6 ms·

>I'm constantly surprised by how few companies have embraced remote work simply because of its cost-saving potential. Because it's only cheaper on paper. The r

by dqv 10y ago

>I'm constantly surprised by how few companies have embraced remote work simply because of its cost-saving potential. Because it's only cheaper on paper. The risk is way too high for me to abuse the fact that there is no IT staff, there is no redundancy, and there is no one to make sure I'm on task. I can stay home from work because I don't have to go anywhere to work in the first place. I'm working in my fun place... which has the negative effect of making my fun place less fun and possibly making my work place less work. You can of course argue that someone should know they are going to be less productive as a remote worker, but most people _are_ going to accept the offer even if it is detrimental.

humanrebar 10y ago
> there is no one to make sure I'm on task In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. If someone's output seems low, then it's straightforward how to quantify output in terms of quantity, difficulty, timeliness, etc. Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself (code, docs, etc.).
- dasmoth 10y ago
  Looking just at commits means ignoring time spent thinking about problems, planning ahead, etc. That ought to translate into commits in the end, but assuming a steady rate of progess means you're probably not measuring the right thing. >>> Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself Agree, but would specify "over a relatively long period of time."
- RandomOpinion 10y ago
  >In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. That only applies to junior developers whose measure is the amount of code they complete and even that is potentially gameable with fluff check-ins. High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time.
  - MaulingMonkey 10y ago
    Stats are fluffable, but is a fluff check-in really a fluff check-in if nobody actually looking at it can tell it's fluff? > High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time. They still have measurable, logged and recorded output. Specs get checked in. Bugs get filed and updated. Sample some of it. This will better help you identify who's struggling or slacking off in the office too.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
rebeccaskinner 10y ago
I guess it just depends a lot on the individual. I left my last job in large part because they were adamantly against remote work. My current job is much more flexible with Monday/Friday being in-office days (and even that is fairly flexible) and the middle of the week really being just a matter of preference. I usually work from home 1-2 days per week and I don't feel like it's a negative impact on my productivity at all- if anything I think I get a lot more done at home on the right days (decision making and mentoring seem to work better in a shared physical space with a whiteboard, but when I'm just trying to get in a feature or go through a backlog of code review requests I can get a lot more done at home). All of that aside though, the main argument I've made in favor of remote work in the past has been that for many people and teams (in software development, I can't speak outside of my field) even if remote work does cost some productivity it's worthwhile because it vastly increases quality of life.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Here's my argument for remote work. If working in an office is vastly more productive than working from home, as soon as remote work is relatively commonplace in our industry we should see jobs where you have to come into the office paying a premium of at least 25%. The time wasted in traffic in the morning, plus owning a car and maintenance of said car are not free and if a company wishes for that they shall pay for it.
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    Here's my argument against: If your job can be done from home, it can be done from India or the Philippines. Be careful what you wish for.
    - huehehue 10y ago
      Sure, if you ignore quality of work, timezone differences, language barriers, and any hiring regulations that might exist.
      - 10y ago

by dqv 10y ago

humanrebar 10y ago

> there is no one to make sure I'm on task In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. If someone's output seems low, then it's straightforward how to quantify output in terms of quantity, difficulty, timeliness, etc. Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself (code, docs, etc.).

dasmoth 10y ago
Looking just at commits means ignoring time spent thinking about problems, planning ahead, etc. That ought to translate into commits in the end, but assuming a steady rate of progess means you're probably not measuring the right thing. >>> Of course, that requires managers that can actually evaluate the work product itself Agree, but would specify "over a relatively long period of time."
RandomOpinion 10y ago
>In tech, literally every change we make is logged in a history with timestamps. That only applies to junior developers whose measure is the amount of code they complete and even that is potentially gameable with fluff check-ins. High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time.
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
  Stats are fluffable, but is a fluff check-in really a fluff check-in if nobody actually looking at it can tell it's fluff? > High-level design by senior developers, writing specifications, and QA, for example, don't have an output that's measurable in kLOC or work per unit time. They still have measurable, logged and recorded output. Specs get checked in. Bugs get filed and updated. Sample some of it. This will better help you identify who's struggling or slacking off in the office too.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

rebeccaskinner 10y ago

I guess it just depends a lot on the individual. I left my last job in large part because they were adamantly against remote work. My current job is much more flexible with Monday/Friday being in-office days (and even that is fairly flexible) and the middle of the week really being just a matter of preference. I usually work from home 1-2 days per week and I don't feel like it's a negative impact on my productivity at all- if anything I think I get a lot more done at home on the right days (decision making and mentoring seem to work better in a shared physical space with a whiteboard, but when I'm just trying to get in a feature or go through a backlog of code review requests I can get a lot more done at home). All of that aside though, the main argument I've made in favor of remote work in the past has been that for many people and teams (in software development, I can't speak outside of my field) even if remote work does cost some productivity it's worthwhile because it vastly increases quality of life.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Here's my argument for remote work. If working in an office is vastly more productive than working from home, as soon as remote work is relatively commonplace in our industry we should see jobs where you have to come into the office paying a premium of at least 25%. The time wasted in traffic in the morning, plus owning a car and maintenance of said car are not free and if a company wishes for that they shall pay for it.
- ryandrake 10y ago
  Here's my argument against: If your job can be done from home, it can be done from India or the Philippines. Be careful what you wish for.
  - huehehue 10y ago
    Sure, if you ignore quality of work, timezone differences, language barriers, and any hiring regulations that might exist.
    - 10y ago