage for a larger home with dedicated office areas.
| (And for employees with families based in urban areas, such a
| larger home may be entirely unaffordable.)
| jjav wrote:
| > In the end, someone has to pay for office space
|
| True, of course. But geographically distributing the need
| for space reduces the very concentration of demand in the
| office park areas.
|
| The larger home (with an office) may be entirely
| unaffordable in the city center where HQ was, but with
| remote you can move elsewhere where it can be cheaper than
| an apartment in that city.
|
| Or you could rent a small office away from the crowds where
| it's cheaper. This is what I've been doing since pandemic
| start. Sure, I wish the employers would pay for it but it's
| still so much better that it's worth it. On fuel alone I
| save enough every month to pay the rent a couple times
| over. And my commute is ~5 minutes on a bike instead of
| 60-90 minutes sitting in traffic.
| bearjaws wrote:
| That non-affordability is created by the scarcity of
| housing, because many spaces are entirely dedicates to jobs
| that (now) don't need them.
|
| Think about a Manhattan with 40% more housing, what would
| that do to affordability?
| alexanderdmitri wrote:
| Also the 1.6 million office workers[0] would have one
| less reason to live in the city in the first place.
|
| [0] https://www.osc.state.ny.us/files/reports/osdc/pdf/re
| port-11...
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| it's also a cultural thing.
|
| US commute is particularly bad, I work from home and been doing
| it on and off for the past 20 years.
|
| My commute has never been longer than 20 minutes total.
|
| I now live 5 minutes walk away from my office, I'm not going,
| but if I had to I would walk there and have a very nice
| breakfast in some bar on the road there.
|
| One thing that's always overlooked is how much WFH is selecting
| people who already have a tendency to stay home and not
| socialize much at work.
|
| The majority of people are not like that, most people don't
| have the means (spare rooms, gear, technical abilities) to do
| it _and_ are marginalized for not being able to socialize in
| person, because they tend to lean towards depression by staying
| home all day.
|
| Also WFH tends to discriminate people doing "less important"
| jobs, like for example in a couple if one of the two has a
| highly paid job or a responsibility job, the other one will
| tend to be the one doing chores (cooking, cleaning, taking care
| of the kids) while if both go out to work there's less pressure
| to compensate because both can't physically be home to do what
| need to be done anyway.
|
| There are studies showing that WFH makes gender inequalities
| worse.
|
| Basically the point is that many people find meaning and
| purpose in their jobs, if you remove the "purpose" (getting
| dressed, going out, meeting other people, sharing work
| experiences with them) it simply becomes a tedious activity to
| them that fulfills none of their needs.
| jghn wrote:
| > Also WFH tends to discriminate people doing "less
| important" jobs
|
| Anecdata but my partner and I have a huge income disparity.
| I'd say our responsibilities are pretty even. There are
| things I tend to do and they tend to do. But in my mind at
| least it evens out.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >Basically the point is that many people find meaning and
| purpose in their jobs, if you remove the "purpose" (getting
| dressed, going out, meeting other people, sharing work
| experiences with them) it simply becomes a tedious activity
| to them that fulfills none of their needs.
|
| If the only purpose you have in a job is to put on
| uncomfortable clothes and socialize I think we can go ahead
| and eliminate that job.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > If the only purpose you have in a job is to put on
| uncomfortable clothes and socialize I think we can go ahead
| and eliminate that job.
|
| if you remove the human aspect and insist on framing the
| issue like that, can't we say the same thing for almost any
| job?
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to boost your
| ego and brag I think we can go ahead and eliminate that
| job.
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to chose the
| colors in an excel spreadsheet cells I think we can go
| ahead and eliminate that job.
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to do something
| a machine can do better I think we can go ahead and
| eliminate that job.
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to farm kind
| animals to later cruelly kill them I think we can go ahead
| and eliminate that job.
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to make money
| for yourself I think we can go ahead and eliminate that
| job.
|
| ...
|
| not a great analysis if you ask me.
| osigurdson wrote:
| "- If the only purpose you have in a job is to make money
| for yourself I think we can go ahead and eliminate that
| job."
|
| Wait, what? That literally is the purpose of the job for
| the employee. If you don't agree, try setting total
| compensation to zero and see who continues to show up.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >if you remove the human aspect and insist on framing the
| issue like that, can't we say the same thing for almost
| any job?
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to boost your
| ego and brag I think we can go ahead and eliminate that
| job.
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to chose the
| colors in an excel spreadsheet cells I think we can go
| ahead and eliminate that job.
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to do
| something a machine can do better I think we can go ahead
| and eliminate that job.
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to farm kind
| animals to later cruelly kill them I think we can go
| ahead and eliminate that job.
|
| - If the only purpose you have in a job is to make money
| for yourself I think we can go ahead and eliminate that
| job.
|
| Well... yes, we should. The last one is obviously
| unreasonable since we live in a society where money is
| required to live most lifestyles. I recommend reading
| Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber:
| https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Jobs-Theory-David-
| Graeber/dp...
| fartcannon wrote:
| It'll be nice when the serf mentality of finding meaning in
| your job is finally gone from the world.
| vr46 wrote:
| The late Studs Terkel showed us all - 50 years ago - how
| work was a search for both "daily meaning and daily bread".
| The speed and efficiency credo of the modern age has
| restricted independence and creativity almost out of
| existence for millions - but far from this being a serf
| mentality - this was foisted upon people by others.
| harlanlewis wrote:
| I think you're referring to his book Working. Tacking on
| a recommendation for it both for the subject at hand, as
| well as it just being an engaging look at daily life in
| the early 70s (which really feels like a different world
| in so many ways) told through engaging oral history.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _when the serf mentality of finding meaning in your job
| is finally gone from the world_
|
| Emperors, scientists and other productive members of the
| elite have done this since age immemorial. If anything, the
| average person finding their work meaningful (versus simply
| toil) is a recent phenomenon.
| jdrc wrote:
| Those are 0.001% of the population. Most people work
| because they have to
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Those are 0.001% of the population. Most people work
| because they have to_
|
| That's the point. People finding or striving to find
| meaning in their work are far removed from the "serfs."
| jdrc wrote:
| ah . well that's also not true, nowadays there is a job
| market and toil is reserved for the working class /
| service class perhaps. Most people are middle or above
| class in modern societies
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| We have a whole class of people who have finally been
| able to climb up Maslow's hierarchy high enough to now
| ask those questions.
| aaomidi wrote:
| Finding meaning in the labor you do is absolutely not
| connected to scale of said labor.
|
| It is easier finding meaning in your labor if your labor
| is directly creating or providing a meaningful service to
| your community.
|
| Do you see how I am not saying job? Because no one wants
| to do the same thing for 40 hours with surveillance.
| However finding meaning in labor has been a thing for
| millenia.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| I think it's backwards: people find meaning in their jobs
| because it's their only activity (or is largely their main
| one) .
|
| To let it go for good we'd need people to make themselves
| entertain in different activities other than working.
|
| But mostly it's because (I think) it's activities they
| enjoy doing and actually have meaning in the real World,
| even if on a much smaller scale than the global one.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it 's also a cultural thing_
|
| Good places to see this are New York and New Orleans.
|
| New Orleans' French and Spanish quarters have residences on
| top of business concerns. We Americans, on the other hand,
| built separate residential and commercial neighborhoods with
| a train connecting the two.
|
| Likewise for Manhattan. Dutch-settled areas have homes on top
| of shops. This pattern continues for a bit under the British,
| but converts to distinct residential and commercial streets
| before going whole hog on the pattern with non-commercial
| neighborhoods.
| packetlost wrote:
| I'm not sure this is a cultural divide so much as a
| political city planning one, at least _today_. Mixed-use
| zoning is a debated topic in my city. That being said, I
| absolutely despise the separate residential /commercial
| zoning and how spread out things are here (mostly because
| of individual car-culture).
| asdff wrote:
| Honestly the US commute is not even that bad. Avg transit
| commute in like Paris is 50 mins. Meanwhile even though
| Americans have to suffer in traffic or whatever (which imo
| seems better to have your own personal air conditioned bubble
| full of music than a cramped sweaty bus), avg commutes even
| in places like Houston that have the worst traffic out of
| anywhere are hardly over 30 mins.
| sologoub wrote:
| > Also WFH tends to discriminate people doing "less
| important" jobs,
|
| You are mixing pandemic with WFH. When you work, you still
| need childcare and otherwise be working. Doing chores and
| house work during breaks is a nice "perk" that saves me time,
| but it must not come at the expense of the work itself, just
| like it would not with WFO.
|
| If anything, WFH has been more inclusive as many other
| comments have said, especially of people that don't like
| direct "confrontation" of large meetings and "loudest first"
| prioritization. Video conf chat has become a valuable and
| documentable discussion medium that can include comment not
| urgent enough to interrupt the speaker in the moment, but
| still useful to the overall context. I hope some of these
| inclusive benefits are retained with hybrid or whatever
| approaches are utilized for work in the future.
|
| Another interesting inclusivity question is the location
| itself. People tend to congregate by common traits, so
| locating an office in a given neighborhood or city implicitly
| discriminates those groups who do not have a large presence
| nearby. Remote definitely allows (but importantly does not
| guarantee) a much more diverse employee population and
| greater fairness in access to these jobs. There are of course
| counter points with availability of working space and
| internet connection, so this is a very complex issue.
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| > You are mixing pandemic with WFH
|
| No, I am not.
|
| > oing chores and house work during breaks is a nice "perk"
| that saves me time, but it must not come at the expense of
| the work itself, just like it would not with WFO
|
| If people are home, they can be pressured to do more,
| because they literally have more time to do them and are
| literally physically available for exploitation.
|
| Simple as that.
|
| > If anything, WFH has been more inclusive as many other
| comments have said
|
| You are mixing self segregation with inclusiveness.
|
| > Video conf chat has become a valuable and documentable
| discussion medium that can include
|
| Only if you sell video chat software.
|
| Least path of resistance states that video chats pose less
| barriers, so you're making more of them and they end up
| lasting longer than before.
|
| It also enables more monitoring from management and the
| idea that workers are always available. (guess who's not
| saying no to the boss? the more vulnerable or the less
| vulnerable?)
|
| Again: it's been observed.
| sologoub wrote:
| Care to include sources for any of these claims that you
| say have been observed?
|
| I definitely don't sell software, but I do see it as my
| responsibility to make sure all of my team members are
| heard.
|
| On the exploitation, unfortunately domestic abuse is
| possible regardless of work styles and homes are not
| always the safe space we expect them to be. That problem
| exists with or without ability to work remotely. Society
| and employers should be aware of that and have means of
| helping those affected. There are many great NGOs and
| non-profits doing great work in this area and I'd
| encourage all of us to donate more to such causes and do
| volunteer work.
|
| EDIT: On self segregation, that may have started that
| way, but demanding that people leave family ties and
| their friends to move for job opportunities is not all
| that positive either. Give people a choice and the
| ability to, but don't require it. That is much friendlier
| and fairer.
| 01100011 wrote:
| > WFH is selecting people who already have a tendency to stay
| home and not socialize much at work.
|
| Doesn't engineering in general select for these personality
| traits?
| nobleach wrote:
| This has been my observation over the last 20 years. I
| truly enjoy socializing and collaborating in person. I
| usually worked from home once or twice a week before the
| pandemic. It was a fantastic convenience as I lived an hour
| from my office. Once the pandemic hit we were fully remote.
| At first I thought, "see? we're more productive, this is
| truly better". As time wore on, I can see why a hybrid
| approach might be a better solution. I have never seen a
| more disengaged engineering staff. We gather weekly on Zoom
| for a general "shoot the breeze talk about tech"
| conversation and 95% of the cameras are off. Those folks
| are completely silent. That's their choice of course but it
| makes the work environment very lonely. I've tried to rile
| my team up to go into the office once in awhile for
| whiteboarding sessions/collaboration but they're simply not
| interested. So, perhaps your assumption is true. Engineers,
| for the most part, do not want to socialize, they simply
| want to do their work and get paid. The only problem I have
| here is, I feel our product suffers due to lack of
| collaboration.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| > I've tried to rile my team up to go into the office
| once in awhile for whiteboarding sessions/collaboration
| but they're simply not interested.
|
| If your team is shipping and hitting deadlines then they
| realize that all this extra socialization stuff is
| useless cruft and rightly are rejecting it.
| nobleach wrote:
| If shipping is the only thing that matters, then we're in
| great shape. If shipping the right things matters, we're
| probably going to need to collaborate a bit. Over the
| past year, we could have killed a few features just by
| pushing back as a group. Instead we've waited until
| they've lost an A/B test.
|
| But your sentiment is exactly the point I was trying to
| make. Many (if not most) developers really aren't
| interested in any social benefit/experience. Your use of
| the word "rightly" puts you (and forgive me for broadly
| categorizing, I don't know you at all) in the "I come
| here to do my work and get the heck out so I can live my
| real life" group. For others, it's not so binary. It's
| not Work vs Life. Life bleeds into work, and work bleeds
| into life (with obvious healthy boundaries). For example,
| my lunch times with other developers was a high point of
| my day. I looked forward to talking to those folks. We
| tried it via Zoom. It was just awkward. My current team
| seems to fit with your sentiment. I'm the oddball and I'm
| okay with that.
| otoburb wrote:
| >> _I feel our product suffers due to lack of
| collaboration._
|
| Is there a way to measure the loss in productivity or
| product quality?
|
| >> _I have never seen a more disengaged engineering
| staff._
|
| How does the perceived lack of engagement by your team
| members (by choice, for the most part) impact the
| mystical, (un)measurable "collaboration" factor?
|
| It might help managers and/or senior leadership to better
| argue points for hybrid in-office arrangements if data
| points could be brought to bear to counteract the very
| real benefits (for some) of WFH combined with varying
| individual social preferences.
|
| The suggestions in the last paragraph of the article are
| so simple to articulate, yet difficult for (especially
| lder) managers across most levels to crisply quantify.
| nobleach wrote:
| This was entirely a commentary on the social aspects of
| developers. We had an initial surge in productivity and
| then a lull. Product quality suffered a bit due to
| mis/non-communication. Not everyone made the transition
| to WFH in an effective way.
|
| The engagement factor is realized with a very terse
| "yesterday I worked on recommendations, today I'll do the
| same". At that point the developer disappears for a few
| hours, never participates in any chat where less senior
| developers are asking questions. It's very siloed. The
| hardest part for leaders is to see how this translates
| into metrics they can understand. I'm absolutely ecstatic
| our org has adopted a "forever" WFH policy. I'm just
| cautious in how it'll all play out.
| int0x2e wrote:
| WFH is also doing an amazing job to help people who would
| otherwise be marginalized. In particular, I've seen how
| remote interviews help people that are wheelchair bound or
| have subtle issues with their eye-sight (that are only
| noticeable up close) get through some of the hidden (or even
| unconscious) biases that still exist in all of us and end up
| screening-out some otherwise great candidates.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| On the subject of disabilities in tech, one of the best
| things for me about WFH is that I have a disorder which
| casues (among other things) light sensitivity issues and
| most offices have _horrible_ lighting for triggering that.
| Being able to WFH where I have things set up to be
| comfortable as possible in this respect is an absolute
| godsend and I honestly wouldn 't go back to the office even
| on a hybrid basis if my salary was tripled. I quit my last
| job over a mandatory return to the office, it's an absolute
| red line for me now when considering a role.
| jjav wrote:
| Good comment. While it seems obvious, the whole environmental,
| infrastructure cost and land (mis)use aspects are not in the
| conversation often enough. Usually it's only work productivity
| and preferences.
|
| The key observation is really that the societal costs of
| supporting a commute culture are so enormous that for it to
| make any sense, the productivity of being in-office would have
| to be many multiples higher than remote.
|
| We can argue whether remote or office is slightly more
| productive this way or that way, and there are plenty of
| studies showing both directions so it's probably a wash,
| depending on team.
|
| But no study ever suggests that in-office could possibly be so
| immensely more productive than remote that it could justify the
| costs to society of doing it.
|
| Of course, it'd be great if there is some research attempting
| to quantify this more precisely (including road construction &
| maintenance, inefficient land use, pollution, time lost, health
| impact from the stress, and on and on). Any links?
| geodel wrote:
| Good points. If anything, it is underestimating situation for
| large part of the world. At one point I was spending 5 hours in
| commute (NOT USA) per day. I moved after few years but I am
| sure 100s of thousands people are still doing it.
|
| The psychological toll it took on me while travelling through
| crushingly crowded trains and buses still terrifies me.
|
| If large number of paper/computer workers do not have to
| commute, space is left for people who have to travel for more
| serious reasons and have their commute less unpleasant.
| dreen wrote:
| Please tell me you don't heat/cool your house 24/7. Other than
| that I can't agree with you more.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| I certainly don't turn the system off when I'm not home, but
| try to remember to jam it to low heat or high AC if I
| remember.
|
| Where I live, it's not really good for the home to leave it
| very long without at least the dehumidifier running.
| dljsjr wrote:
| Some people don't have a choice, in Florida during the summer
| time if you aren't running your AC full-time the humidity and
| heat will ruin your home. It stays in the 80's even overnight
| (both temp. Fo and Relative Humidity %).
| [deleted]
| fluoridation wrote:
| Sounds similar to the climate here in Buenos Aires, maybe
| slightly warmer. To my knowledge people generally don't
| keep AC's running when they're not around, in the summer.
| I've never heard of a building being ruined by
| environmental humidity.
| dljsjr wrote:
| Black mold is a massive issue in Florida.
| robomartin wrote:
| Homes in Buenos Aires don't have hollow walls made from
| wood and flimsy drywall panels. One good plumbing leak
| can destroy a house in the US.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Fair enough. I knew homes in the US where typically made
| of wood, but not that that was also true in Florida. Wood
| is not a traditional material here because it's obviously
| going to rot in a humid environment.
| tomatotomato37 wrote:
| Yeah, only the exterior of Florida homes are concrete
| because we get seasons of natural disasters that like to
| throw palm trees everywhere. Interior & roofing is still
| 2x4 construction
| dljsjr wrote:
| Yup. Cheap 2x4 framing + drywall. Residential
| building/construction is more or less the same across the
| entire US regardless of native climate.
| horsawlarway wrote:
| Many climates require it.
|
| May through August in Atlanta it doesn't really make sense to
| turn the AC off while out of the house (down a few degrees,
| sure - but not off). You're going to either pay for the ac to
| run normal cycles while you're out, or you're going to pay
| for the ac to run full blast for an hour at 6pm when you get
| home to bring the temp from 90+ back down to ~78 (which is
| still in the peak power rate times for GA power - 2pm to
| 7pm).
|
| The house heats up more and more until it reaches temp
| equality with the outside. If reaching equilibrium takes
| longer than you're out of the house... you save basically
| nothing by turning the system off. It's going to either pump
| the heat out slowly over the day, or all at once when you get
| home, and there just isn't much savings to be had.
|
| That's not even talking about the condensation and
| expansion/contraction issues that will damage your home.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Turning the AC or heating completely off when you're not at
| home is never recommended. To save power, you just let them
| run at temperatures a few degrees outside your comfort zone
| when your away, and it will still have enough thermal
| inertia to quickly get back to comfort levels when you're
| back without the risk of condensation/mold.
|
| Where I live, this is even written in my rental agreement,
| that when I leave home for long winter vacations, I must
| leave the heating ON.
| asdf333 wrote:
| this is probably more due to pipes freezing
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Nope, in EU pipes are very well insulated inside the
| walls. It's to prevent condensation and mold formation.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| As a Canadian I don't have a choice for most of the winter.
| The cold will creep in and start causing problems if I leave
| it unheated at -20 (C or F, take your pick) for 10 hours. I
| certainly reduce the heat, but I can't turn it off.
| bluGill wrote:
| That is a glib response that sounds great, but it is wrong!
| If you have good insulation it can at best save very little
| energy. If you have bad insulation it can save a lot, but the
| solution is fix your insulation not play with the HVAC
| controls.
| [deleted]
| james-skemp wrote:
| In addition to what others have said about potential house
| damage, many people also have pets which need adequate
| heating/cooling.
| praptak wrote:
| Where I live if you don't heat your home in the winter it
| gets mildew. If it goes on for longer then the water pipes
| will crack because of ice.
|
| Yes, you can go a bit colder if the house is empty.
| wmkn wrote:
| Looking at the comments and article, I almost feel like a freak
| for actually not minding going back to the office.
|
| My commute to the office is about a 10 mins walk - maybe that's
| the difference with many others here. Either way, I like the
| separation between work and home. I also believe that online
| meetings and chat are not a great substitute for actually talking
| to people, especially when you are building something together.
| shp0ngle wrote:
| I don't mind office when everyone is in. Some things are easier
| in person.
|
| But this hybrid setup is literally the worst of both worlds.
| Why come to the office, when nobody is there anyway? There is
| no upside.
| greedo wrote:
| The thing about meetings is that it's increasingly rare to have
| all parties in one physical location. Maybe for very small
| software shops, but even then, that's going to hurt the
| business in the long run in terms of recruiting top talent. Any
| company that expects all of their IT staff to be local is
| foolish. Even Apple, notorious for not allowing remote work is
| hedging. It's simply a fact of 21st Century IT employment now.
| Whether it's WFH or remote offices, you'll have people spread
| out across different regions, and you'll need to accommodate
| this in your meetings.
|
| I have a friend who's entire company is remote. Employees in
| the multiple states, as well as multiple overseas companies.
| Extremely successful, top tier company in his field. This is
| the model for most tech companies for the rest of this century.
| sylens wrote:
| > My commute to the office is about a 10 mins walk - maybe
| that's the difference with many others here
|
| That is exactly the difference. Every single comment in here
| from someone who likes or doesn't mind returning to the office
| mentions that their commute is short and simple (quick
| walk/bike)
| HstryrsrBttn wrote:
| watwut wrote:
| I think that people coming in and being alone or not talking
| whole day are things that will solve themselves over time.
| People/management will start to coordinate when who comes. People
| will start to socialize again.
|
| But, omg, I really don't want to go back to office. I like not
| having to travel there. I like breakfast in peace taking my sweet
| time for it and lunch at home. I like extra sleep I am getting in
| the morning. I like extra exercise I am getting. I like being at
| home when kids come, have quick chat with them before returning
| to work.
| afr0ck wrote:
| I think WFH could be a blessing when you have a family. I still
| like WFH to a certain extent because I get more focused and
| more productive. But it has one major drawback: for solo
| people, like me, living alone, far from friends and family,
| it's very hard to not feel lonely. And to fill the loneliness
| gap, I tend to work more, casually burning out myself and then
| ending up depressed and feeling overworked.
|
| I am still trying to build a social network on this new city,
| but it's a very hard process and a very long one. For now,
| going to office, makes me feel less lonely and I get some
| interactions and also do some activities with co-workers.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > And to fill the loneliness gap, I tend to work more,
| casually burning out myself and then ending up depressed and
| feeling overworked.
|
| This happened to me working in an office every day. I moved
| to a new city for work and lived alone. My friends and family
| were hundreds of miles away.
|
| Co-workers are _not_ going to solve this problem for you I am
| sorry to say. They 're a temporary reprieve at best. You're
| going to need to build some sort of social circle for
| yourself outside of work.
|
| You really should treat that situation as a major problem
| that needs to be addressed. You wouldn't drag around a broken
| leg, don't drag around loneliness and depression. Going into
| the office can't be your only in person socializing. It's
| only going to end up feeding into depression. It's not a fun
| spiral to get on.
| 0xRusty wrote:
| I love being back. The office is quite empty, but after two years
| of not being around 500 people every day I think it would be
| overwhelming to all be back together in one instant. I'm happy to
| be in that first wave of those returning. It's not just the
| office, it's the area I work in. I work downtown, I've forgotten
| how much I missed all of my favorite cafes, coffee shops, casual
| lunch places. They remember me too, it really made my day when
| one of my favorite lunch places recognized me and we had a great
| chat for 10 minutes. I'd forgotten how much of that life is
| missed. I live alone, I'm a fairly solitary person, I don't get
| out much. I always said work from home would suit me as long as I
| still did a few things in the week (go to a bar once a week, have
| lunch out a couple of times) but I didn't do any of these things,
| my friends have become hermits and we hardly see each other even
| at weekends. The last two years have been hell frankly. I've come
| to realise my work is my social life. Call that if you like but
| it's the reality and I actually enjoy spending time with people
| that share interests with me. Since I've been back in the office
| I've been to a bar and had a nice relaxing conversation over a
| beer for the first time in 2 years. Not all of us are lucky
| enough to have that opportunity to have amazing social lives away
| from work. I wouldn't go back to working from home if you doubled
| my salary.
| cameron_b wrote:
| This is the best case. I took a remote job at a new company
| right after the lockdowns started in my area, and I've loved it
| but for the same reasons you love your office.
|
| I live in a small town, on the main residential street in the
| old neighborhood. I have a family ( wife and two kids ) and we
| love our neighbors.
|
| Before Covid, the commute was awful. The area where the office
| was located was insular. I watched my security cameras to keep
| up with my garden and family and feel connected to the world
| that mattered to me.
|
| Now I'm able to walk in my garden and pull weeds between
| tickets/meetings instead of taking a lap around an exurban
| campus. I talk to my neighbors when they are out doing the
| same, or at the end of our days ( tag-team visiting Taco
| Tuesday gathering last night after the kids went to bed... )
|
| Everyone is in different seasons, ( heck I might be looking for
| an office in a few years depending on the kiddos schedules, )
| but community is the make-or-break factor.
| civilized wrote:
| It's almost like executives never cared about the vaunted
| benefits of office work and just wanted to get bodies in the
| office.
| jacknews wrote:
| LOL, I'm gonna need to go ahead and come in and sit in the office
| all day ... that'd be _great_.
|
| It's more difficult for managers to low-level harass or
| intimidate employees who WFH, and it's auditable if they do.
| randsp wrote:
| Sadly I dont think there are good short term incentives for most
| companies to go 100% remote yet. For example, most companies
| obtain tax benefits from buying office space which incentivates
| company owners to invest on real estate without spending their
| own money, then there are mid-managers who keep people
| accountable only through meetings. And from the political
| perspective, why would some local politicians be interested on
| incentaviting remote works? that would hit hard other businesses
| like restaurants at business areas and that would also decrease
| housing prices, rental prices and local population because people
| could decide to move to other more affordable areas.
|
| Covid19 created a real short-term incentive for remote work, that
| generated some momentum around it, there are some companies which
| saw the real productive value behind remote work but most others
| didn't see it and they are taking these mid-road of "hybrid"
| work.
| kamaal wrote:
| There is a big reason to Work from office, apart from the merits
| of the case like close collaboration, productivity et al. Most
| important of all is being able to see your manager on a day to
| day basis, a lot of people don't really understand how important
| seeing your bosses on a day to day basis can be to their careers.
|
| Most people have a problem of neglecting what isn't front of
| them, it's not malice or anything its just how it is. We
| ourselves have forgotten people with whom we don't have in person
| check often. People change with time, and people tend to work
| more closely, and are more likely to give promotions, rewards or
| anything for that matter to people with whom they have a daily
| check-in.
|
| I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, compensation, benefits
| and overall career trajectories of people who work with top
| bosses at office is better than those working from remote.
| mathieuh wrote:
| Bear in mind that not everyone is particularly career-focused.
| I'm perfectly happy getting "meets expectations" at annual
| reviews, and if I'm not happy with the pay rise (as happened to
| me last week), I'm happy looking for another job to get the
| bump I want.
|
| People who bother to go on HN probably skew more towards
| career-focused than not, but plenty of people are very happy
| doing the work given to them and no more.
| i_love_music wrote:
| I'm glad I'm not the only one. I love this community but
| sometimes it bums me out. If work is what truly makes people
| happen, then awesome, have at it. Personally, I get some but
| not all of self-fulfillment out of it. I use the paycheck to
| do the things I actually care about.
| BlargMcLarg wrote:
| >I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, compensation,
| benefits and overall career trajectories of people who work
| with top bosses at office is better than those working from
| remote.
|
| The way people find new jobs today is already largely digital.
| Networking events still exist as a once-every-so-often
| opportunity. The majority of recruiters and employers are still
| looking at personal projects, all which are accessible from a
| distance. Realistically there is very little reason the
| majority of people are affected by this when it comes to new
| jobs.
|
| The majority of people don't grow well staying at the same job.
| This immediately lessens the impact of removing physical
| connections as a means to get better compensation. We've seen
| dozens of articles regarding this. As an added benefit, I
| wouldn't be surprised remote workers would have an easier time
| job hopping too.
|
| I see many reasons the above would unfold, but even without WFH
| things have been trending against company loyalty and
| dedication being a great way to further oneself in most of the
| west.
| di4na wrote:
| I mean i already never got a raise or career path and already
| knew job hopping was the only way up, as it has been for the
| past decade.
|
| And never got a manager trying to change that. We are in a
| mercenary industry and the faster we accept that the better for
| us all.
| [deleted]
| civilized wrote:
| Not my experience. I find that people who have good ideas and
| do quality work can be noticed and recognized in a remote
| environment. It's the mediocre that need face time to move up.
|
| I'm sure my experience is not universal and it varies a lot
| with team and company.
| greedo wrote:
| My team prior to COVID could be broken down into four
| categories: introverts who perform well, introverts who don't
| perform, extroverts who perform well and extroverts who don't
| perform well.
|
| When in the office, the un-performing extroverts could
| schmooze, bullshit, and kiss ass to maintain status. They've
| lost that now, and it's obvious how they're performing
| (though measuring performance in IT is very tough).
|
| The extroverts who previously performed well are doing the
| same, but have learned how to use online tools to maintain
| their status. Now it's even easier to kiss up privately to
| your boss or scheme with another manager behind your bosses
| back.
|
| The introverts are even more interesting. Past
| underperformers have improved dramatically. Whether it's not
| having to play the Game that they're unable or uncomfortable,
| they've all inarguably improved. The introverts who were
| doing well prior to WFH are also improving, though not at as
| dramatic a rate.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| Out of sight, out of mind
| kamaal wrote:
| So many people don't realise this.
|
| You haven't seen your cousin or a friend for a while? What is
| your perception of them now? I am sure all that Facebook
| liking and commenting hasn't given you a clue of what they
| are now, and more importantly even the perception of them
| from when you last had a chance to see them often has now
| been long forgotten/hazy.
|
| The facts here are anybody you don't see often, you don't
| know them well enough and they don't figure anywhere in your
| list of top people to give anything.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > The facts here are anybody you don't see often, you don't
| know them well enough and they don't figure anywhere in
| your list of top people to give anything.
|
| Then you leave and find work with someone that doesn't have
| the attention span of a goldfish. If you're producing work
| of value you should be compensated. If the company is doing
| well then all of the employees should be doing well. No one
| should have to put on a song and dance for their managers
| to get their work recognized and rewarded.
|
| If your manager can't remember you unless you're in front
| of them at all times they're not fit for _their_ job.
| kamaal wrote:
| >>Then you leave and find work with someone that doesn't
| have the attention span of a goldfish.
|
| Which is basically every where and every one. The bad
| news is you now start at the bottom of your level at the
| new company.
|
| >>If you're producing work of value you should be
| compensated.
|
| How naive are developers really?
|
| >>If the company is doing well then all of the employees
| should be doing well.
|
| There's a pyramid everywhere, even at F/MAANG's. Some one
| is always paid more than others, and that some one isn't
| always making it up on merit.
|
| >>No one should have to put on a song and dance for their
| managers to get their work recognized and rewarded.
|
| Work isn't an anonymous exam, subjective judgement
| follows by merely existence of more than one person in a
| team.
|
| >>If your manager can't remember you unless you're in
| front of them at all times they're not fit for their job.
|
| Yeah sadly, in a performance review, its us being
| evaluated not them.
| greedo wrote:
| Utterly ridiculous. My best friend lives 1600 miles away,
| and has for 10 years. We chat daily, sharing more details
| of our lives than I ever thought possible.
|
| My mom lives 2000 miles away, I only get to see her once a
| year. Yet we talk on the phone, write emails, have
| FaceTime, and yes, like on FB or Instagram.
|
| A cousin I haven't seen in a long time will take catching
| up at meals and activities; that's the role of family
| reunions.
|
| The idea that you need to be physically close to be
| emotionally close is just silly.
| v-erne wrote:
| I have heard this argument against WFH many times over.
| Especially from my relatives that work in bullshit jobs
| (cough ... investment banking ... cough).
|
| I wonder if people that brings up this understand what they
| are really saying. Because it's not like WFH reduces the
| amount of promotion that goes around. Its just have the
| potential of reallocating it differently. And this means
| that they are afraid that they will be out competed by
| others that are willing to be near decision makers to
| influence (or rather manipulate them).
|
| I would argue that this says more about those people than
| about WFH.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| As I work for a company that was founded during the
| pandemic, it's 100% remote in the truest meaning of the
| word. I never even considered there might be a different
| perception for 'WFH' which were in-person jobs that
| turned remote. I think for those jobs, both camps are
| right. To say WFH was just a temporary measure is just as
| valid to say you like working from home so much now you
| want that.
| v-erne wrote:
| >> I never even considered there might be a different
| perception for 'WFH' which were in-person jobs that
| turned remote.
|
| True, I was not talking about true remote job in truly
| remote company - if there are no possibility for in
| personal meeting than the power dynamic changes and the
| play ground is leveled for all players.
| kamaal wrote:
| >>I would argue that this says more about those people
| than about WFH.
|
| Not sure what your argument is, if a person eats lunch
| with another person on an everyday basis, or may be goes
| for a tea break walk, they are also likely to talk things
| about family, games and other such stuff. You really
| shouldn't be surprised if this sort of a relationship has
| a stronger bonding and more meaning, and this just can't
| be developed by some one calling another person for a 2
| minute call. And by the definition when some opportunity
| comes up they are more likely to remember them due to
| both proximity and frequency of interactions.
|
| If you have a friend whom you only occasionally ping on
| Facebook for a 'Happy Birthday!' message, you shouldn't
| be surprised if you aren't invited to parties after a
| while. It doesn't mean 'it says more about them', they
| are just reciprocating your feeling towards them, you
| don't want to see them in person, now neither do they.
|
| Maintaining good relationship with bosses is just one of
| those hygienic things you do at work, like dressing well,
| or using a mouth freshener or showing up everyday etc
| etc. If you want any influence at all, there are a few
| set of things you need to do, there's enough literature
| written about this. Things like talking well,
| agreeability, consensus building, clarity, having the
| other person empty their thoughts etc etc. You just have
| to do this regardless of whatever profession you are in,
| because this is how humans work.
| v-erne wrote:
| I'm not surprised - I really do understand all of this
| and know how the game works and kinda even know how to
| play it, just .. I'm really reluctant to do it. If I did
| it would be a bit like in the famous quote from Groucho
| Marx : "I Don't Want to Belong to Any Club That Will
| Accept Me as a Member"
|
| The thing is that I was just really trying only to point
| out what a shitty system we have all developed together
| (we as a society) through this kind of tactics. I suspect
| that You are looking at this only through the point of
| view of individual that is optimizing their own outcomes
| (the individual being yourself probably). But I try to
| look at this from a bit more systemic point of view. And
| what I see from up there isn't pretty.
|
| Of course for me this isn't only purely theoretical thing
| - what really buggers me are the logical consequences of
| this system. For example I really do not want to work for
| someone that becomes by boss only because he can play
| social game (and maintain proper relationships with key
| persons in company). But the thing is, that in this
| system, almost always this kind of person wins.
| greedo wrote:
| I maintain a good relationship with my boss by
| communicating clearly with him. By asking him questions
| about his expectations, and by providing him with
| information that he needs to do his job. He trusts me to
| do these things, despite not knowing much of my personal
| life, and definitely NOT because either of us "empty
| their thoughts."
|
| My boss isn't my friend. He's my boss. Clear boundaries
| are healthy boundaries.
| jcims wrote:
| There's truth to this but the reality is that even when you're
| in the office you might not see your boss on a day to day
| basis. I haven't lived in the same state as my boss for the
| past seven years. Remote work for me has been a great
| equalizer.
|
| One advantage of WFH: Zoom has put me in front of more senior
| leadership on a more frequent basis than I've ever seen while
| in the office. I've talked to managing directors on a weekly
| basis, sometimes daily, for the past 18 months or so. Prior to
| that it was quarterly at best.
| detaro wrote:
| Not sure how "have a daily check-in" requires being in the
| office? If anything, more communication happening in open
| channels vs 1:1 talks means more visibility to higher levels.
| swalsh wrote:
| I've been working from home for a bit over 5 years now. Before
| Covid, we used to have quarterly meetings where all of us full
| time WFH people went into the office for a day of in-person
| meetings. We'd get A BUNCH of work done, then go back to normal.
| In person collaboration is better, but you don't need it every
| day, or even every week. Our team was highly distributed so
| monthly was not practical. But this was a good system, we haven't
| done it since Covid, and I think we're worse off for it.
| sylens wrote:
| The other thing this article does not mention is that with many
| open office floor plans, the amount of conference rooms was never
| enough to satisfy meeting demand. So even though I might have
| coworkers on my team with me in my same location that needed to
| meet with others in another location, we could never just grab a
| conference room at the last minute and all sit together there.
| Instead, we would all have to dial in from our desks (often back-
| to-back in the open office) and manage mute/unmute there to
| prevent echo.
|
| I'm glad people are seeing how ridiculous this was.
| mprovost wrote:
| We noticed a lot of "meeting fatigue" with teams early in the
| pandemic and after a lot of feedback realised that it was
| because the limited number of conference rooms was constraining
| the overall number of meetings. Once that constraint was lifted
| and everyone could meet online, the number of meetings shot way
| up. It's come down a bit since then but is probably still much
| higher than it was when everyone was in the office. It will
| take some adjusting to go back to that, and honestly I doubt we
| ever will.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| I do the exact same job in my office than with my laptop anywhere
| else.
|
| Im in my mid 30s, and most of employees are +45 in my job. They
| really want to come back, and there are already a few in there,
| but whats the point?
|
| I guess they feel lonely, bosses too, but my life is so much
| better with WFH.
|
| Now Im just used to go places with my laptop, my phone as
| hotspot, and do work somewhere nice and quiet.
|
| I can even travel on workdays. This very week Im heading to
| Madrid to visit a friend. I don't need to take time off as I'll
| be capable of working there.
|
| It's usually just around my province, but knowing I can do this
| if I want is very liberating.
|
| Im not a SWE, I'm aiming to be one, as I currently work for an
| ISP and get low pay. Getting even a junior job in SW will likely
| give me a jump in income. I wonder if I will be able to continue
| with this lifestyle, because I'll probably need more
| concentration, not sure yet.
|
| Of course the fact that I can do this makes my otherwise boring
| and alienating job, with low pay, much more attractive. I didn't
| leave because I was afraid when the pandemic, now I just take it
| easy while I i study to change career.
|
| Of course I have no kids, no wife, no responsibilities. If I
| don't do this now...
| Mc91 wrote:
| The same thing for me. I go to another city and pay a visit for
| a week, but say I need to be available on Teams from 9 to 5 and
| attend some meetings, and get some work done. Usually it slows
| me down a little, so I do some extra prep work before the visit
| and catch up when I return home. It's like a little vacation
| without taking time off.
| Aicy wrote:
| What do you do on your city visits? I would like to do that
| but everything I like to do is only open during the day, and
| where I live by 5pm when I finish work it's dark and cold
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| I work until 16 and here in Spain you still have sun and
| plenty stuff to do. I live in the colder part so I it's
| pretty confortable.
|
| Un Madrid I guess I'll visit my friend, some museums and
| stuff and go eat and drink out with people.
| asdff wrote:
| You can change time zones too. I went skiing recently and
| ran into some people who wfh in the east coast. They were
| living right in breckenridge for the season, working in the
| mornings, then by quitting time east coast time hit they
| still had a few hours every single day to go out and ski in
| mountain time.
| Mc91 wrote:
| Usually I go back to my hometown and work during the day,
| and visit friends at night. I go out during the day on the
| weekend.
|
| I go out during lunchtime during the week (or message on
| Teams that I will be out for a little while), but usually
| that is for appointments or errands - on my last visit to
| my hometown I visited my accountant to do my taxes.
| wffurr wrote:
| Travel to a sunnier part of the world.
| ptman wrote:
| +45 is a temperature, or something else on a scale that goes
| below zero. >45 can be written as 45+, not +45.
| wussboy wrote:
| For real?
| yohannparis wrote:
| Not all comments need to be read as aggressive. This
| sounded more informative, and personally as an ESL, helps
| me improve.
| otagekki wrote:
| GP's Spanish writing habit, without a doubt
| prepend wrote:
| I understood what they meant.
| layer8 wrote:
| That's a pretty low standard for written communication
| though.
| blamestross wrote:
| 1T5 G00D 3N0UGH.
| prepend wrote:
| It's good enough to not complain about and spend my time
| on better things.
| showsover wrote:
| It might go either way to be honest. I'm currently living and
| working Spain as a SWE (immigrant) for a US company and the
| amount of useless meetings there is insane. That makes it quite
| hard to work on-the-go as half of the day is spent in meetings
| (most of them with camera turned on).
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| We rearely do that. We just type the stuff we need in teams
| and the occasional formative talk once a month or so.
|
| Meetings are about twice a year, and they appear in my teams
| calendar so I can plan ahead.
|
| When I feel we need a serious discussion I write a long ass
| text, and people usually follows without needing a call. It's
| like forums, so that's something I'm used to.
|
| But again, my job is very jump in, jump out. I don't really
| need too much focus, it's pretty much helpdesk with some
| admin, so I can get distracted without problem, and I don't
| really need to keep any code model in my head.
|
| My only worry if I find a job in SW will be that, the need to
| keep my mind focused, not being able to be pretty much
| anywhere. I hope the pay offsets this fact.
| showsover wrote:
| That sounds like a dream to be honest. I wish I could work
| without having meetings where nobody likes to say anything
| and it just drags on.
|
| Wrt the SW job, it might be more difficult in the beginning
| as it takes some focus to understand the system and how
| your work fits into the bigger whole. After a time it
| becomes easier to understand and to jump in, jump out.
|
| Of course this completely depends on the company and job
| type. My job is very non-demanding and I can easily coast
| by on just 3-4 hours of work a day. Other people are in a
| different situation.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| It's not a dream job because it barely pays above minimum
| wage. I have a hard time saving. And that's cos I live in
| a cheapish city.
|
| I hope jumping into software makes this better and can
| finally be financially confy.
| DoingIsLearning wrote:
| Can I ask how are you dealing with taxes, working for a US
| company in Spain? Are you contracting your SWE services and
| billing them? Or are you an employee of the US company?
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| Check remote.com or similar solutions. They have a few
| competitors, but for 200$ you become a full employee in
| your country of residence.
| higeorge13 wrote:
| In some countries working as full time employee via
| remote.com etc. gets you less money than having a company
| and dealing with the taxes.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| Yes, that's common for sure, but you also don't have to
| deal with the amount of BS that comes with being a
| contractor in some countries. It's the case of Spain,
| where the Tax Agency and Social Security are very
| aggressive and gives lot of headaches depending on what
| you do.
|
| Some employees even have premiums for putting their hand
| in your pocket. So yea, it may be more expensive but the
| peace of mind that gives you for offloading all of that
| to someone else is priceless.
| showsover wrote:
| I'm an employee of the Spanish office, but the company
| itself is a US one.
| aaaaaaaaaaab wrote:
| >most of them with camera turned on
|
| Just record a loop of yourself and use OBS as a virtual
| camera.
| ravedave5 wrote:
| Same experience as me, went in nobody was there. Spent day doing
| the exact same thing as at home with a different view and extra
| 50 minutes of driving. Did not go in again.
| musicale wrote:
| It sounds like the commute is a big part of it.
|
| My perfect commute would probably be a 10 minute bicycle ride,
| or maybe a short train ride.
| 0xfaded wrote:
| We had a small office in a smaller town (Odense) in Denmark
| and reopened ~July 2020. We had no masks within the office by
| agreement among ourselves, but were very strict in our
| personal lives. We really enjoyed the interaction during
| lockdown, and I think that our commutes were all less than 10
| mins helped.
| aerique wrote:
| I've got a 35 - 45 minute bicycle ride which makes it a nice
| workout.
|
| I really felt it when we started working from home during
| corona and I was sitting on the couch just eating chips and
| ice cream.
| adwww wrote:
| This is great, so long as you have the choice to just WFH
| when you're not feeling it - you have a cold, the weather
| is shit, the bike needs maintenance etc.
| lanstin wrote:
| Totally the same for me. I have started going into work one
| day a week at my own prompting just to get some bike
| commute in (I just don't like biking in circles unless
| there's some mileage away from the city). No one else is
| there but I have seen a few old friends in the tiny
| remnants of the cafeteria. And I sit all alone up in the
| top floor where it used to be execs so I have an awesome
| view of the mountains and so on. And the network bandwidth
| is much nicer than my wifi.
| hdjjhhvvhga wrote:
| I was in the same situation. In the end I solved the
| problem by cycling the same amount of kilometers each
| morning and evening but in a different direction (and nicer
| surroundings - without having to go along the street).
| jhoechtl wrote:
| Totally not the same for me. I anticipated that I will move
| less when WFH and started eating healthier and less
| chocolate. I think it has to do with self-discipline.
| byefruit wrote:
| I do the 10-15 minute cycle and it is excellent. Have been
| considering throwing in the occasional walking day too.
| niek_pas wrote:
| That's what I did when I had a 10-minute cycle. A 25-minute
| minute walk gave me a chance to, depending on the morning,
| either listen to a podcast or shake off the morning
| grogginess before heading in to work.
| asdff wrote:
| Thats what I like about wfh. I can simulate a commute in my
| neighborhood. Do I want to bike to work today? OK, I can
| decide how far work is, then I come home after that and start
| working. Do I want a 5 min walk with a mug of coffee? I can
| do that too. Do I need to work in a walk to the grocery store
| to get stuff for lunch? Boom, convenient errand and morning
| commute while working from home.
| redox99 wrote:
| Something like that is very hard in practice unless you live
| extremely close, like walking distance.
|
| Even in a densely populated area such as Manhattan, getting
| from midtown to lower manhattan (which is quite close btw) is
| 20 minutes either biking or taking the subway.
| asdff wrote:
| This is what I love about working from home. I live
| somewhere with frankly a decent amount of transit as far as
| american cities go; I can take a subway or bus lines to
| work from my place, but it still takes a ton of time (like
| 45 mins if the stars align with the schedule, over an hour
| if they don't).
|
| Meanwhile, with working from home, I've been simulating a
| commute. I walk for 5-30 mins maybe with a mug of coffee,
| or go biking in the morning, then come back and start
| working. It helps give some separation between home and
| work. Then I do the same thing at the end of the day to
| close it out and help clear the head.
| civilized wrote:
| > Instead, a lot of people who have returned to their offices for
| some or all of the week have found that they're the only ones
| there, or others are staying isolated in their offices, and all
| communication still happens over email, Slack, or Zoom. As a
| result, they're spending time commuting to and from the office
| and dealing with all the hassles of in-person work but without
| any of the promised payoff.
|
| Hahaha, like this wasn't true before the pandemic.
|
| It sure as hell was for me, anyway.
| scrapheap wrote:
| My team currently has to all go into the office for one day per
| week - that day is now referred to as "Low Productivity Day".
| swarnie wrote:
| We have the same issue and the same term at my company.
|
| For me its now beanie hat, wireless headphones with music, head
| down and don't bother me please.
|
| Eventually they'll get sick of me and stop asking me to attend
| i hope.
| greedo wrote:
| The official name for ours is Collaboration Days. But since
| every team has a different CD, it's almost impossible to have
| in-person meetings outside of our team. In within our team, if
| we have to wait for Collaboration day to make decisions etc,
| we'd be hopelessly broken and inefficient.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| So far I've managed to resist coming in to the office for
| pointless reasons.
|
| Our team was already split between the US and UK, and we tend to
| work outside of our team across multiple projects with people all
| over the world. So all meetings were always video calls even pre-
| pandemic.
|
| Some senior managers want us to be in the office 20% of the time
| to get that nebulous "collaboration" thing... Which literally
| never happened in person anyway. On the other hand, my managers
| have said we shouldn't come in unless there is an actual reason
| to do so.
|
| Fingers crossed sanity prevails...
| fcatalan wrote:
| "Emergency" WFH at my workplace have been slashed, everyone back
| in full since the start of the month. No reason publically given,
| been privately told "not about people like you, but some others
| have taken a 2 year vacation so management is fed up". I have
| emails from the CEO personally thanking me for my commitment in
| going way over what was expected when basically saving the
| institution during lockdown, so now I also feel kind of
| personally insulted and victim of ham-handed collective
| punishment.
|
| I hate being back: My gear at home is better, I have to work in
| uncomfortable clothes and at a room temperature that makes me
| sweat within minutes. I have to work in an N95 mask since we are
| packed in small 4 person cubicles and COVID numbers are still too
| high in my area. I'm spending more on gas and wasting time in
| traffic. I'm eating worse quality food. I keep getting
| interrupted by exactly those sames guys that took the 2 year
| vacation. I feel hard to concentrate and I'm angry all the time
| so my output has suffered.
|
| I keep sending IMs to people I work with, we never need to
| actually meet.
|
| Now you have to apply for a new more restrictive WFH scheme.
| Those wanting to sign up to it had a meeting with our direct
| manager where he tried to discourage us with thinly veiled
| threats about "special performance measuring procedures" and
| trite arguments about how it is unfair not being here for the
| people that want to come.
|
| We applied the same, but now HR is telling us that they can't
| approve our WFH requests since they can't guarantee that our
| screen setup at home is safe and we haven't completed a "Data
| Display Device Setup and Handling" course in the last three
| years. They don't know when the course will be offered again.
| I've been programming for more than 35 years now, so again I kind
| of feel doubly insulted, both by the bare faced obstructionism
| and ridiculous particular hurdle.
|
| I'd leave, I even feel I'm morally in the wrong for not leaving.
| But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age prone
| to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this is a
| place where I have ample slack for tuning my output and inmerse
| myself in side projects or personal improvement, so their loss...
| rkangel wrote:
| I love working from home, and I have a very enlightened
| employer but I do have some sympathy with the companies that
| have a chunk of employees who just don't work when they're at
| home.
|
| The situation in my company is simple to manage - we hire good
| people who are very capable and then trust them to get on and
| do the job. That works with the sort of people we hire and the
| sort of work we ask them to do. If they're at home we'll
| generally work just the same, because we're pretty well
| motivated.
|
| Not all companies are like that though. My partner worked for a
| charity where maybe 2/3 of people worked exactly the same
| during the pandemic, but a good chunk (mostly of the lower
| level admin staff) didn't. Some of them were very unsubtle -
| they'd never answer Teams calls, and would return them half an
| hour later and never produced any output anyway. Some were more
| subtle like the colleague who'd log into Teams first thing and
| then go back to the Playstation for a few hours of the morning
| before actually starting work. Having these people in the
| office WOULD result in more work being done.
|
| What we need is for these employers to be focusing on output
| rather than hours in the office. They are stuck in a mindset
| and approach that _barely_ worked in the past where if you had
| someone in an office for 8 hours a day you 'd probably get
| _something_ out of them. If they focused a little more on what
| they were getting (and I don 't just mean some basic metrics
| with no human insight) then we wouldn't need bums on seats and
| the people not doing anything at home would be pretty obvious.
| [deleted]
| fcatalan wrote:
| It's the same here as in your partner's place. Even the
| proportions. This is government work: hiring practices are
| bad by design and "firing practices" unexistant. No one is
| ever fired. This means that the place is perennially
| understaffed in practice and depends fully on the goodwill,
| personal/professional ethics and patience of those that will
| do the work. But since they can't fire and we all have to
| live together somehow, management likes to keep the illusion
| that everyone is the same. So sometimes they will design
| promotion schemes or bonuses that favor slackers over the
| guys doing the job, or punish everyone equally for the sins
| of a few.
|
| It's a pretty kafkian environment, but it's sort of a golden
| cage too: Pay is good, benefits great, stability rock solid.
| I'm used to a freedom of agency and independence that I'm
| afraid would go over badly in a normal place. So I stay.
| rkangel wrote:
| > I'm used to a freedom of agency and independence that I'm
| afraid would go over badly in a normal place. So I stay.
|
| I think you're underselling the rest of the world a bit.
| Many if not most companies aren't great, but there are a
| good chunk that do empower their employees to do their job
| properly and that's how you get the most job satisfaction.
| Of course, this is without knowing your sector and role -
| it does vary.
|
| You're in a great position that you're in a job you're
| largely happy with. You should use that as allowing you to
| carefully choose your next role, rather than as an excuse
| not to. It's also great in salary negotiations - you can
| pick a large number because in the worst case you go back
| to your perfectly reasonable job!
| progmetaldev wrote:
| I've been at the same company since 2007, and although this
| isn't government work, it sure works that way. For anyone
| to be fired, you need solid evidence that the company has
| lost a good sum of money. That creates an environment where
| there's little trust among the lower end workers and the
| higher tier ones. I stay because I make great money for
| where I'm located, the job is stable, and if I need to just
| take off for a doctor's appointment, there's no issue as
| long as I get my work done.
| prepend wrote:
| > Having these people in the office WOULD result in more work
| being done.
|
| I disagree as I think those people did no work while in the
| office and kept doing no work outside the office.
|
| I worked in a building where one person had a personal laptop
| open, daytrading all day. Instead of working. Of course they
| should have worked, but they didn't.
|
| People will shirk work in the office and outside.
|
| I think it's silly to assume someone who would log into Teams
| and then play PlayStation wouldn't just close their office
| door and play games on their iPad for hours.
| GoodJokes wrote:
| cgio wrote:
| They could be telling the "not about you" to everyone, though,
| and that would also act as some kind of free carrot for them,
| I.e. you feel somehow appreciated in a very abstract way with
| no cost to the company. I haven't seen any organisation where
| one person can keep things running, so hard to believe this as
| an argument. I assume, like most companies outside segments
| such as hospitality, yours also did well in the last couple
| years. In that case, the excuse that people were on leave is
| insulting and should be insulting to you too.
| chris_overseas wrote:
| > But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age
| prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this
| is a place where I have ample slack for tuning my output and
| inmerse myself in side projects or personal improvement, so
| their loss...
|
| None of those points prevent you from looking to see what other
| jobs are available and applying for any that look interesting.
| Who knows, you might find something that is better on all
| counts. Worst case scenario you don't find anything better,
| which will mean you're no worse off than you are already, you
| learned a few things in the interview processes, and maybe the
| knowledge that your current role is better than various
| alternatives you looked at makes things seem a bit more
| tolerable where you are now?
| pzs wrote:
| "I'd leave, I even feel I'm morally in the wrong for not
| leaving. But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an
| age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also
| this is a place where I have ample slack for tuning my output
| and inmerse myself in side projects or personal improvement, so
| their loss..." - this tells me that you are a very loyal
| employee and you also find security more important than other
| aspects of your career. That is certainly your decision, but I
| suggest you to keep looking at the balance and consider the
| compromises you are making because of this. Based on my
| experience there is considerable talent shortage on the job
| market, and loyalty is seen as a positive by reasonable hiring
| managers.
| verve_rat wrote:
| Sounds like it is time for you to take your two year vacation.
| la64710 wrote:
| efsavage wrote:
| As someone who has probably experienced it, I wonder if ageism
| is more or less prevalent in remote jobs. I suspect, with zero
| evidence, that it might be diminished a bit, and could even be
| an asset since you've got a proven track record of being
| disciplined and productive in a remote environment. Perhaps
| it's worth testing the job market and finding something that is
| a better fit.
| imchillyb wrote:
| Today it's a job-seeker's market, and that is likely to
| continue for some time to come.
|
| If your company won't play ball, it's time to find another
| field to play in.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| If so many people are pissed off at coming back to office
| wouldn't remote jobs would be super demanded?
|
| I've looked at some recently and tons of jobs require office
| presence. Finding something outside of US is near impossible.
| cableshaft wrote:
| They are highly demanded[1], companies are just extremely
| stubborn and are trying to force employees to accept their
| terms.
|
| You could see that the past year and a half in restaurants
| that are willing to close down entirely (often with a sign
| saying they're short staffed) for days, weeks, or
| permanently, rather than raise their wages enough to hire
| and keep the employees they need to function.
|
| [1]: "Newly published research from the Pew Research Center
| that surveyed roughly 10,000 Americans from Jan. 24 to Jan.
| 30 found that nearly two years into the COVID-19 pandemic,
| roughly 6 in 10 U.S. workers who say their jobs can be done
| from home, at 59 percent, are doing so from home all or
| most of the time. Now, more workers say they are working
| from home out of choice than necessity.
|
| Among those who have a workplace outside of their home, 61
| percent said they are choosing not to go in, while 38
| percent said they're working from home specifically because
| their workplace is closed or unavailable to them.
|
| Interestingly, Pew Research noted just the opposite was
| true earlier in the pandemic, with 64 percent of people
| indicating they were working from home because their office
| was closed while 36 percent said they were choosing to work
| from home."
|
| https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-
| cities...
| matwood wrote:
| > "not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2
| year vacation so management is fed up"
|
| Then it's time to let people go. Early on in COVID leeway
| definitely needed to be given with daycares closed, people
| transitioning to WFH, etc... But at this point, if someone
| can't get their work done remotely, then they should find a
| non-remote job.
|
| We went fully remote prior to the pandemic, and I remember
| someone in senior management asking me, 'how will we know
| people are working at home?' My response was 'how do we know
| they are working in the office?' If people aren't getting any
| work done it doesn't matter where they are. Management just
| feels better about seeing them in the office.
| progmetaldev wrote:
| This was exactly what I told my boss when I said I need to
| work remotely from now on. You have no idea what I'm doing
| whether you can see me across the office, or if I'm home. In
| my defense, I was able to display that working from home for
| me boosted my productivity. I can also get my son to school
| without having to deal with bus schedules.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Alternatively, if these people have taken a 2 year vacation
| and the company appears to be operating fine, maybe there's
| no problem?
|
| I don't understand why this issue is being raised _now_ -
| surely they already have existing processes in place to deal
| with people who underperform, in which case those same
| processes can be applied regardless of WFH status. The fact
| that they haven 't suggests that in the end work _is_ being
| done satisfactorily and someone is just jealous or on a power
| trip.
| syshum wrote:
| If they can take a 2 year vacation and the company is
| operating fine then their roles should be eliminated
| because they do not serve any function to the company
|
| A Company is not a charity, people are not kept on payroll
| just because
| peoplefromibiza wrote:
| layoff freeze laws have been a thing in many countries
| during COVID
|
| basically not only people took a 2 years paid vacation,
| they also could not be fired which incentivized the more
| parasitic workers to work even less
|
| I know personally of a mailwoman working in Northern Italy
| for Italian Postal service (a public service) that went
| back to her home in Sicily and never showed up at work for
| 9 months because she could not be laid off.
|
| So my mother in law who's also almost blind didn't get her
| mail for many weeks.
|
| Nothing we could do about it. There were no consequences
| whatsoever.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Sure, but systems aren't designed for individual
| termination throughput.
|
| It's easy for people to game the system and turn around and
| claim that it's a discriminatory practice. It's also easy
| for management to cut off an employee in bad faith to drum
| up a case for termination.
|
| The easiest way to weed out the assholes is to change the
| rules for everyone, and purge those who are insubordinate.
| You'll lose a few producers, but not as many as HN would
| leave you to believe.
| IMTDb wrote:
| Alternatively, the world was in a state were these people
| really did not need really to be working because economy
| was so slow, and government grants were paying for those
| salaries anyway, so people were kept on the payroll.
|
| Now that the economy is "back on track", we need them to be
| working - like they did before the pandemic, not like they
| did during the pandemic - so the work organisation gets
| back to a pre-pandemic state.
| greedo wrote:
| Bull. My company has posted the highest sales and profits
| in it's multi-century history during the pandemic years.
|
| This idea that people were slacking off during COVID is a
| myth.
| greedo wrote:
| Many companies have difficulty assessing performance, so
| whenever they get the opportunity to safely fire people who
| have transgressed in some fashion they do so. My company
| had famously never performed layoffs. We've been in
| business since the 19th Century. But eventually all good
| things must end, and during the 2008 crisis, some newer
| mgmt found an opportunity to fire people who didn't play
| their game. We only laid off 30 people, but it was a huge
| shock to the company culture, and made people re-evaluate
| what they thought the social contract was about.
| 7952 wrote:
| In my company managers were just given a free pass on
| difficulty with WFH managment. It was never treated as a
| "performance issue" by the corporate system. People are still
| measured the the world that existed 10 years ago. What is
| particularly galling is that they are now promoting agile hot
| desk offices as being exciting and new.
| acdha wrote:
| > No reason publically given, been privately told "not about
| people like you, but some others have taken a 2 year vacation
| so management is fed up".
|
| This is exasperating: it's basically saying managers aren't
| doing their jobs and you should pay the consequences. If
| someone really did goof off that much, their supervisor should
| be looking for a new job too.
|
| What I suspect is that nobody did this and what you're really
| hearing is that senior management are distrustful and don't
| believe people are working if they don't see them. Everywhere
| I've heard that, it's been pure projection.
|
| Either way, I'd reconsider leaving. You have a stable situation
| so you can look for a place you really like without time
| pressure but the respect gradient probably won't improve unless
| you have C-level turnover.
| user_named wrote:
| When we returned to the office in 2020 after a few months of
| WFH at a Chinese megacorp, due to the lack of meeting rooms,
| everyone just did zoom meetings from their desk. Nobody really
| needed to be in the office; we never met due to the size of the
| company.
| sodapopcan wrote:
| I got anxiety reading this. I hope are able to find something
| else, even if (judging by your last sentence) you don't want
| to.
| detaro wrote:
| > _that I 'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job
| market, and also this is a place where I have ample slack_
|
| so you also have time to go hunt for another job before
| quitting at least, if that's where you want to go.
| nesky wrote:
| > "I hate being back: My gear at home is better, I have to work
| in uncomfortable clothes and at a room temperature that makes
| me sweat within minutes. I have to work in an N95 mask since we
| are packed in small 4 person cubicles and COVID numbers are
| still too high in my area. I'm spending more on gas and wasting
| time in traffic. I'm eating worse quality food. I keep getting
| interrupted by exactly those sames guys that took the 2 year
| vacation. I feel hard to concentrate and I'm angry all the time
| so my output has suffered."
|
| We start back at the office next week and this sums up exactly
| why I have no interest in going back full time.
| rkangel wrote:
| I think it is indefensible to bring people back to work in any
| workplace where mask wearing is needed at your desk. If you're
| admitting in that way that there is a risk in being in the
| office then you shouldn't be requiring them to be there!
| Freak_NL wrote:
| Wow no indeed. I would be looking for a new job. Masks are a
| measure for times when no other option is available, not a
| standard check mark for every employee. From which management
| level upward do these rules not apply? It probably coincides
| with having your own private office...
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| My company has been mandating 3 days/week at the office,
| with mandatory masks also. You're right, managers above a
| certain level have their private office and don't need to
| wear a mask all day.
| [deleted]
| 0des wrote:
| > wow no indeed
|
| Ween yourself off the "yeah, no" pattern.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| I'm not using that pattern here am I? I don't use it
| anywhere -- I find it ill-suited for written
| communication. Those three words serve only to convey my
| agreement with rkangel and utter surprise at this being
| mandated for a desk job.
| [deleted]
| cpcallen wrote:
| With the obvious exception of essential jobs that cannot be
| done remotely, such as hands-on medical care.
| ryeights wrote:
| It sounds like GP is wearing a mask voluntarily.
| evancoop wrote:
| "...not about people like you."
|
| My wife, who spent much of her career in corporate HR, would
| often note: "People who want to work, will work wherever you
| put them. People who don't want to work will find a way not to
| work wherever you put them."
|
| The people who used WFH as a "2 year vacation" are the same
| people who will wander the office engaging in random
| conversations and scrolling Facebook the remainder of the day.
|
| I always wondered why we presume traffic and cubicles are a
| cure for the lack of motivation.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| It's a level of friction that discourages the worst
| behaviors.
|
| You probably lock the front door of your house. The reality
| is, it's not a meaningful thing in most cases, as a
| moderately in shape middle aged man, I could likely kick or
| pry it in in seconds.
|
| We do it because it keeps honest people out and increases the
| friction for the bad guys - kicking the door down in itself
| becomes a felony. (Burglary)
|
| Likewise, people are on a bell curve of sorts with respect to
| motivation. The people on the bottom are a waste of oxygen
| and require explicit directions for every task, and the other
| extreme are self-motivated and will create novel tasks to
| complete without any direction.
|
| Some people need the office to function appropriately on that
| curve. I have one guy on my team who came to work physically
| every day during the full lockdowns in NYC because for him,
| the context shift of being in the office was important. He is
| probably the smartest person I've ever met, but he can't work
| at home. Another colleague is living on an island somewhere.
|
| The rest of us are in the middle. Combine that with other
| business requirements, and you have to make a decision that's
| best for the business.
| progmetaldev wrote:
| I know there are some employees that have children at home
| during the day, making it difficult to get any work done.
| This is especially true in cities where there is often not
| enough room for a dedicated office. My boss does best in
| the office, because almost everyone is home, so it is quiet
| (unlike his home situation).
| afiori wrote:
| Since the door/lock analogy is widely used I would like to
| point that they have 2 other major advantages
|
| 1: they have the effect of warning you of unauthorized
| access: you can maybe break a door/window in a matter of
| minutes but you wont catch me napping nor you will be able
| to make it look like nobody broke in.
|
| 2: they keep unmotivated attackers out and can move the
| attacks off to you and on less protected properties.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Do we actually know if it has any effect at all?
|
| Locking your door looks more like an historical artifact
| from the time the police wasn't ready available for
| policing the neighborhood of normal people.
| la64710 wrote:
| Probably you should then have looked at the dog joke on the
| top. If I DONT want to do stupid work beleive me , I will
| work very hard to find smart ways to NOT do your stupid
| work. In other words I will be the absolute lazy programmer
| whose output is so good that it scares their manager to the
| point of insecurity. These are the kind of people that
| wants "their" team back in office. Again something very
| stupid but it is a viscous circle...
| bluGill wrote:
| Cubicles, as opposed to an office with a door that closes
| mean someone is likely to walk by and see what you are
| wasting time doing. Once in a while everyone has 'compiling'
| time to waste, but eventually it gets obvious
| greedo wrote:
| Businesses should be measuring results before process. Not
| that process is unimportant, but especially with ICs,
| process can vary dramatically.
| thelittleone wrote:
| I'm similar age. Twice in the last few years I left great jobs
| due to somewhat similar reasons of misaligned environment and
| values. I left without having anything new lined up. I also
| kinda needed the money. But despite my fears I quit. Within
| days, on both occasions, I got a new higher paying job that
| aligned better with my preferences and values. But perhaps most
| valuable was a sense of satisfaction for having integrity.. the
| old expression "being able to look in the mirror...".
|
| This approach worked well for me, but maybe I was just lucky.
| ajdegol wrote:
| This guy goes into a bar in Mexico and there's a dog lying in
| the corner, every so often the dog whimpers and whines a
| little. The guy asks the barman "what's up with that dog?" And
| the barman said "oh, he's probably lying on a nail."
|
| After a few more minutes and another set of whines, the guy
| asks the barman "so why doesn't he move?" And the barman says
| "it probably doesn't hurt enough for him to get up."
| maest wrote:
| Interesting story, but why in Mexico?
| [deleted]
| TuringTest wrote:
| In countries where it is very hot during the day, there is
| a cliche that people make the minimum effort necessary or
| even less.
|
| The cliche _is_ true during the hottest hours, but it fails
| to admit that it is simply because most activity moves to
| the twilight hours when the heat subsides.
| toyg wrote:
| When I was in Cairo for work, the amount of people
| flowing out of their homes at dusk was unreal. Areas that
| were literally dead an hour earlier, became bustling with
| humanity.
|
| When I left, I thought it was so stupid to build these
| big offices near the desert and to pack them full of
| people working 9 to 5 with massive amounts of aircon,
| effectively imposing on them the Northern European way of
| life - folks have been inhabiting those areas for
| millennia, they know how to properly deal with the
| environment they live in, let them work at night instead
| and save all that energy.
| adingus wrote:
| Because that's where it happened
| maest wrote:
| That feels like quite a disingenuous answer.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Ageism is real. After some point in time, it isn't so easy to
| hop jobs anymore while your current company still values you
| (even if they make mistakes). So you don't rock the boat
| until you don't need to job anymore.
| rockyj wrote:
| It is not so easy. Changing jobs cannot be always the answer.
| In Europe there are not many "remote friendly" companies and
| also it's not that you will get a 20% pay rise every time you
| switch. On top, it is extremely hard to find software
| development jobs that pay around or above 100K. Most jobs are
| around 60-80K.
|
| A job change can also mean - inheriting someone else's
| problematic code base, new office politics and colleagues who
| may not get along with you. Hardly 0-5% of pay rise really
| does not justify all this. All in all, one cannot switch jobs
| easily when the options and benefits of switching are not so
| good.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> It is not so easy. Changing jobs cannot be always the
| answer._
|
| This. Everything you said is true about most of Europe, and
| even more so outside of major tech hubs.
|
| Companies call the shots and employees have to follow if
| they want to stay employed, because there are no good
| alternatives to go to, when all companies just act the same
| and pay the same. And most companies here don't give a damn
| about what their employees actually want and presume they
| can bait you with a +10% salary increase but exact same
| inflexibility, toxic environment and management practices.
| Good luck with that.
|
| Plus, interviewing and changing jobs in the tech world is a
| monumental effort, taking both time and a mental toll after
| several rounds of interviews with several companies, on top
| of your regular job, time that could have went into
| hobbies, dating, socializing, travelling, cooking, etc., so
| there's a lost opportunities cost associated with the job
| hunt.
|
| I've been interviewing around for about 4 months so far, to
| hopefully change to a better , less stressful tech job, and
| I'm already completely exhausted from all the "complete our
| 20-questions, 6 page HR online form about yourself, before
| you can submit your application, because our time is more
| valuable than yours", "solve this week long take home test,
| and when you're done, we'll let you know that unfortunately
| this position has already been filled", "there will be
| several rounds of interviews after wich we'll just ghost
| you, because f*ck you", "you didn't sound passionate enough
| about our company's products in your cover letter", etc.
| And, apparently there's a labor shortage. Yeah ... right.
|
| God, I'm so exhausted from all this, some days I just can't
| get out of bed anymore and sit there wishing I get hit by
| lightning, or die in my sleep and end my misery.
| xtracto wrote:
| So, going with the Mexican dog analogy: the pain of
| working from the office is still less than the other
| scenario.
|
| If I had two offers, and one was 20% less compensation
| plus WFH and the other +20% but working from office ONCE
| a day, I'd go for the WFH one.
|
| Of course everybody's factors are different.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > Of course everybody's factors are different.
|
| I'm glad you acknowledge it; with rising cost of living,
| housing prices, and (in my case) medical expenses (the
| part not covered by insurance, like physical therapy;
| we're still trying to get a diagnosis so it will be
| covered), I can't afford a 20% pay cut.
|
| Even pre-pandemic, I rejected an offer from a company
| literally across the street from where I live, because
| their offer was >30% lower than what I was earning at the
| time. I just flat out told them I wouldn't be able to
| afford to live there - and I live in some of the cheapest
| houses in this area.
| conjectures wrote:
| Yeah, there is a 'just change jobs' crowd who pop up in
| every conversation about working conditions.
|
| There are switching costs which mean the employee often
| takes a hit on attempting to move. It's like buying a car,
| car doesn't work as advertised so someone says, "well stop
| whining and sell it, you're in market." Like yes, but also
| nope.
| krageon wrote:
| > In Europe there are not many "remote friendly" companies
|
| This is not true. There are many such opportunities if you
| ask, especially now.
|
| > it's not that you will get a 20% pay rise every time you
| switch
|
| If you work in IT (generous, but it _is_ HN...), this
| should be your experience unless you switch more than once
| every two years. Then everyone will mistrust you, but you
| can still do it as a contractor.
|
| > On top, it is extremely hard to find software development
| jobs that pay around or above 100K. Most jobs are around
| 60-80K.
|
| Making around or above 100K in the EU is indeed very
| unusual. Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the
| US because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert
| hellscape. The lower top salary in the EU comes with the
| benefit of knowing that if you go blind you won't have to
| die shitting yourself in some crackhouse.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> This is not true. There are many such opportunities if
| you ask, especially now._
|
| Your statement definitely does not apply where I
| currently live (Austria). No tech company I've
| interviewed here is 100% remote as of now. They always
| expect more or less around 30-50% in office presence for
| new hires. They almost always have some staff at near
| 100% remote but those are usually tenured employees that
| management does not want to lose, so they get extra
| privileges as a bonus.
|
| _> Of course, such numbers mostly make sense in the US
| because it is (socially, in terms of security) a desert
| hellscape._
|
| That's also not true. American tech workers don't have
| higher salaries because they get less social safety, but
| they have higher salaries because a lot more investment
| money, by orders of magnitude, gets poured into their
| tech sector compared to Europe where most goes into real
| estate instead, while the US also has a smaller supply of
| devs due to their expensive higher education and tougher
| immigration laws than Europe, meaning that the high
| demand of devs in the US can't be met by their low supply
| of workers, so their salaries naturally rise accordingly.
| It's that simple, basic supply and demand, nothing to do
| with the presence or lack of social safety from the
| government, as US taxes aren't that much lower than in
| Europe.
| jen20 wrote:
| > as US taxes aren't that much lower than in Europe.
|
| US taxes being similar to Europe (which in my experience
| is true) certainly does not equate to an equivalent
| safety net.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| It's exactly what I said.
| mech422 wrote:
| I just interviewed yesterday with an Austrian company
| from here on HN, that was 100% remote... I guess it
| depends on your region/vertical ?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Would you mind sharing a name please. If privacy is
| concerned my email is in my profile. Thanks.
| mech422 wrote:
| Hmm - it was QuestDB, but maybe I didn't see it on HN
| (can't find it now..) Anyway here is the job link:
|
| https://questdb.io/careers/senior-cloud-engineer/
| mech422 wrote:
| Hmm - it appears I was mistaken: "regional offices in
| London, Berlin and San Francisco." But the gentleman that
| interviewed me was in Austria. They are remote first, and
| have people all over from our conversation.
| john-radio wrote:
| > such numbers mostly make sense in the US because it is
| (socially, in terms of security) a desert hellscape.
|
| Tough but fair.
| InCityDreams wrote:
| Is this specific to Mexico? And, what breed was the dog?
| panzagl wrote:
| It was a mutt.
| fcatalan wrote:
| "Nailed" it. Perfect description of my situation. I wish I
| weren't like this
| agumonkey wrote:
| That said the dog has only one nail to deal with. Adult
| life means balancing rent / stability / safety / job. It's
| sad that manager never understand what people want to be
| happy for their company and so easily find ways to make us
| go into cynical mode (slow down and cope with side
| project).
| endymi0n wrote:
| To say it with the words of my first boss that stuck with
| me:
|
| "Love it, change it or leave it. No amount of complaining
| will ever do anything else than paint you as a naysayer."
|
| Was a hard pill to swallow, but my own experience proved me
| again and again he was spot on.
| m_fayer wrote:
| I'm starting to doubt this advice. I'm a "change it" sort
| of personality by nature - a reformer. When faced with
| these 3 options, I've chosen "change it" many times. And
| more often than not, I've found myself in a political
| crossfire, with new unwelcome knowledge of the various
| forces (typically some combination of self interest, ego,
| and turf-guarding) that are responsible for the thing I'm
| trying to change.
|
| My current lesson is - most things that look like an easy
| win would have been claimed a long time ago if not for
| some unholy hidden mess. If I'm to vote for "change", I
| should be prepared to deal with the unholy mess. It
| doesn't matter that I don't see it, it's out there
| somewhere.
|
| Since I rarely want to take on an unholy mess, and I'm
| not good at the kind of doublethink that would allow me
| to love a thing I'm not inclined to love, usually that
| just leaves one option.
| citizenkeen wrote:
| I think you're missing the point. If you don't love it,
| then either change it or leave. It doesn't require
| doublethink to love something. If you get somewhere, and
| you don't love it, _then_ you're left with two choices.
| If you're unwilling/unable to go through a change
| process, or if you've selected a company that's bad at
| change, then yes, now you only have one option.
| phaedrus wrote:
| I agree - from experience - but your assertion the easy
| wins are deceiving also reminds me of the joke about the
| economist who won't pick up a ten dollar bill in the
| street because in an efficient market someone else would
| have already got it.
| revolvingocelot wrote:
| Worse yet, IME, being a keen participant in HN's
| technical side almost precludes one's ability to overcome
| the _other players_ , those who fight in the name of some
| combination of self interest, ego, and turf-guarding.
|
| To vanquish these, in the name of The Right Way, one
| ultimately must engage them in social combat, whether by
| proxy or directly. And they're better at it than you are.
| Nerds may be clever, and they may actually be _right_ ,
| but the other players are usually more convincing. And I
| don't mean merely argumentatively.
| greedo wrote:
| Exactly. I was once tasked with replacing a piece of
| software. Enterprise software is such a mess, but I had 4
| vendors before the downselect, and one was clearly the
| optimal choice both for price and performance. Presented
| it to upper mgmt and was asked to keep researching the
| options. Did this dog and pony show for another month
| until one of the sales engineers for the #1 vendor
| mentioned that my executive had a previous relationship
| (at another company) with the sales exec. A bad
| relationship. So my exec was never going to sign off on a
| sale that would benefit the sales exec, but he didn't
| want to come out and tell me outright. He simply wanted
| me to read between the lines and skew the evaluation in
| favor of the other candidates.
|
| The "Schmoozer" class is full of this type of crap. I'm
| convinced that outside of a few unicorn companies,
| meritocracy is an illusion.
| snowwrestler wrote:
| Creating change isn't easy. But it is an option.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| > If I'm to vote for "change", I should be prepared to
| deal with the unholy mess. It doesn't matter that I don't
| see it, it's out there somewhere.
|
| Yes. This is the old point about the Serenity 'prayer':
| _grant me the serenity To accept the things I cannot
| change; Courage to change the things I can; And wisdom to
| know the difference_. Or, as soldiers say more
| succinctly, "Pick your battles".
|
| I've slowly internalised this over the years. It also
| applies on a micro-level: when reviewing someone else's
| work, if something that isn't critical actually gets the
| job done, just go with it, unless there is an actual
| problem with an obvious solution that you can suggest.
| Don't complain just because something is done differently
| to how you would do it.
|
| The point about Unknown Unknowns is also totally
| relevant. And cans-of-worms. You really must be very
| confident you are right before opening them.
| sodapopcan wrote:
| I hear ya--influencing change is indeed exhausting. I
| think the love and change aren't mutually exclusive,
| though it depends on we're defining it. For me, if I
| don't "love" a place, I won't care to change it. If I do
| love it, I'll put in the work, and I'll be pretty loud
| about it because if change doesn't happen relatively
| quickly, then there's no point in my sticking around.
| jerf wrote:
| "I'm a "change it" sort of personality by nature - a
| reformer."
|
| One of the things I've learned is that authority is a
| real thing. If you don't have the authority to change
| something, don't try. You will fail, and it will do
| nothing but cost you. I've jousted with this many times,
| and it was a failure every time. (More technical type
| stuff, but the same holds for this sort of thing too.)
|
| Authority doesn't _have_ to be given from on high; there
| is also some distributed authority that arises from the
| unofficial _de facto_ org chart that every organization
| has. I 've managed to push some things through with that
| (and relevant amounts of consensus) when I was more
| careful to ensure I had the authority.
|
| But if you don't have at least some authority, you will
| fail.
|
| This comment is _is_ , not _ought_. You are welcome to
| feel about it however you like. But when it comes time to
| determine your own actions, you should work in the space
| of _is_ and not _ought_.
|
| That doesn't mean the only option is to give up. One may
| attempt to acquire the authority. This can either be by
| direct appeal, or in some cases, through the long-term
| acquisition of authority called "respect". One may
| attempt to convince an existing authority to help with
| whatever your issue is. Though in this specific case if
| the problem is specifically fighting existing authority
| that may not help. There are other options.
|
| But it is a total wishful thinking myth that if you're
| just smart enough and good enough and just take charge,
| by golly, you can get anything done! In fact, after a
| while, when you see someone and on day 3 you see them
| charging around just trying to _change_ things, you start
| to see someone who isn 't going to be there long.
|
| (Now, I actually like fresh perspectives on my team and
| don't squash people if they have new ideas, but at the
| same time, I ask them to take a couple of weeks and be
| sure they _fully_ understand the changes they are
| proposing before we consider their suggestions. The end
| result is _better suggestions_ , and we have taken many
| of them. This is why I'm specific about it being "day 3";
| on day 3, you may know enough to have identified a
| problem, but you don't know the solution yet.)
|
| But if you can't acquire some authority somehow, your
| options are reduced to deal with it or leave it. There is
| no "just bull through and change things anyhow". The
| entire political structure built into our very genes will
| not permit it. You're fighting not just your current
| organization but millions of years of evolution. You will
| not win.
| m_fayer wrote:
| I think this is an excellent point. At the start of my
| career I would blithely assume that my authority was that
| which was formally given to me, in the official org
| chart. I'm still learning how to gauge how much real
| (formal plus unofficial) authority I have at a given
| moment, what it entitles me to do, and how to build it if
| I need to.
|
| I guess this is what it looks like when a nerd learns how
| to do politics.
| mjevans wrote:
| In this case, would the 'change it' option be to just
| work from home and see what happens?
| bob2222 wrote:
| find a fully remote job if you can
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Whats the market like right now? I have a feeling
| extremely tight as everyone wants a remote job now?
| tomrod wrote:
| Reporting in, both as employer and targeted as employee
| through recruiting channels. Recruiters are in full swing
| and it is hard to find people with data/analytics
| skillsets. Developers seem similar. Knowing coding seems
| like foot in the door, modern applications have all kinds
| of disparate dependencies like k8s, docker,
| virtualization, Kafka, etc.
| pfarrell wrote:
| At least give it a try. I suspect based on join dates
| that I'm similar or older than the OP. The more senior
| you get, the more time it can take on a search, but with
| remote work, you should definitely be trying.
| mattcwilson wrote:
| I read "change it" as encompassing any modification to
| the status quo short of quitting it altogether. So, yes.
| But so also would be writing a petition to reinstitute
| work from home as a "performance bonus" and getting it
| signed by as many other company bright-lights as
| possible. Lots of options.
| xtiansimon wrote:
| Exactly, but only if you're ready to get fired.
| orwin wrote:
| I'm doing this, new company policies are half a week in
| office. I get there 2 days a month since December (4 days
| this month but I needed to met coworkers). I do get email
| from the management occasionally but I either ignore them
| or use a poor excuse 'i didn't feel well enough to take
| the train this week '. They know I'm able to find a new
| job so they don't have any leverage.
| benhurmarcel wrote:
| You can also just bear it, live with it.
|
| Actually that's often the best choice, you need to pick
| your battles.
| SilasX wrote:
| Or, it's that the dog does tell all his doggie friends about
| his predicament, but any time they're about to give him
| actionable advice for solving the core problem, he cuts them
| off, more interested in emotional catharsis.
|
| "It's not about the nail."
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
| rosmax_1337 wrote:
| >I have emails from the CEO personally thanking me for my
| commitment in going way over what was expected when basically
| saving the institution during lockdown
|
| It's a business not a skate park, tell your CEO that you
| appreciate the positive feedback but that if he really means
| what he is saying: he should put his money where his mouth is
| and give you a sizable raise or a considerable bonus.
| ciphol wrote:
| He isn't complaining about lack of money, he's complaining
| about lack of WFH. He should ask for that.
| ISL wrote:
| Agreed -- this is the kind of feedback that is actionable
| and, given OP's description of multiple employees feeling
| uncomfortable with the new hybrid arrangement, the kind of
| feedback that could improve the company's future.
| fcatalan wrote:
| Oh I also have stories about this... maybe for another
| thread. I should really just leave, but I know I won't
| akavel wrote:
| You can just start looking at offers and applying to them
| "purely as a hobby". What do you have to lose? What do you
| fear could happen if you got a new job? And why do you fear
| it? (After answering, try repeating the last question a few
| times to go deeper.) The answer to those questions could
| help you understand why the current job maybe _is_
| important to you, or alternatively that your fear is _not_
| really something you want to be afraid of, and thus can go
| and start the adventure of applying!
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Money doesn't solve every problem.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Yes it mostly always does. To think that it's not is to be
| in a position where you have to much of it.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Money will solve the problems at the top of most people's
| lists. By the time money stops solving problems you're
| pretty well off.
| afiori wrote:
| In this context money will not solve hating your job,
| unless they pay you enough to retire.
| iso1210 wrote:
| Money makes them think about value. When I took my current
| job in 2016 I wanted more than they could pay, they wanted
| me to be based in an office (Oh it would only be officially
| we dont mind you working from home)
|
| We compromised, my contract says I work from home and they
| pay me for my time and travel if I go somewhere, and they
| can afford me.
|
| Can they justify paying you an extra $50k a year (or $10k,
| or $100k) just to have you in an office?
| xenocratus wrote:
| > not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2
| year vacation so management is fed up
|
| How is it not easier to fire those individuals? And not now,
| when you can just bring them to the office and have them be
| productive from day one (unlike new hires who would replace
| them), but one year ago.
| fcatalan wrote:
| Welcome to government jobs, where it's way easier to squeeze
| those who do the work than fire those that won't.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| It's actually pretty easy to fire people in government
| jobs. The problem is its uncomfortable to have hard
| conversations. Most government jobs are so far away form
| service delivery that they are very abstract. This makes
| the impact of lazy people seem insignificant. However, if
| you look at government with more of a service delivery
| focus, think FEMA. You wouldn't see many people who just
| laze about because the work is right there in front of them
| and they can link their work with outcomes in the real
| world. When you write policy or work in some meat grinder
| paperwork mill or even do just regular ICT sys admins
| corporate services stuff everything starts to get blurry.
|
| Anyway, the rules and processes exists. Essentially PIP
| someone, explain and document expectations, and follow up.
| And you know what, most of the time, people can improve.
| is_true wrote:
| Not all government are the same. Where I live is almost
| imposible to get fired from a government job.
| prepend wrote:
| > It's actually pretty easy to fire people in government
| jobs
|
| I suppose it depends on the government, but my experience
| is that it's extremely difficult to fire people. I spoke
| with HR at a US federal organization that said their
| termination rate is .1% of employees and half of those
| are during the 1-year probation period.
|
| That's extremely low and I think an indicator of how hard
| it is to fire people in government.
|
| I do have people say funny things like "It's easy to fire
| people, you just fill out this paperwork and spend 20% of
| your time tracking a performance plan for two years."
| Even though theyve never successfully fired anyone. While
| pointing to their group's lack of firing as an example of
| their great management.
|
| I think this is an example where theoretically it is
| possible, but practically it is very difficult. As
| evidenced by very few being fired.
| acdha wrote:
| What do you think the termination rate should be, and
| why?
|
| One big confound to remember is that it's generally hard
| to get US government jobs because a lot of work has been
| outsourced to contractors, so the federal workforce
| trends older and more experienced. That pool of people is
| less likely to be fired for cause in general.
|
| When thinking about why you believe more people should be
| fired, consider the politics -- both the general
| managerial class tendency to shift accountability to
| workers and the specific culture war points favored by
| people who oppose government regulation - and ask whether
| what you're basing that on is fully in the worker's
| responsibility. I've seen plenty of .gov inefficiency but
| an awful lot of that has been required by policy (not
| just agency, often by Congress) and underfunding. The
| latter often isn't just a simple number being too low but
| also things like having money budgeted to contract out
| work but not to hire people to adequately supervise them.
| Very, very few situations have been as simple as "Fred
| chose not to do his job" without significant other
| factors contributing to the problem.
|
| I'd also note that while I have seen a couple of cases
| like that, that's less than I saw in .com or .edu and for
| exactly the same reason: they were high enough up the org
| chart and a buddy even higher up sheltered them. HR could
| have fired them if they weren't being told not to.
| prepend wrote:
| I don't know what the rate is, but for comparison, a
| similarly sized organization, but private sector had a 1%
| firing rate or 10x.
|
| But my point is more about contrasting people who say
| firing is east without and experience or data to back it
| up. It's like saying "Batting .500 is easy" when their
| own at bat it .200 or not even measured.
| acdha wrote:
| > I don't know what the rate is, but for comparison, a
| similarly sized organization, but private sector had a 1%
| firing rate or 10x.
|
| What was the relative breakdown of their workforce by
| seniority? What did that look like on the .gov side if
| you include the contractors who've been the majority of
| the workforce growth since the 90s? I've seen a lot more
| churn in the latter and suspect that if you combined the
| two that gap would close considerably.
|
| > But my point is more about contrasting people who say
| firing is east without and experience or data to back it
| up.
|
| On the subject of data, you have one anonymous anecdote
| of unknown size or completeness.
| prepend wrote:
| I don't have good data, but it's all I have. The .1% is a
| good measure and it's not an anecdote, but it's only
| relevant to a single organization and not generalizable
| to all government organizations.
|
| I wish I had better. But I have tons of anecdotes of
| people claiming firing is easy without any direct
| experience or data. So there's that too.
|
| Contractors are completely different as they aren't fired
| at all and are easy to get rid of, sort of. But comparing
| contractors and employees in federal government is
| comparing apples and oranges.
|
| But I stand by that it is very difficult to fire
| government employees.
| acdha wrote:
| It's not hard to fire people for non-performance. You have
| to document it and give them time to improve (or find
| something clear it - thinking of a guy whose timesheet
| included leaving early for happy hour, who was out pronto)
| but it's mostly a question of whether the managers feel
| like they can back up their claims.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| > But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age
| prone to experiencing ageism in the job market
|
| Your decision to not even try will cost you more jobs than
| ageism
|
| All your reasons is why I have never had any interest in
| working in an office, ever. Now that my current company has
| been remote since the start of the pandemic and I've gotten an
| exception to be permanently remote, I will never step foot in
| an office again if there's anything I can do about it. I
| couldn't care less about supposed career growth impacts, free
| snacks or food, collaboration, all the other propaganda they
| put out. You are right to be insulted by not having an option
| to work remotely and you should just start looking for better
| jobs
| quotemstr wrote:
| > I'd leave
|
| I've found that once you start having thoughts like this,
| you've left already, if only in spirit, and you remain
| physically only as a form of self-delusion or rationalization
| of fear. You can find good pay and slack elsewhere. Your
| current employer sounds like a nightmare.
| minimaul wrote:
| > I have emails from the CEO personally thanking me for my
| commitment in going way over what was expected when basically
| saving the institution during lockdown, so now I also feel kind
| of personally insulted and victim of ham-handed collective
| punishment.
|
| Have you used these to go to your CEO directly re your WFH
| request? It's where I'd start.
| greedo wrote:
| Depending on how flat your organization is, this would be a
| job killer in many companies. Your CEO may grant you WFH, but
| all of the execs you report to will be aware of you going
| over their heads. Depending on how much political capital you
| have, this can be very risky.
| aaaaaaaaata wrote:
| Be a rung in an unfulfilled ladder, that'll be fine?
| greedo wrote:
| Nope, work with your direct manager and if that's
| ineffective, change jobs. The amount of times you'd be
| able to access the CEO for help is extremely low. If
| you've developed a "Rabbi" at your company, you might be
| able to circumvent a bad manager eventually, but until
| you escape his influence and control you'll have to deal
| with him. Get a new job is usually the best way to deal
| with poor immediate managers.
| mekal wrote:
| "they can't guarantee that our screen setup at home is safe and
| we haven't completed a "Data Display Device Setup and Handling"
| course" - I work for a small company so pardon my ignorance
| here but...ergonomically safe?? Please god tell me it's
| something more than that. Like some sort of security measure.
| What's so hard about flipping open a laptop and using a VPN?
| g051051 wrote:
| That was me. I worked in a place for 22 years that completely
| devalued WFH, and cancelled it entirely (pre-pandemic) with the
| Big Boss stating "We all know a 15 minute face-to-face
| conversation is better than a multi-day email chain". Then our
| organization collapsed under the weight of being "Agile" and
| laid off the entire group.
|
| I'm glad they did...I got a substantial severance package,
| "retiree" benefits, and a much better fully remote WFH gig that
| pays better.
|
| I would have stayed at the first place if it was possible to do
| so, but I'm much happier since they forced my hand. I'm certain
| I won't have to go back to an office before I retire.
| dt3ft wrote:
| My next job will very likely be full remote.
| itqwertz wrote:
| Never _clap_ going _clap_ back _clap_
| gonzo41 wrote:
| I go into the office, and everyone just works, no one talks. Even
| the people that really wanted to be back in the office don't
| chat. So I spend a day in silence, rather than a day at home
| taking coffee breaks in the yard with my dog.
|
| I'm going with a 7/3 split, favoring WFH. If it rains that ratio
| can change.
| throwaway85858 wrote:
| We do design days in office once a quarter, fits within the
| project planning takt and feels great to catch up in person
| outside of the occasional after work drinks, some however do
| still choose to come in on a regular basis on their own accord.
| We greatly reduced our office space since the pandemic and i
| personally can't see us ever going back to the former status-quo.
| incomingpain wrote:
| A ton of businesses are dealing with a bad hand right now. They
| know they cant successfully force everyone back to the office. If
| news goes out about X entity is going back to the office.
| Recruiters go to linkedin and reach out to all of those people
| and offer them work from home and a raise.
|
| Flipside, if you dont go back to the office. What are going doing
| holding so much $ and costs for nothing? Everyone who realizes
| this also cant rush out to sell. There's already loads of empty
| buildings and who is buying? Nobody, you'll get wrecked.
|
| Then add on top, even if you decide to force everyone back into
| the office and accept the losses. How long until climate change
| or expensive gasoline forces people to just stay home??
| lukebuehler wrote:
| > How long until climate change or expensive gasoline forces
| people to just stay home??
|
| Yes, this is just the beginning of the end. I would even say
| this is the beginning of the end for cities as we know them. I
| think 80-90% of all white collar jobs will leave cities and
| suburbia. This will really change the dynamics.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >Yes, this is just the beginning of the end. I would even say
| this is the beginning of the end for cities as we know them.
| I think 80-90% of all white collar jobs will leave cities and
| suburbia. This will really change the dynamics.
|
| This is actually a super interesting subject I haven't
| considered. What is the tenability of cities without fossil
| fuels? I think we do know, it's really the cities that
| collapse.
|
| Farmers might emit lots of CO2 and carbon taxes directly
| attack them, but ultimately they cant go anywhere. The cities
| need to eat. So those carbon taxes don't harm them at all.
|
| How does public transit work? Generally speaking they are all
| diesel. Do we have a plan to spend a trillion $ converting
| this all to electric?
|
| What's even the point of giant office buildings anymore?
| Downtown cores are dying if not dead as it is. When people
| stay home, the sharwarma spot downtown wont be able to afford
| to stay.
|
| It's obvious what will eventually happen. These office
| buildings convert to high density residential. However, what
| happens after that?
|
| If I am 100% remote, why even be in the expensive high tax
| city? I could go buy 10 acres and pay $100/year in nonsense
| taxes. Do my own utilities. never again worry about nuclear
| war because nobody will be nuking rural areas.
|
| I really dont think we have quite thought out the
| consequences of our actions.
| smarmgoblin wrote:
| Unfortunately most missle silos in the US are located in
| the rural midwest.
| sylens wrote:
| Cities existed before oil. A city without cars can actually
| be a massive improvement
| incomingpain wrote:
| >Cities existed before oil. A city without cars can
| actually be a massive improvement
|
| True but cities required domestication of the horse.
| There were literally horse shit all over the roads and
| the occasional dead horse that was abandoned.
|
| The answer isn't subways or monorails neither.
|
| The answer may be robotaxis. I am very optimistic that
| this could solve a large degree of the issues.
| afiori wrote:
| If you were to replace all inbound/outbound subway
| connection of Manhattan with bridges and car traffic you
| would need 49 bridges the size of Manhattan bridge as a
| replacement.
|
| Cars are very useful to go wherever you want, but are
| literally the worst for volume.
|
| Similarly to how trucks are necessary to move stuff
| around but they cannot replace train freight/air
| planes/container ships.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >If you were to replace all inbound/outbound subway
| connection of Manhattan with bridges and car traffic you
| would need 49 bridges the size of Manhattan bridge as a
| replacement.
|
| dont take me as attacking nyc and/or their subway. I'm
| certain at some grand time in the future all cities have
| a subway with rapid transport.
| afiori wrote:
| I was replying to
|
| > The answer may be robotaxis. I am very optimistic that
| this could solve a large degree of the issues.
|
| What I was trying to say is that cars (autonomous or not)
| are to mass transportation what copper wire is to the
| internet: better to keep the bulk of it out of it.
|
| Also car infrastructure is extremely expensive, both in
| and of itself and as a collateral, parking lot
| requirements have a huge maintenance and spatial cost.
| helen___keller wrote:
| I'm not sure I follow. Americans tend to have high
| emissions regardless of location. This makes sense if you
| consider that society almost everywhere except ultra dense
| cities is built around personal automobiles; and dense
| cities obviously have lots of other needs for energy as
| you've noted
|
| I also wouldn't say cities are particularly less capable of
| electrification than anywhere else. Bus systems can be
| electric. Subway systems are already electric. There are
| some diesel train systems that would be expensive to
| electrify (eg Boston regional commuter rail), but even this
| isn't impossible (frankly it should have been done years
| ago, and a study in the 2010s had recommended it because it
| gives other benefits like improving reliability and
| reducing maintenance)
|
| As you've noted, there's a big question mark on how cities
| will adapt central business districts around a non-office
| world. It's also worth noting cities have handled such a
| transition before: during the industrial revolution, cities
| were full of factories, and over time these shuttered and
| were replaced or turned into housing.
|
| Not everyone wants 10 acres or cares about the threat of
| nuclear war. Cities will be for those people.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > What is the tenability of cities without fossil fuels? I
| think we do know, it's really the cities that collapse.
|
| I walk everywhere. It's suburbs that collapse without
| fossil fuels.
|
| > How does public transit work? Generally speaking they are
| all diesel. Do we have a plan to spend a trillion $
| converting this all to electric?
|
| Our subways have always been electric. Our street cars are
| electric, and have been for a century, before that they
| were horse driven. All new buses are electric.
|
| > What's even the point of giant office buildings anymore?
| Downtown cores are dying if not dead as it is.
|
| This is probably true.
|
| > I really dont think we have quite thought out the
| consequences of our actions.
|
| The consequences of NOT following these actions will
| horrific.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >I walk everywhere. It's suburbs that collapse without
| fossil fuels.
|
| I think shooting from the hip the suburbs hurt without
| fossil fuels for a short time. However, who are the
| people buying teslas it's rich folks in the suburbs. Who
| in 10 years will be driving the gasoline toyota econobox.
| It's the poor in the cities.
|
| >Our subways have always been electric.
|
| That doesnt cover everything. Not all cities have a
| subway. Not all subways are electric, the danger of
| frying people made a number of subways diesel. My
| understanding is that much of NYC subway is still diesel
| for various reasons.
|
| > Our street cars are electric, and have been for a
| century, before that they were horse driven. All new
| buses are electric.
|
| I'm not sure I follow. This is certainly not true in the
| general sense. Perhaps true where you are? Where are you?
|
| >The consequences of NOT following these actions will
| horrific.
|
| That's the big debate there. Climate change isn't even
| important to the discussion.
|
| If we fast forward ~75 years. We know without question
| that we are going to run out of fossil fuels. If we do
| nothing to switch now, it's a certain collapse of
| society.
|
| Clearly we must do something. The sooner we begin, the
| less painful it is in the long run.
|
| However, we cannot ignore the consequences. We must
| address these issues.
| Ensorceled wrote:
| > That doesnt cover everything. Not all cities have a
| subway. Not all subways are electric, the danger of
| frying people made a number of subways diesel. My
| understanding is that much of NYC subway is still diesel
| for various reasons.
|
| I'm disputing YOUR generalization, that [all] cities are
| doomed, not creating a new generalization that they are
| all fine.
| afiori wrote:
| > much of NYC subway is still diesel for various reasons
|
| NYC subway still uses cloth bathed in oil to insulate
| some electrical circuits.
| helen___keller wrote:
| > I would even say this is the beginning of the end for
| cities as we know them.
|
| Alternate POV: this could _save_ cities as we know them. All
| top American cities have been struggling for about 20 years
| now to handle urban growth, as cost of living goes through
| the roof and small businesses disappear when their renewed
| lease comes at twice the rent. As always, the survivors are
| those who can afford the change: homeowners and the wealthy
| on the residential side (keep in mind cities like Boston are
| majority renter), and large corporate renters on the business
| side (think Starbucks instead of Local Coffee Co)
|
| Pre-war growth patterns (ie, densification and transit) have
| been generally outlawed, and big companies seem to have
| endless pockets to raise salaries to attract more highly paid
| workers to compete on rent; so there's been no counterbalance
| on this trend. Until remote work.
|
| Right now cities are still expensive, but the next few years
| as we transition out of the pandemic will determine whether
| remote work is here to stay; if so, you will likely see
| another suburban migration of 'former reluctant office
| workers' (we already had one wave at the start of the
| pandemic), and city real estate might finally cool off for
| the first time in decades
| afiori wrote:
| To add a reference:
|
| Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math ->
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI
|
| Essentially urban sprawl/suburbia/single family homes cost
| more for the city (road upkeep, water/gas pipes, etc.) than
| what they contribute in taxes, so many cities are in a
| positive feedback loop of building more houses to get quick
| money to do maintenance on the previous rounds of growth.
| greedo wrote:
| Simple solution, raise taxes.
|
| Same with highway/Interstate maintenance. Raise the
| Federal gas tax (which hasn't tracked inflation for
| ages).
| lukebuehler wrote:
| I should have put more emphasis on "as we know them." I
| think think cities will exist for sure, and they might be
| better. So I agree with you there, and I actually hope the
| same.
|
| But modern cities have had two phases: first industrial
| growth, and more recently white collar/information worker
| city cores. Industry will still exist, but has already
| moved further out from city centers and cores. Currently,
| the life blood of large cities is closely tied up with the
| mega corps having their ego towers there and thus
| attracting innumerable highly paid workers which then spend
| their money in those city cores. With that going away
| and/or substantially changing, cities will change
| drastically too.
| larrymyers wrote:
| I expect that opposite will happen. Cities that are built for
| people (and not cars) will thrive. Nobody wants to drive
| everywhere. Cities that support multi-modal transportation
| and have mixed residential / commercial centers will thrive.
|
| Chicago does this well. From my front door I have the follow
| options: * The El (train, local stops)
| * Metra (train, commuter that gets out to the burbs) *
| Bus * Taxi * Divvy (e-bike rentals) *
| Personal bike * Walking
|
| ... and finally, yes, I can drive. But driving sucks. It's
| slow, expensive, and you still have to find parking.
| incomingpain wrote:
| Kind of offtopic, but how about safety consideration?
| Chicago is represented as quite dangerous in the media.
|
| As a resident, is the danger true?
| granshaw wrote:
| 4+ year Chicago resident here. Chicago neighborhoods vary
| night and day to each other. Crime is very well contained
| to the dangerous ones, and the neighborhoods where are
| tech worker can afford and would want to stay in are very
| safe.
| larrymyers wrote:
| No, Chicago is not dangerous on a per-capita basis. The
| news is incentivized to get attention, and "OMG you'll
| get robbed and shot" is a very effective and crude way to
| get those clicks.
|
| Chicago is no different than any other large city in that
| being aware of your surroundings and not doing dumb
| things is expected.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Chicago is no St. Louis or New Orleans, but 1000 out of
| 100k is 1%.
|
| One of the reasons I never consider living in the midwest
| again (Toledo) is because my bike was stolen so many
| times as a kid. Crime doesn't make for nice living.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| >will leave cities
|
| wouldn't that be the opposite? Where I live right now, the
| nearest grocery store is in the next town over and there is
| zero public infrastructure to get there. There is no uber or
| taxi or bus. You just don't live here without a car, period.
| bogle wrote:
| That's unlikely. For a start, many people like living in the
| city. It's fun and their friends and family are all there.
| Then there's everyone with children at school so they're not
| going to mess with the kids' education and friendship group.
| Another big problem is rural broadband. I know the
| countryside is nice, I may well retire there, but it's not
| where I am now and it's only a very small number of people
| who like the isolation.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >That's unlikely. For a start, many people like living in
| the city. It's fun and their friends and family are all
| there. Then there's everyone with children at school so
| they're not going to mess with the kids' education and
| friendship group
|
| Down on my imaginary future ranch, I have a 10kw solar
| array charging my cybertruck and it drives me to the
| concerts, friends/family, and all that for free.
|
| Children playing at the park? Is that even a thing anymore?
| Xbox/PS# seems to be replacing that entirely. We could
| discuss if this is a good thing or not but that same
| cybertruck can self-drive the kids to wherever they are
| meeting up.
|
| >Another big problem is rural broadband. I know the
| countryside is nice, I may well retire there, but it's not
| where I am now and it's only a very small number of people
| who like the isolation.
|
| That's what just broke. Why suddenly this became a thing.
| Starlink or 5g with long range 5ghz wireless backhaul.
| Rural suddenly has good relatively reliable fast internet
| access.
| lampshades wrote:
| > Children playing at the park? Is that even a thing
| anymore?
|
| Have you been to a park in a child-raising area lately?
| They are absolutely packed all the time with kids. Sure,
| you don't see them downtown, but you head out to the
| suburbs and you absolutely do.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >Have you been to a park in a child-raising area lately?
| They are absolutely packed all the time with kids. Sure,
| you don't see them downtown, but you head out to the
| suburbs and you absolutely do.
|
| Oh for sure. If the kid is not quite old enough for the
| xbox/ps# age. They are totally out at the park. You never
| see kids out above whatever that age is.
|
| I did see some older kids out tobaganning this winter.
| maybe in the age 8 range, which is unusually old compared
| to the playground soccer field age kids.
|
| My comment stands for sure.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >How long until climate change or expensive gasoline forces
| people to just stay home?
|
| You're looking at it wrong. Plenty of jobs simply can't be done
| remotely. If it gets to the point that people can't afford to
| move around much, they'll either permanently move closer to
| their workplace or find a job closer to their home.
|
| Also, arguably the current discussion around WFH to me is
| evidence that even most office jobs can't be performed remotely
| (productively). Even if one person can WFH by themselves, they
| still need to interact with coworkers who may not be able to do
| it.
| incomingpain wrote:
| >You're looking at it wrong. Plenty of jobs simply can't be
| done remotely.
|
| This data is now in. It's roughly 2/3s of jobs cant be done
| remotely.
|
| > If it gets to the point that people can't afford to move
| around much, they'll either permanently move closer to their
| workplace or find a job closer to their home.
|
| That transition happened during the financial crisis in 2009.
|
| >Also, arguably the current discussion around WFH to me is
| evidence that even most office jobs can't be performed
| remotely (productively). Even if one person can WFH by
| themselves, they still need to interact with coworkers who
| may not be able to do it.
|
| That's a debate I'm sure many management are about to have
| and flipside going to make lots of recruiters pretty busy.
|
| Frankly for me it's 1 thing that really puts me off going
| back to the office. When I need to hit the shitter. I walk 2
| seconds from my office to my toilet. I have nice soft toilet
| paper.
|
| At work, I have to go through like 2 security zones and then
| hope that nobody is using the stalls already. If they are,
| and that's common. I have to walk to the other side of the
| building and then hope those shitters arent in use.
|
| Then there's a good chance the one that's empty is going to
| be atrocious. Then I have to wipe with 1 ply sandpaper. It's
| just better to be at home.
| greedo wrote:
| OP is talking about office jobs, your 2/3 stat is for all
| jobs.
|
| I think he's wrong though. Most office jobs should be
| capable of being remote, unless the mgmt is unwilling to
| make changes to the modern world.
| fluoridation wrote:
| Note that what I'm saying is not that most office jobs
| can't be done remotely _at all_. What I 'm saying is that
| most can't be done remotely without harming productivity
| in some way. For example, if someone can do their job
| entirely by themselves and only needs to periodic check
| ins to report progress, yes, that person can remotely
| just fine. If someone works in a closely-knit team where
| interaction needs to be frequent and someone in that team
| can't adapt to remote work productivity is going to
| suffer by having everyone in physically different
| locations.
|
| I don't think it's as simple as "management doesn't want
| WFH because of a temper tantrum".
| greedo wrote:
| I think it's incumbent on those professing a job can't be
| done remotely to demonstrate it. My mgmt hasn't done it
| beyond bland platitudes about culture and teamwork,
| despite record setting sales and profits the last 2
| years.
|
| It's about control for most mgmt.
| wallacoloo wrote:
| > What are going doing holding so much $ and costs for nothing?
| Everyone who realizes this also cant rush out to sell. There's
| already loads of empty buildings and who is buying? Nobody,
| you'll get wrecked.
|
| 1) how many companies actually own their buildings? i think
| generally it's only the already successful companies which own
| instead of lease -- i.e. the ones who can recover from such a
| hit.
|
| 2) IF the office had negative utility, then the company is
| harming themselves by using it. whether they're willing to sell
| it or not, that fact remains.
| onion2k wrote:
| _Employees need to be on site, we're told, because collaborating
| with one another has been harder to do when everyone is working
| from separate locations._
|
| I think this is true, but only if the main part of your job is
| collaborating eg _talking to other people to reach a consensus._
| That is easier face to face. The problem is that only higher up
| management roles are actually like that. Lower down the tree
| people are expected to _not_ spend lots of time talking to each
| other, and instead actually produce things (code, documents,
| reports, emails, etc).
|
| When higher ups push for a return to offices to make
| collaborating easier what they actually mean is to make _their
| jobs_ easier, at the expense of everyone else. When managers say
| collaboration is better when everyone is in the office, they don
| 't mean those "water cooler moments" we apparently have. They
| mean those times they can talk to you as they stand by your desk
| so you can't ignore them.
| pmlnr wrote:
| > That is easier face to face
|
| Written down communication makes things impossible to wiggle
| out of later on, meaning the writing needs to happen anyway,
| why waste time on the face to face?
| fcatalan wrote:
| That's another reason for them. Can't make verbal promises to
| you and then forget about them via email.
| iso1210 wrote:
| In my experience if you are going into a large (more than say
| 5 people) meeting to get a consensus for a decision you've
| made, you start with one-to-one conversations with every
| meeting participant, get them on side, then the large meeting
| is just a rubber stamp.
| tablespoon wrote:
| > Written down communication makes things impossible to
| wiggle out of later on, meaning the writing needs to happen
| anyway, why waste time on the face to face?
|
| Written communication often takes orders of magnitude more
| effort, since it lacks the immediate feedback loop.
| sneak wrote:
| Most people are slow at typing and don't have great reading
| comprehension.
|
| This means it is less "work" for them to speak and listen
| than it is to type and read.
| greedo wrote:
| And many people lack listening skills and don't retain all
| the details of a watercolor conversation.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| In many cases, in my experience, it's because it's way more
| efficient face to face. You can always follow up with written
| confirmation.
| Tade0 wrote:
| > When higher ups push for a return to offices to make
| collaborating easier what they actually mean is to make their
| jobs easier, at the expense of everyone else.
|
| The other day my manager said that he misses coming to the
| office because back then if he wanted something he could just
| come over and ask.
|
| Meanwhile I've specifically chosen to work remotely so as to
| not be bothered by anyone when I need to focus.
| subpixel wrote:
| In my pre-COVID job I had a manager who would come over and
| tap me on the shoulder, sometimes not to engage me in
| conversation but just as a sort of primate greeting.
|
| That was about as low on the morale barometer I have ever
| been, and I hope I never have to anywhere near an environment
| like that again.
| underdeserver wrote:
| I strongly disagree. I find that talking to other people is
| required at every single level.
|
| Junior engineers need mentoring, need to talk to other people
| to understand what's asked of them.
|
| Mid-level engineers/ICs need to talk to other people to
| understand the architecture design, collaborate with other mid-
| level engineers, and push back or report back issues that arise
| during the work.
|
| Seniors and up need it for design reviews and achieving
| consensus.
|
| Critically, to advance in your career, you need to start
| participating in conversations with the next stages. All of
| this is easier face to face.
| asdff wrote:
| IMO zoom is plenty good for that. What are you missing that
| you aren't getting from zooming with someone face to face at
| this point? I just don't get it. It's way easier to just
| schedule a zoom meeting and fire off an email with a link and
| share a screen, than it is for me to haul myself all the way
| to where someone else is sitting and take turns poking
| fingers at eachothers laptop screens in an awkward huddle,
| hoping we don't disturb others.
| afiori wrote:
| if you use something better than Teams then group calls and
| screen sharing are quite simple and effective.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >All of this is easier face to face.
|
| Yet somehow the world of open source keeps putting out high
| quality software with teams distributed across the planet in
| different time zones with different native tongues.
| acoard wrote:
| I fully agree that conversations are necessary to advancing a
| career, technical or otherwise. But I believe these technical
| conversations translate online pretty well, and have pre-
| pandemic too (eg successful FOSS that's all coordinated
| remotely, like Linux). That's not the case for the more
| management-centric decisions. If you're discussing other
| people (both in an HR sense and in a process design sense)
| body language and other non-verbal cues are much more
| important.
|
| I've found these technical discussions, pair-programming,
| mentoring, architectural consensus building, are all much
| easier to do "remotely" than typical management-style
| discussions. Our project's technical team size fits into the
| "two pizza" rule, although just barely probably, so it's not
| like we're super tiny.
|
| Pair-programming is great online. Better than in-person in my
| experience. Simply share your screen, and I can put it up on
| my second monitor. We've successfully mentored numerous
| junior-ish devs during COVID, with heavy use of remote pair-
| programming.
|
| Architecture type discussions main drawback is missing a
| whiteboard, but there are a plethora of online tools of
| varying quality. In practice we often use draw.io and show a
| bit more finished copies than pure whiteboarding, but we've
| used other more simpler solutions for whiteboarding here too.
|
| Design discussions/architectural consensus take place fine
| online, we just haven't had any issues. Just like pair-
| programming or architecture, we might screenshare but mostly
| we talk. And we find we don't lose anything from this. Sure,
| you don't get body-language, but that isn't needed for
| discussing bearer tokens.
|
| In summary, while I agree that technical discussion is
| necessary at all stages, I believe that technical discussions
| is far less negatively impacted by remote when compared to
| non-technical discussions (i.e. managerial).
| cgio wrote:
| Lower down the tree people want to get promotions and that
| transition won't happen abruptly but gradually. I agree with
| the overall sentiment, though. My experience is 80% of time in
| office on zoom or hybrid zoom/in person meetings, which does
| make it purely only worth it for the 20% impromptu discussions.
| The result is even worse exhaustion not only from commute but
| also from completely drowning the schedule to manage and do
| both. We need to rethink work and this will take some time. I
| would love 1 week retreats on an island every qtr for the
| impromptu collaboration needs and satellite offices in
| neighbourhoods where people can meet for specific tasks. I
| think I am not imaginative enough and who knows how things will
| change as online literate generations take the helm.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| Satellite offices seems a good idea, if it's cheaper for the
| company.
|
| In the case of my job, they could have maybe 20? for the
| price they're paying now.
|
| But I wouldn't go anyway. Maybe once a month or every six
| weeks or so. Just because there will be people who prefers an
| office and to keep up with their faces, but I have no
| business there.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I would be making 1/4 of my current salary if I didn't work
| in a place were impromptu discussions could happen.
|
| If my job was WFH (its not and can't be), I would still
| probably be doing the same stupid entry level shit with
| mediocre raises. Thanks to impromptu/casual conversation
| though, I got pulled out from under my manager and moved to a
| much higher position in another department (this was over a
| year or so, not just a one off conversation)
|
| I could interact with higherups without being viewed as
| "going over my bosses head", and to me that's insanely
| valuable.
| tablespoon wrote:
| >> Employees need to be on site, we're told, because
| collaborating with one another has been harder to do when
| everyone is working from separate locations.
|
| > I think this is true, but only if the main part of your job
| is collaborating eg talking to other people to reach a
| consensus. That is easier face to face.
|
| That's also undermined by other decisions, like offshoring and
| distributed teams.
|
| > The problem is that only higher up management roles are
| actually like that. Lower down the tree people are expected to
| not spend lots of time talking to each other, and instead
| actually produce things (code, documents, reports, emails,
| etc).
|
| That's not true. Maybe only "higher up management roles" are
| _exclusively_ like that, but there are plenty of other roles
| that include a significant amount of that, or a significant
| amount that occurs at irregular /unplanned intervals.
|
| Also remote work is a _lot_ more socially isolating, and I feel
| it makes work relationships a lot more one-dimensional an
| tenuous. That might be fine if you 're a loner, but that's
| certainly not true of everyone.
| Dave3of5 wrote:
| What's even weirder is that is the low level employees that are
| being told to go back. The execs probably never worked fully in
| office even before the pandemic.
|
| This should tell you exactly why they are asking you back and
| it's not "collaborating". That's an excuse. It's because they
| don't trust you and think you're goofing off at home.
| Mikushi wrote:
| I've been to the office once in the last 3 years, it was for a
| team lunch.
|
| Rest of the day was just me sitting in a cold space, on an
| uncomfortable chair, with an inadequate desk setup. I lost 2h30
| of my day to get there.
|
| Luckily my employer was always remote friendly and it just works
| so why change.
| rickspencer3 wrote:
| I have a cynical view about this, but also expect it all to come
| out in the wash over time.
|
| My cynical view is that some older executives are, indeed, not as
| effective in remote companies and younger ones, because they have
| no practice running remote companies and haven't adapted.
| Additionally, many senior and middle managers never figured out
| how to assess and reward actual productivity on their teams, so
| relied on their ability to schmooze to create a veneer of
| contributing, and schmoozing is easier to do in person. Finally,
| managing facilities is a big job, especially at bigger companies,
| and few executives are going to point out that their main job
| functions are now outdated and the company should de-invest.
| Imagine being an executive who is overseeing the capital costs of
| real estate development for a very large tech campus as an
| extreme example.
|
| However, it is also my view that remote work-forces are
| inherently more efficient in multiple ways for many industries. I
| have been working from home and managing remote teams since 2008.
| Every time I go to an office I am absolutely shocked by how much
| time is wasted in an office. Time that could be spent exercising,
| doing laundry, gardening, so many things that are beneficial to
| someone's health and work productivity. I believe that market
| forces will solve these problems of ineffective execs and
| managers. I could imagine some specific companies making a co-
| located office their competitive advantage by appealing to the
| minority of knowledge workers who prefer working that way,
| though.
| bearjaws wrote:
| > My cynical view is that some older executives are, indeed,
| not as effective in remote companies and younger ones
|
| At the beginning of the pandemic, all our "boomer" leadership
| couldn't even properly share their screen on zoom. We then
| switched to Teams, and they couldn't figure that out either.
|
| I actually in a one on one suggested all of senior leadership
| should take a class on remote work, and Teams, because 90% of
| the friction was actually self created.
|
| HR loved the idea, but guess what? They never took it.
|
| Meanwhile, software engineers are expected to learn 5 new
| things every month. It really has created a riff where pretty
| much everyone in engineering has no respect for our senior
| leadership. This further undermines the return to the office
| because its clear as day: Remote work doesn't work for THEM,
| but it does for the rest of the organization.
|
| I do agree that this will all die out due to market forces,
| younger companies are going to force the hands of incumbents
| and slower moving organizations.
| greedo wrote:
| Two years into the pandemic, we still have executives who
| can't be bothered to learn something as simple as how to mute
| their microphones during a Teams meeting. I think it's a
| subconscious reaction to the idea of them being muted. In a
| normal meeting, no one would ever think to mute them since
| they're so high on the food chain.
| wokwokwok wrote:
| I think there's a deeper, wider systemic issue here.
|
| People think they'll get better at remote working by a)
| being bad at it, b) putting no effort into getting better
| at it and c) doing it a lot.
|
| ...and in some ways it makes sense. Surely, if you do
| something for long enough, you'll get better at it right?
|
| The reality is, though, I guess, that in most domains, if
| you don't make an _effort to get better_ , then the ceiling
| for the skill level you can acquire by just repeating the
| same mistakes over and over is pretty low.
|
| It's like having a soccer match every day and never putting
| any practice in between.
|
| You get a lot of experience playing, and you'll get better,
| a bit, slowly... but at the end of the day, two years later
| you're still basically rubbish at it and a let down to your
| team.
|
| That's the problem I see: People not actually believing
| that they have to put effort in to get better at working
| remotely...but, I don't think it's fair to say they can't
| be bothered.
|
| A lot of people are trying really hard to Make Things
| Work... they're just doing it wrong, because they don't
| think that they need to actually learn new skills.
|
| That's different to being lazy.
|
| Perhaps its particularly pronounced in people who aren't
| accustomed to taking feedback; but it happens in all kinds
| of teams at all kinds of levels.
|
| Work in a hybrid team where you have to meet up physically
| to do 'difficult' meetings where more than 3 people have to
| talk? Have a team that doesn't really talk to each other
| outside of standup? Got an agile coach who can't share
| their screen? Have big online meetings where no one turns
| on their cameras and only one or two people actually speak?
|
| Yeah. I mean, I've had all those things on and off in the
| last two years. It's a bit of a joke really.
|
| It's not just execs who struggle with remote working.
| They're just easy targets, because they're _especially_ bad
| at it.
| greedo wrote:
| At least in my org, our CIO has an admin assistant who
| handles his videoconferencing. Because he's unwilling to
| put in a few minutes to learn an essential tool.
|
| I also find it hilarious when fellow IT associates
| demonstrate the same level of incompetence in
| Teams/Webex. Leaving mics live, taking their cellphones
| into the restroom. It really shows how the intelligence
| of any org is a Bell curve.
| boringg wrote:
| I would say the benefit of schmoozing (which i dont like) is
| information sharing about the organization. One thing thats
| particularly hard in large remote companies if information
| sharing outside of rigid structure (ie 1 on 1, meetings). Much
| needed even if some of it isnt great info.
|
| And yeah i would say your take is pretty cynical and pretty
| ageist -> diminutive to someone for their ability to contribute
| is reduced greatly by using their age as a proxy.
| ryandrake wrote:
| I don't think "schmoozing" is necessarily information
| sharing. It can be, but more often than not it's simply
| "socializing, but with the goal of career benefit rather than
| friendship". Hanging out at the water cooler, golfing with
| other execs, having an extended lunch at the bar, doing "one
| on ones" where you don't talk that much about work, walking
| the hallways for the simple purpose of looking busy to
| everyone else. These are all schmoozing.
|
| Having a hallway conversation with one person where you pass
| on critical business information isn't really schmoozing, but
| it is harmful to the overall organization.
| boringg wrote:
| Completely disagree with you. Sometimes hallway
| conversations make you realize what other parts of the
| company is actually doing.
| greedo wrote:
| Bullseye. The company I work for has a large home office, plus
| a satellite office tower in the same city. Plus a satellite
| office in a second city. So even before COVID, we were working
| with users remotely. We own all three buildings and land, and
| have always been proud of that for some reason. Very
| emotionally invested in the Home office.
|
| Obviously COVID changed all that and exposed the opposition to
| remote work as just obstructionist. Our company was 100% remote
| for over two years, and both sales and profits have never been
| higher. Yet some of management really just can't deal with it
| now. Ironically, the IT mgmt is the one most opposed to remote
| work and barely signed off on a hybrid model.
|
| I'm in the same age cohort as most of our executives, and
| though your comment may seem ageist, I think it's spot on.
| These VPs and managers love to schmooze, have $$ lunches, golf
| with vendors etc. Their entire work life is designed around
| schmoozing and building their little networks with vendors so
| they have a safe landing spot if things go bad in their
| careers.
|
| You might say this is the same as ICs who build networks, but I
| don't get paid to network. I don't recommend technologies based
| on who I golf with.
|
| Mgmt needs to realize they can't unring this bell, and will
| continue to lose effective performers who (especially in IT)
| have more options since COVID.
| musingsole wrote:
| > We own all three buildings and land, and have always been
| proud of that for some reason
|
| Many businesses -- despite whatever their mission statement
| may be -- are not-so-thinly veiled real estate vehicles. Even
| businesses with a healthy income from whatever good or
| service they provide will often have another 25%+ in income
| from real estate gains. McDonald's is probably a good example
| of this.
|
| I learned this pitching a business plan where an executive
| thought the "occupant mission" was compelling, but that we
| needed more expertise on the types of properties we could add
| value to.
| asdff wrote:
| It's hillarious when you get some bullheaded executive who
| comes into these companies specifically to part out this
| real estate and raise profits for their tenure before they
| exit.
|
| For example, a lot of studios in hollywood in recent years
| have sold their back lots, and are now just leasing them
| back from some holding company. I'm sure this arrangement
| made a lot of money for some people, but I imagine in a few
| decades this will hurt the studios when these land owners
| start negotiating the next round of leases and realize they
| have literally all the leverage.
| josephd79 wrote:
| This
| forinti wrote:
| I have observed that work is kind of a social event for senior
| managers. Some don't even plan much, so they like/need to have
| their teams at arm's length so that they can request a report
| or dispatch a task as soon as it is required.
| xtracto wrote:
| In my previous job, my boss (CEO) did not "believe" in remote
| work. He pushed so hard for everyone to be in the office during
| 2020 that there were several covid outbreaks in the office.
|
| The punchline is that we had offices both in California and
| Mexico... and I was specially hired to open and maintain the
| office in Mexico.
|
| I flew several times a year to Cali (thankful) but I just
| couldn't make him see that covid or no covid we would have to
| make remote work , because _I_ was working remotely for him.
|
| I ended up leaving for a 2x salary position and fully remote
| job.
| soapboxrocket wrote:
| When COVID broke out I was working with a manufacturing
| company, helping to fix their PMO. One of the big issues they
| had was that the only way to get parts through the factory
| was for the PMs to go down to the shop floor and constantly
| babysit and move them; the primary directive from management
| was "the PMs should not be going to the shop floor." Perfect!
| So COVID hits and I suggest we send the PMs home to work
| since they are only at their desks working on their computers
| and talking with customers. Corporate VP: "But if we send
| them home how will we know if they are working?" Me: "How do
| you know they are working now?" Of course the most ironic
| part was that VP was on the phone calling in from home
| because he lived in a different state that had no business
| operations in his area. Not surprising to me, that company
| has since shut down.
| Dave3of5 wrote:
| During the pandemic (in one of the lower case moments) I went
| back into the office with my Manager. It was to on-board a summer
| intern. I realised from that point that I needed a 100% fully
| remote job.
|
| * The office was mostly empty
|
| * The only communication was between my manager and myself and it
| was pointless
|
| * There were several people in what appeared to be 8 hour long
| teams meetings
|
| * None of the people who were pushing to get people back into the
| office were actually in the office. None of the exec team for
| example none of the HR or any of the older engineers
|
| * You had bizarre rules with the mask which was you didn't need
| one when you are sat at the desk but moving about you need one.
| Not only that most people were ignoring those rules completely
|
| * The office actually felt even more shit than what I imagined it
| to be
|
| * I still needed to do the daily stand up via teams
|
| * I didn't have a webcam / microphone at the desk so I had to use
| my own headset and go without the camera
|
| * You couldn't it right next to someone and talk to them about
| their computer so I had to have a teams call with the intern to
| get them setup
|
| * The intern forgot everything I told him as he didn't take any
| notes and asked me the same questions that I had already answered
| for the next 2 weeks
|
| * The normal cafeteria was shut (looked permanently) so I had to
| drive to get my lunch
|
| * I had forgotten that my chair was actually broken so moving
| from my PS300 secret lab chair to a 10 year old farty broken
| cheap PS25 office chair was a culture shock
|
| * The toilets had every second stall blocked off (pre-pandemic)
| these were always full and you would often have to wait
|
| * If the toilets had more that X people in them you had to wait
| in a queue outside
|
| * Only 1 person at a time was allowed into the kitchen not sure
| how that was supposed to work if the office was full
|
| * I had never noticed this before but the decor in the place was
| terribad. The carpet was skanky/mostly worn away. Two walls were
| painted headache inducing red. They had a bunch of shit art on
| all the walls. The plants were all either fake or dead. There was
| 0 natural light. The windows didn't open and were facing a 3
| story brick wall.
|
| * I felt quite breathless when I was there as you couldn't open a
| window the place was very stuffy and felt like the o2 levels were
| low
|
| * The AC would make a loud grinding noise every 30 minutes that
| felt like the building was going to collapse
|
| My overall experience was that I felt degraded like the company
| had "done a Will Smith" and smacked me in the face in front of
| everyone. I started looking for a 100% remote job immediately
| after this.
| rodolphoarruda wrote:
| I work from home since 2006. I feel that my capacity to maintain
| or even expand my professional network is very limited. I
| remember my 13 years of work before 2006 and they were very
| intensive in terms of social interactions, meaning, happy hours,
| in-office birthday parties, visits to clients' sharing the same
| taxi leaving from the office, meetings, both formal and informal
| ones at the water cooler, or at the printing bay. WFH is nice. I
| saw my two kids being borne and stayed with them for many years
| afterwards. It was priceless(tm). But I think my networking and,
| in some way, my employability were affected.
| DerArzt wrote:
| Being forced to go back to office was one of the reasons (among
| many) that I left my last employer. My boss gave me the same
| spiel about how being together increases collaboration and is
| good for career advancement, while at the same time half of my
| department was on the other side of the planet and 5 of the 8
| developers on my team lived out of state.
|
| On top of all of that, I have invested heavily in my home office
| on my own dime (they didn't give any stipend even though work
| from home was pretty much mandated). I found that my writs and
| fingers were starting to hurt so I invested in a a more ergonmic
| split keyboard [1] and mouse which I would have to lug into the
| office with me.
|
| I feel that my new employer, one that's exclusively remote, has a
| better approach of us doing an "on-site" every quarter or so
| where everyone from around the country gathers in a city for
| those higher level meetings and team bonding activities.
|
| [1] ZSA Moonlander https://www.zsa.io/moonlander/
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| The only thing I missed when WFH was the lucnhes and in-office
| jokes and fun. I can still have those, if we're in the office
| once per week or even less. Everything else is better from home,
| from not having to wear pants to saving myself an hour a day
| because my workplace is 5 seconds away from my bed.
| feq543ni0g wrote:
| My workplace requires me to visit the office once every two
| weeks. And even then I only go for a friendly one-on-one type of
| lunch with my boss. Nothing we ever discuss justifies the two
| hour commute, the same things could be discussed in Zoom. And
| yet, I am supposed to visit every two weeks.
|
| Now it turned out that during my last visit my boss had already
| been infected with covid. So not only me, but my wife and my two
| kids will need to stay home, isolate and take days off to look
| after the kids. WTF is the point of this? I am losing valuable
| vacation days, my boss also loses an employee for days (and my
| wife's boss ditto) and the kids will go bat-shit crazy because
| they will not be allowed to go outside.
|
| Yay. How much fun the office it is.
|
| And this was just one example of how idiotic and unproductive
| this whole on-site in-person office work arrangement is.
| burner556 wrote:
| Use your sick time dude not vacation days
| wu_187 wrote:
| Almost all jobs have gotten rid of sick days and have you use
| PTO. The US labor laws suck.
| h0p3 wrote:
| At some places, you get to choose when to use sick days but
| not vacation days. All else being equal, in that case, I'd
| sometimes prefer to burn vacation.
| willcipriano wrote:
| Every job I've had they are one and the same. You just have
| PTO.
| slaw wrote:
| Why you need to stay home and isolate? Is it required in your
| country?
| mikro2nd wrote:
| "Required" or not, it's called "being a grown-up".
| slaw wrote:
| Staying at home without symptoms is called brainwashed.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Laws are irrelevant. It's the considerate thing to do.
| apurtbapurt wrote:
| Of course stay away from crowded, public, indoor spaces.
|
| But keeping your kids _indoors_ is not considerate towards
| anyone. It is simply abusive to your kids.
|
| Let them out in the garden/park/street to play.
| themadturk wrote:
| Our return to the office has been back and forth for various
| reasons, but the ultimate goal is that everyone work in the
| office every day. But in an effort to make commuting easier, we
| are opening satellite offices in the metropolitan area...which
| (when all satellites are open) scatters teams between up to four
| offices. So nearly all of our meetings will be via Zoom, even if
| team members are "in the office."
|
| I don't want to criticize too much, because I work for an
| otherwise great employer, but this decision just has me shaking
| my head.
| nerdponx wrote:
| In one of my previous jobs, I worked at a company where this
| was what things were like even before the pandemic. I worked in
| one office, but members of my team were scattered across two
| other offices. I had a 90 minute commute only to sit in an
| office where none of my immediate colleagues worked, and most
| meetings were done over WebEx. Here and there, people would
| travel to my office for some big marathon meeting/conference
| session. And to add insult to injury, if my manager happened to
| show up at my office that day and I wasn't there, I was given a
| hard time about my absence.
|
| It was horrible and demoralizing. I got to a point where I
| basically didn't show up to the office at all except for the
| occasional scheduled meetings, which were about once a month at
| most. I got three hours of my time back every day and actually
| increased my productivity, because I was able to stay home and
| deal with some health issues that I had at the time.
|
| That said, lots of people at that company sporadically worked
| from home, and even in the offices with my colleagues, there
| were days where as much as 1/3 of the team wasn't present.
|
| There seems to be a kind of critical mass number of working in
| the office: below that amount, and the office starts to feel
| like a ghost town, and it's benefits shrink past the point of
| being worth the commute.
|
| So I think companies are wrong to force people to come in every
| day every week, but it's clear that the benefits of working in
| an office on the manifest when there are enough people in the
| office.
| rob74 wrote:
| The problem with Zoom calls in the office is that you usually
| do them at your desk rather than in a meeting room, and when
| you do that, you are totally destroying the productivity of
| anyone who happens to be in the room with you. Not to mention
| what happens if several people in the same room have different
| calls at the same time...
| MivLives wrote:
| We have "Phone booths" that essentially are sound isolated
| single person meeting rooms for calls both video and phone.
| Of course, they are incredibly hard to find empty. From where
| I'm sitting I can see 3 of them, and this is in an area that
| has probably 80-100 desks in it. How am I ever supposed to
| use these?
|
| The one thing I think they did right is keep the surface high
| enough it's hard to type on. Now people can't camp them all
| day.
| prmoustache wrote:
| I now would have to take a plane to go to the office so I am
| now 100% remote but in my previous company they implemented
| hybrid for those who wanted and the idea was that the
| conference rooms were to be used for those being on site and
| the rest of the team would be remote. All rooms had been
| equipped with decent audio and camera that made the process
| seamless. People who wanted to be there 3 days a week or more
| could have a fixed office and leave belongings, other would
| have to reserve a shared one and work in a clean desk method.
|
| No company can expect having an hybrid system work without a
| little bit of investment and some decent guidelines. With so
| many space gained in the offices there is a lot of space to
| liberate to build more small conference rooms and some
| storage area for those who don't have a fixed desk but may
| wish to keep things on site.
| asdff wrote:
| Its even worse when you have a zoom call with some people in
| a meeting room on one line, and other people connecting on
| another line. The people in the meeting room basically have
| their own discussions since the people on zoom can't get too
| many words in due to being talked over. Then usually the
| audio or video is terrible in the meeting room and if you are
| on the zoom call you can only hear who is standing closest to
| the AV equipment.
| lbriner wrote:
| Not just that but if it is a private meeting and you are not
| on a laptop, then you have a problem unless all parties are
| in the office. Management meetings where you might be
| discussing problems in the team need to be made in private.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| You can use the Zoom chat and just share your screen to use
| as a whiteboard. No need for audio.
| loup-vaillant wrote:
| Unless you're steno-typing, good luck matching speech speed
| with your typing. And I'm not even talking about audio &
| visual cues.
|
| There's no way typing can replace speech in an actual
| meeting. It's better reserved to either deliberate
| asynchronous communication, or very short, often purely
| factual, conversations.
| sammalloy wrote:
| > There's no way typing can replace speech in an actual
| meeting.
|
| I think it can come close, provided everyone involved are
| experienced, fast typists, but it's definitely a
| different dynamic if someone is slower. I've had
| incredibly fast chats in typing that were close to real
| time, face to face discussions. And when you reach a
| certain speed, the illusion of actual speech and
| listening is created, which is a fascinating phenomenon
| in and of itself. There's a certain level where you reach
| peak verbal acuity and everything you type transcends the
| medium itself. At that point, you can seemingly intuit
| little tics, idiosyncrasies, sarcasm, humor, emotion--
| almost everything you get in a real time, face to face
| meeting.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| The absolute worst is being in an office with several people
| who are on the same call as you at their own desks. You can
| neither listen to the call nor the person near you speaking
| and you hear everything the say with a 2 second delay.
| watwut wrote:
| In our office, this created in-group out-group dynamic
| within the meeting each time. The in-person people were
| making jokes to each other and commenting stuff while
| online people had no idea. So, result is that the same
| meeting have one group coordinating with muted microphones
| and other oblivious. Perfect.
|
| It did not created some kind of real split (yet), but the
| potential is super clear and it is pretty much guaranteed
| to happen.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Ah yes. This is horrible when a big chunk of the meeting
| are in the same room with several others joining online.
|
| Honestly, given the choice an all face to face meeting is
| the best. However, with any kind of cross location
| collaboration this quickly becomes impossible (even
| before WFH). An all online (ideally in their own
| workspace) meeting is far better than any other mixed
| mode alternative.
| Tenoke wrote:
| I've had that as the standard practice for meetings at a
| job so we accommodate remote/other employees but the
| employer had bought us good noise-canceling headsets so
| there was no issue when a person near to you will be
| speaking.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| So all the people in the office on calls are wearing
| noise cancelling headphones so they can take part in
| meetings with people who may be in the same office. Even
| with good noise cancelling they have to be permanently
| muted if not talking to avoid bleed though noise from the
| environment. All of the other people around then are
| forced to wear noise cancelling headphones to cancel out
| the noise of all the people around them talking into
| their noise cancelling headphones.
|
| Remind me again which part of this is better than those
| people just being at home in their own space?
| Tenoke wrote:
| This was mostly just for company-wide meetings (standups
| and the like). For smaller meetings people would move to
| a conference room.
|
| >Remind me again which part of this is better than those
| people just being at home in their own space?
|
| I didn't argue against remote, simply that having an
| online meeting which includes people near you doesn't
| have to be problematic sound-wise.
| iso1210 wrote:
| It is a massive problem, especially if people don't mute
| when not speaking, or if people nearby are speaking at
| the same time (on a different meeting). Nothing to do
| with noise cancelling headphones
| t_mann wrote:
| I'll venture a bet (not sure it's 100% true, but a fun idea to
| explore): sometime last year there was media hype about FAANG
| developers quitting their jobs to join crypto/web3 projects.
| Surely, ballooning crypto valuations played a large role in that,
| but part of it might have been driven by SV companies moving back
| to hybrid work schemes, while crypto projects have perfected the
| 'work-anywhere-you-want, literally' (just let us know which time
| zone) and 'we'll pay for everyone to get together in an actually
| cool location from time to time'-schedule.
| davidgerard wrote:
| I don't recall ever seeing a statistic of any sort attached to
| this particular claim. I'm sure there are more than zero people
| who ever did this, but hard numbers, or even soft ones, haven't
| been put forward.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| I don't get why they are not just talking to each other, is it
| that hard to say "I'll be in on Wednesday, will you? So we can
| chat about X" and why are so many people living 2 hours away from
| where they work then complaining about it. Like you chose to live
| there and work elsewhere.
| nafizh wrote:
| >'why are so many people living 2 hours away from where they
| work then complaining about it. Like you chose to live there
| and work elsewhere.'
|
| For many people this isn't a choice. Specially, if you have a
| family.
| whywhywhywhy wrote:
| Just get a full remote role then
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Like you chose to live there and work elsewhere.
|
| A business chooses their office location based on business
| needs. The business isn't worried about the myriad reasons
| people choose to live in a particular place.
|
| So businesses are rarely right next door to every employee's
| house. Traffic in cities will easily make a short distance into
| a long duration commute. Living in more affordable suburbs
| makes for longer distance commutes.
| thawaya3113 wrote:
| > all the benefits of working from home (no commute, more focus,
| hanging out with the dog, whatever it may be)
|
| More focus...hanging out with the dog...
|
| These things literally contradict each other. The fact that
| someone can type this out and not even realize that just goes to
| show why everyone is convinced they have become so much more
| productive WFH, when companies dhar actually track their
| employees and their productivity have hard data that shows
| otherwise (Facebook, Google, etc would not be calling people back
| to the office which only serves to increase their costs, if they
| didn't have the data to back it up).
| greedo wrote:
| Found the manager.
|
| I have my cat sitting next to me on a window ledge. Every now
| and then she makes a noise when she sees a bird. Totally
| disrupts my day. Can't focus for a good 24 hours. Yes, I'm
| being sarcastic.
|
| Imagine replacing my cat with my former cubicle mates. One who
| has ADHD and feels the need to verbally express every thought
| that comes to mind. And who gets upset when he doesn't get the
| validation he desires. Now that disrupts my day. Add in 2000
| other employees in my company, any of which can walk by my desk
| and ask me about XYZ.
| fbanon wrote:
| Facebook didn't call people back to the office.
| randac wrote:
| > Facebook, Google, etc would not be calling people back to the
| office which only serves to increase their costs, if they
| didn't have the data to back it up
|
| "They must have the data" is a very popular way to appeal to
| authority lately.
| alexb_ wrote:
| You can be more productive while also having more time for
| things that aren't work. The two are not mutually exclusive.
| giantrobot wrote:
| > Facebook, Google, etc would not be calling people back to the
| office which only serves to increase their costs, if they
| didn't have the data to back it up
|
| Yes they would. Both companies have the same toxic management
| types that see their direct reports as serfs in their fiefdom.
| They bitch and moan to upper management to get their serfs back
| in the fields.
|
| It's not difficult to focus while hanging out with a dog. The
| sort of attention they want typically isn't the same as a
| coworker standing over your desk. Petting a dog releases
| endorphins and oxytocin while dealing with the hovering
| coworker only generates cortisol.
| Mikushi wrote:
| I work for a large company and the data doesn't show that, team
| velocity has been up by 20 to 30% consistently.
| postalrat wrote:
| Velocity up spinning in circles because communication is down
| and leadership can't lead.
| stn_za wrote:
| In my view, the biggest problem with hybrid is:
|
| You are still required to live/reside near the office.
|
| Fully remote allows me to live in a very affordable area while
| still earning a great salary
| anthropodie wrote:
| It's crazy that so many people don't realise this.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| If it's just once a week or less, you can travel. It's quite
| doable, and you're not constrained by the needs of a daily
| commute.
| bin_bash wrote:
| By getting on a plane every week? That would be very
| expensive and take a ton of time.
| stn_za wrote:
| I don't want to fly every week.
|
| My company should not call itself remote if they also want to
| decide where I must live... :)
| turbinerneiter wrote:
| First the companies offshored the jobs, now the employees
| offshore themselves.
|
| At some point, somebody will start asking why the Indian
| working remotely in India is paid less than the
| American/European expat working remotely from Bali.
| [deleted]
| shp0ngle wrote:
| (Bali is not in India.)
|
| If you actually tried to hire in the region, you would know.
|
| If you find a really good programmer in the region, his pay
| will approach European pay, and he will escape to Europe/US
| as soon as he can.
|
| Also I cannot imagine US expat working in Bali, as the time
| difference is 12 hours. That's _very_ impractical for any
| collaborative work.
| codewithcheese wrote:
| Many companies already do location based salaries for remote
| workers, meaning you will be paid less if you live in Bali
| than San Francisco. Essentially, the company is performing
| location arbitrage rather than the employee.
|
| Next companies create more attractive work places in cheaper
| areas and lures employees there.
| stn_za wrote:
| Yeah, if my company did that I would leave. Pay is pay.
| rjtavares wrote:
| Pretty sure competent people anywhere in the world get the
| same salary in remote only companies.
|
| That has actually become a trend in Portugal: people are
| quitting local companies to get US/German/UK salaries working
| remotely for US/German/UK companies.
| greedo wrote:
| Nope. I know of several remote only companies that take
| advantage of local wages. Say someone in Bulgaria can make
| 30K EUR locally, but a US employee would cost 100K USD. The
| company will pay the contractor 60K in Euros. Still a huge
| bump for the Bulgarian, but far less than a US employee,
| even after you factor in employment taxes.
| Nursie wrote:
| I now live on a different continent from my workplace. It's
| great :)
| oneeyedpigeon wrote:
| Totally -- it's a bit weird getting paid in a non-native
| currency, though :)
| joaodlf wrote:
| I love coming in to the office.
|
| Granted, I live a 20 min walk away. The walk in is through a
| beautiful county park, surrounded by nature.
|
| Most of my colleagues who live further away have stopped coming
| in. Understandable, I wouldn't want to get in a car to get here,
| traffic in the UK is horrible.
|
| It's all about personal circumstances, really. Living close to my
| workplace, having access to a nice office that is (now) mostly
| quiet, I quiet enjoy the new work culture :).
| Gigachad wrote:
| The office is not as bad as people make it out to be. Its
| commuting that really sucks. I used to hate working in the
| office and then I moved to an apartment next to work and I
| decided to walk in even while WFH was an option because I did
| slightly prefer going to the office and being with everyone.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| > The office is not as bad as people make it out to be
|
| Correction: "[my] office is not as bad [for me] as [other]
| people make [their offices] out to be [for them]"
|
| Every office I've worked in has been horrible to work in. I
| hate being around other people, the random distractions of
| office noises/smells/etc, and I hate not having control over
| my environment so that I can be comfortable. For people like
| me who specifically want to not see other humans unless
| they're family or friends, it really is that bad.
| civilized wrote:
| > For people like me who specifically want to not see other
| humans unless they're family or friends, it really is that
| bad.
|
| Thank you! I'm going to use this.
|
| Other than my family and friends, the humans I regularly
| deal with are somewhere between terrible and mediocre. If
| they weren't, they'd be my friends.
| silicon2401 wrote:
| Glad to get validation/confirmation that there really are
| multiple of us out there in the world lol. It's
| discouraging that people are either completely ignorant
| or are willing to deny that others are different,
| including in how much interest we have (or don't have) in
| being around others. I feel the same as you about people
| and hope we continue to have options expand for
| controlling who we interact with
| prepend wrote:
| This is the big thing for me. I have a 40-60 minute commute
| to drive in. Vs being able to walk downstairs in 30 seconds.
|
| It's also good for family flexibility where I can take 10
| minutes to drop off a forgotten lunch and that would be a 90
| minute drive.
| nvarsj wrote:
| Exactly my feeling. I love working in the office, but I hate
| any kind of commute. Commuting in London is particularly
| atrocious, but I guess it could be worse (any US city apart
| from NYC).
| newsclues wrote:
| Commuting can suck. I've commuted by car, no fun.
|
| I've commuted by foot through a park, great but when it's
| -20c not so great.
|
| I've commuted by bike, a 60 km round trip through a big city,
| and loved it... the exercise, being outside and the time
| alone to think. 3-4 hours of riding was the best part of the
| day.
|
| Until winter came and I had to make the trip on a train and I
| got sick and hated the noise and people.
| stn_za wrote:
| Imagine being able to take a walk anyway without going to the
| office?
| smoe wrote:
| I don't exactly love the office but prefer it. I like to have a
| strong separation between working and living space/time. I have
| a room in my apartment that I could use as an office, but I
| rather use it for hobbies than work. Even when, almost a decade
| ago, I was freelancing and could work from wherever, I worked
| from home only an hour or two in the morning before moving
| somewhere.
|
| That said, me wanting this separation is probably not stronger
| than a bad commute. It is currently a 15min stroll. Before
| that, it was an 45min train ride, but in Switzerland where
| trains are quite comfortable and I could use the time to work,
| do some admin, listening to podcasts, read a book or chat with
| friends.
|
| Definitely not in favor to require people back to the office
| and thus force them living nearby. I like for people to have
| options.
| iso1210 wrote:
| My office is between my kitchen and the bathroom so the commute
| isn't exactly onerous
|
| However when the sun is shining I'll take a 20 minute walk a
| few times a day through the country, or I'll take an 40 minute
| long walk to a nice cafe for lunch.
|
| If it's pissing it down then I won't.
|
| Working from home doesn't stop me from choosing to go for a
| walk, or run, or bike ride, or horse ride, before starting
| work.
| tokai wrote:
| Is it not possible for you to go for a walk from the office?
| chrisjc wrote:
| Probably, but part of the point they're probably making is
| that they can spend the time normally used for the commute
| to take the walk.
| greedo wrote:
| My office is next other office buildings, with a few
| scraggly trees planted in the parking lot. Not exactly a
| great area to enjoy nature.
| iso1210 wrote:
| I don't have an "office", but in my experience, and when I
| do visit various offices around the world, offices tend to
| be surrounded by buildings and traffic and shops, and tend
| not to be surrounded by fields, mountains and lakes
| tapanjk wrote:
| > Granted, I live a 20 min walk away. The walk in is through a
| beautiful county park, surrounded by nature.
|
| This is likely the reason you love coming into the office. The
| fresh air, greenery in the park, and the walk that gets your
| blood flowing ... emotionally you _should_ be in a better
| place. Compare this with someone who commutes 30 minutes in
| traffic, and they will arrive at the office in a worse
| emotional state.
|
| It took me a long time to realize that in addition to the team
| culture, my happiness/satisfaction at work depends a lot on my
| commute and the ambiance at the office (quiet and comfortable
| is good; noisy and cramped are bad).
| chrisjc wrote:
| More of a reason for those that used to commute to take some
| of their reclaimed time to take a stroll/exercise during
| their normal commute hours... maybe even doing some of the
| things they would have done in the car or on the train like
| making calls or listening to podcasts.
|
| Of course I'm a hypocrite for not exactly doing this
| myself... instead I take a short drive to pick up coffee in
| the morning. There's no traffic (esp at 5am) and it's quite a
| beautiful location. It at least helps define somewhat of a
| boundary between work and home life for me.
| thawaya3113 wrote:
| In a hierarchy of options, it's unsurprising most companies are
| settling in the worst of options, much like they did with their
| poorly designed open office plans.
|
| There's nothing worse than the "flexible" options companies are
| settling on, where people come 2-3 days a week, have no fixed
| seating arrangements, and need to get used to a new setup every
| time.
| ace32229 wrote:
| jdrc wrote:
| Roman houses had a commercial thing at the front. Cities had
| lavish public baths, people had banquets, socialized in the
| market. The Industrial era lasted too long
| Stratoscope wrote:
| > _a lot of people who have returned to their offices for some or
| all of the week have found that they're the only ones there, or
| others are staying isolated in their offices, and all
| communication still happens over email, Slack, or Zoom. As a
| result, they're spending time commuting to and from the office
| and dealing with all the hassles of in-person work but without
| any of the promised payoff._
|
| This is hardly surprising. At the last few offices I worked in
| during the Before Times, everyone in the open office crammed a
| few feet apart was typing away and focused on their monitors,
| wearing headphones that said "don't interrupt me!" And watching
| Slack.
| civilized wrote:
| Yep. And the management of these companies are dabbing their
| misty eyes as they grieve over all the "impromptu"
| "serendipitous" "water cooler" innovation sessions that have
| been lost.
|
| You can just see the visuals in their minds. Stock images of
| their lowly, loyal drones clad in business casual, smiling,
| scurrying about with manila folders in hand, shaking hands. Not
| a single human being that they actually know or have observed
| in the workplace.
|
| These people wouldn't be caught dead near a humble IC, and yet
| they have the gall to tell us how best to get our work done.
| greedo wrote:
| I think many of the problems come down to the different world
| executives live in. Different people in many ways. Most
| executives have little experience at the core operations of a
| business in a technical manner. They tend to climb from Sales and
| Marketing teams, or Accounting. So they may understand who they
| sell to, and what the markets/competition are like, but they
| rarely are good at understanding the fundamentals of managing and
| motivating people.
|
| And when they hire managers to take care of these details, they
| hire people they can identify with. People who are like them, but
| lower in status and experience. Yet people with the same goals
| towards climbing the corporate ladder. These managers (I lump
| anyone below C-Level Officer in this group) also lack hands on
| experience in the current environment, but they know how to play
| the game. They quickly find out who the decision makers are, what
| they want, and their vulnerabilities. This allows them to
| advance.
|
| Then these executives higher and promote people who do have
| current experience. They expect them to manage the workers/ICs.
| They base their hiring decisions on the same fallacious ideas
| that they believe in. And when a manager presents them with
| differing opinions, that challenge their world view, they both
| resent and dismiss these opinions. One because they don't
| understand the technical side of business, and two because they
| are threatened. So they try to exert control.
|
| For them, it's all about status and schmoozing; cronyism,
| nepotism, corrupting vendor relations, all cloaked in talk of
| "culture, collaboration, cooperation." When they reach out to
| employees with a satisfaction survey, bad results (less than high
| approval ratings) means that the lower status managers failed to
| impart the company line effectively. The parallels to the Soviet
| Union are unmistakable.
|
| When you view it in terms of Managers are from Mars, Workers are
| from Venus, you'll start to understand how status, power and
| privilege play a huge role in how workplaces are designed and
| managed.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-30 23:02 UTC)