4 ms·

I'm unconvinced. The current WFH environment is not representative. It's only been a couple of months so the effects aren't fully understood and we are still in

I'm unconvinced. The current WFH environment is not representative. It's only been a couple of months so the effects aren't fully understood and we are still in the honeymoon period. More importantly everyone has to work from home so there is no comparison between people who are WFH and those in the office - when WFH goes back to being a choice, I think we'll remember all of the frustrations remote workers had at non-fully remote companies.

techsupporter 6y ago
> when WFH goes back to being a choice, I think we'll remember all of the frustrations remote workers had at non-fully remote companies Yep, this is what I think happens. When the boss goes back to the office and is annoyed that no one is around for meetings or when enough people on a team or group decide that it’s just easier to “optionally” be back at work to have hallway conversations... Even saying “just come in on Thursdays for meetings” means the bulk of the work-anywhere dream many of the threads on HN have on the front page simply don’t materialize.
- iso947 6y ago
  My 2nd level boss is delighted she’s getting 120 people in a weekly catch up meeting to explain what’s going on across the department. Normally the meeting is every month and only fits 50 people in the largest meeting room At the top they are concerned - the main office is at 10% capacity (some things can’t be done from home - at least without 40g connections and large custom workstations), and after 10 years of cramming more people in they’ve realised offices cost money. They are looking to extend wfh significantly.
  - sq_ 6y ago
    Do you think that the bigger meeting correlates with actual increased value for everyone involved? Such a large meeting, especially via Zoom or something similar, seems like it would become disorganized fast.
    - Majestic121 6y ago
      There's meeting and meeting. A meeting with one boss and 119 employees typically means 1 way communication Boss -> employee, with questions at the end, so that's easy to keep organized, Zoom or not. You can even type your questions in the chat to be answered later, so it's more organized in a way
    - iso947 6y ago
      It allows her to get information out widely, and allows department heads to flag up what’s going on - helping us feel far more connected as a department. Everyone stays muted until called and contributes via chat window for questions etc We also have a company wide weekly chat at the moment which is less useful but gives an idea on the thoughts of those at the top. About 11k join that, out of 40k. Our own team level (15) have a daily chat in the morning for 20 minutes over tea, which is more connected than normal as we’re spread over multiple buildings. We then have a drop in session for other people in the wider department to pop in and have questioned manned by 2 of us, in lieu of the “drop by the desk”.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  While I’ve always been pro WFH occasionally, it’s great for family emergencies and some errands, WFH mostly has always confused me. The main benefit of full WFH is that you no longer need to balance commute time against COL; you’re free to move further away or to a different city to leverage the differences in land cost. But with mostly WFH you still need to live close enough for the occasional commute and you have to foot the bill for a larger home with an office. This does not strike me as a winning combination.
higeorge13 6y ago
Exactly! Companies are taking quick decisions under false and pressing circumstances, and soon (after summer break) i foresee a big majority of their employees whining throughout all media about remote work and how they missed their office.
pimterry 6y ago
> we are still in the honeymoon period I don't think this is true: remote in times of COVID is not the peak of the effectiveness or enjoyableness for remote working, by a very long way. There's no coworking options, there's the constant distraction & stress of the world imploding in the background, there's a variety of other restrictions on your lifestyle, there are kids sharing your WFH space, etc etc. I think it's very likely that people's experience of remote work will improve as quarantines are progressively lifted, not worsen. Of course, this also suggests that people might write off remote work entirely in the meantime, by conflating it (explicitly or emotionally) with the pains of confinement in general.
- solidasparagus 6y ago
  Yeah I totally agree. Honeymoon period may have been a poor choice of word - I just meant it's the period of time where the pros are still novel and the negatives haven't become long-running frustrations.
detaro 6y ago
Most people where thrown into it without proper preparation, setup, and with additional stresses to handle. I don't think now is a "WFH honeymoon". It demonstrates that WFH can be done, but has many issues that are likely not done well now.

techsupporter 6y ago

> when WFH goes back to being a choice, I think we'll remember all of the frustrations remote workers had at non-fully remote companies Yep, this is what I think happens. When the boss goes back to the office and is annoyed that no one is around for meetings or when enough people on a team or group decide that it’s just easier to “optionally” be back at work to have hallway conversations... Even saying “just come in on Thursdays for meetings” means the bulk of the work-anywhere dream many of the threads on HN have on the front page simply don’t materialize.

iso947 6y ago
My 2nd level boss is delighted she’s getting 120 people in a weekly catch up meeting to explain what’s going on across the department. Normally the meeting is every month and only fits 50 people in the largest meeting room At the top they are concerned - the main office is at 10% capacity (some things can’t be done from home - at least without 40g connections and large custom workstations), and after 10 years of cramming more people in they’ve realised offices cost money. They are looking to extend wfh significantly.
- sq_ 6y ago
  Do you think that the bigger meeting correlates with actual increased value for everyone involved? Such a large meeting, especially via Zoom or something similar, seems like it would become disorganized fast.
  - Majestic121 6y ago
    There's meeting and meeting. A meeting with one boss and 119 employees typically means 1 way communication Boss -> employee, with questions at the end, so that's easy to keep organized, Zoom or not. You can even type your questions in the chat to be answered later, so it's more organized in a way
  - iso947 6y ago
    It allows her to get information out widely, and allows department heads to flag up what’s going on - helping us feel far more connected as a department. Everyone stays muted until called and contributes via chat window for questions etc We also have a company wide weekly chat at the moment which is less useful but gives an idea on the thoughts of those at the top. About 11k join that, out of 40k. Our own team level (15) have a daily chat in the morning for 20 minutes over tea, which is more connected than normal as we’re spread over multiple buildings. We then have a drop in session for other people in the wider department to pop in and have questioned manned by 2 of us, in lieu of the “drop by the desk”.
ashtonkem 6y ago
While I’ve always been pro WFH occasionally, it’s great for family emergencies and some errands, WFH mostly has always confused me. The main benefit of full WFH is that you no longer need to balance commute time against COL; you’re free to move further away or to a different city to leverage the differences in land cost. But with mostly WFH you still need to live close enough for the occasional commute and you have to foot the bill for a larger home with an office. This does not strike me as a winning combination.

higeorge13 6y ago

Exactly! Companies are taking quick decisions under false and pressing circumstances, and soon (after summer break) i foresee a big majority of their employees whining throughout all media about remote work and how they missed their office.

pimterry 6y ago

> we are still in the honeymoon period I don't think this is true: remote in times of COVID is not the peak of the effectiveness or enjoyableness for remote working, by a very long way. There's no coworking options, there's the constant distraction & stress of the world imploding in the background, there's a variety of other restrictions on your lifestyle, there are kids sharing your WFH space, etc etc. I think it's very likely that people's experience of remote work will improve as quarantines are progressively lifted, not worsen. Of course, this also suggests that people might write off remote work entirely in the meantime, by conflating it (explicitly or emotionally) with the pains of confinement in general.

solidasparagus 6y ago
Yeah I totally agree. Honeymoon period may have been a poor choice of word - I just meant it's the period of time where the pros are still novel and the negatives haven't become long-running frustrations.

detaro 6y ago

Most people where thrown into it without proper preparation, setup, and with additional stresses to handle. I don't think now is a "WFH honeymoon". It demonstrates that WFH can be done, but has many issues that are likely not done well now.