4 ms·

> 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 thi

> 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.

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.