5 ms·

The end of the office... and the future of work

22 points by robg 17y ago

dan_sim 17y ago
No office companies are the new sweatshops. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. I worked for years at home and it made me sick because I didn't have a clear distinction between work and life. It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he could be working. That way of working lacks the subtle connection that a team has to have and the more complex relation between management and workers. But, I don't think that working 9-5 in an office is healthy either. A company should offer office spaces to their employees accessible at any time of day with no obligation to get there. It may be a dream but I'm getting closer to it...
- grannyg00se 17y ago
  Creating your own distinction between work and life is a challenge, but a fun one to tackle. It's helpful to have a separate working area with a separate computer for example. But I have to disagree with the point that it gives the employer the right to ask you anything at anytime. You have to set boundaries. A set schedule helps. The easiest is to stick to the 9-5 schedule since most of the other employees will be doing that.
- gte910h 17y ago
  > It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he could be working. The key is "not answering" when they call out of business hours.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    Quite true 'It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he could be working.' No it doesn't, not unless you agree to it. I can't imagine having a remote job and not being clear upfront what the "office" hours are supposed to be. It make no more sense than to think that regular office workers need to spend 24/7 at the office because the boss may be there at anytime.
blhack 17y ago
I don't think so... I think the future of work is going to be ~10 work days, 6 days a week, and minimal benefits. The problem is that there are SOO many qualified people out there and not enough jobs for them. It's an employers market; they can make ridiculous demands, and people will show up to meet them because they have to. Look at movies like "Up in the Air"...there really are people that live their lives in airports and hotels. Yes, to the extent that the person in the movie did. This sort of thing is becoming the norm. In case you haven't seen the movie: it is about a guy who spends something like 300 days per year on the road.
- ytinas 17y ago
  I don't agree, or at least if it does go this route then people will end up getting unions involved. From where I sit people are already sick of 45 hour work weeks so making this even more intrusive is not going to last long.
  - aaronblohowiak 17y ago
    The unions got us overtime, breaks, lunch and vacation. As a result, we created a two-class system for labor laws; management and workers. However, white-collar workers qualify under the provisions previously reserved for management so the laws created to protect labor no longer apply.
    - ytinas 17y ago
      The law isn't some kind of book from "on high" with static text that just is. It is a living body of rules that under the right circumstanced even lowly working class citizens can affect. If people are becoming exploited again and current labor laws can't stop it then those laws need to be changed.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  "This sort of thing is becoming the norm." You say this based on what? Do you have links to studies or reports on jobs, travel, time on the road?
roc 17y ago
If the goal is an employee-centric benefits system Unions don't seem to be an appropriate hack. Why not just break the privileged employer-employee tax relationship for things like healthcare and 401k? Frankly, I don't see a Union-member situation as much better than employer-employee. As for the office-less office: after having done the telecommuting thing for a while, I just don't see it happening in a large way. Like the paperless office, it sounds obvious. But we'll still be talking about it being on the horizon twenty years from now. Too many people in positions of influence are innately suspicious of work that doesn't manifest physically.
- cwan 17y ago
  I agree with you on the unions bit though for the office-less office, I think it's something that will be increasingly common. The barriers to starting your own firm are falling - and falling dramatically, hence the existence of funders like ycombinator. Further, economies of scale have been slowly and quite quickly in some instances, erased because of technology. It should follow that we will see increasingly more (and different types of) small businesses and the ability of people to leverage off their own unique skill sets will rise. The question then becomes whether or not this will translate into more physical incubator/workspaces or just home offices... this is a tougher call, but with the disappearance of barriers, this will mean more easily that work will happen where it's most productive/valuable - and where this is, because of technology, is changing.

22 points by robg 17y ago

No office companies are the new sweatshops. There has to be a middle ground somewhere. I worked for years at home and it made me sick because I didn't have a clear distinction between work and life. It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he could be working. That way of working lacks the subtle connection that a team has to have and the more complex relation between management and workers. But, I don't think that working 9-5 in an office is healthy either. A company should offer office spaces to their employees accessible at any time of day with no obligation to get there. It may be a dream but I'm getting closer to it...

grannyg00se 17y ago
Creating your own distinction between work and life is a challenge, but a fun one to tackle. It's helpful to have a separate working area with a separate computer for example. But I have to disagree with the point that it gives the employer the right to ask you anything at anytime. You have to set boundaries. A set schedule helps. The easiest is to stick to the 9-5 schedule since most of the other employees will be doing that.
gte910h 17y ago
> It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he could be working. The key is "not answering" when they call out of business hours.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  Quite true 'It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he could be working.' No it doesn't, not unless you agree to it. I can't imagine having a remote job and not being clear upfront what the "office" hours are supposed to be. It make no more sense than to think that regular office workers need to spend 24/7 at the office because the boss may be there at anytime.

blhack 17y ago

I don't think so... I think the future of work is going to be ~10 work days, 6 days a week, and minimal benefits. The problem is that there are SOO many qualified people out there and not enough jobs for them. It's an employers market; they can make ridiculous demands, and people will show up to meet them because they have to. Look at movies like "Up in the Air"...there really are people that live their lives in airports and hotels. Yes, to the extent that the person in the movie did. This sort of thing is becoming the norm. In case you haven't seen the movie: it is about a guy who spends something like 300 days per year on the road.

ytinas 17y ago
I don't agree, or at least if it does go this route then people will end up getting unions involved. From where I sit people are already sick of 45 hour work weeks so making this even more intrusive is not going to last long.
- aaronblohowiak 17y ago
  The unions got us overtime, breaks, lunch and vacation. As a result, we created a two-class system for labor laws; management and workers. However, white-collar workers qualify under the provisions previously reserved for management so the laws created to protect labor no longer apply.
  - ytinas 17y ago
    The law isn't some kind of book from "on high" with static text that just is. It is a living body of rules that under the right circumstanced even lowly working class citizens can affect. If people are becoming exploited again and current labor laws can't stop it then those laws need to be changed.
jamesbritt 17y ago
"This sort of thing is becoming the norm." You say this based on what? Do you have links to studies or reports on jobs, travel, time on the road?

roc 17y ago

If the goal is an employee-centric benefits system Unions don't seem to be an appropriate hack. Why not just break the privileged employer-employee tax relationship for things like healthcare and 401k? Frankly, I don't see a Union-member situation as much better than employer-employee. As for the office-less office: after having done the telecommuting thing for a while, I just don't see it happening in a large way. Like the paperless office, it sounds obvious. But we'll still be talking about it being on the horizon twenty years from now. Too many people in positions of influence are innately suspicious of work that doesn't manifest physically.

cwan 17y ago
I agree with you on the unions bit though for the office-less office, I think it's something that will be increasingly common. The barriers to starting your own firm are falling - and falling dramatically, hence the existence of funders like ycombinator. Further, economies of scale have been slowly and quite quickly in some instances, erased because of technology. It should follow that we will see increasingly more (and different types of) small businesses and the ability of people to leverage off their own unique skill sets will rise. The question then becomes whether or not this will translate into more physical incubator/workspaces or just home offices... this is a tougher call, but with the disappearance of barriers, this will mean more easily that work will happen where it's most productive/valuable - and where this is, because of technology, is changing.