5 ms·

> leads to thinly-veiled, self-serving, biased arguments and proclamations of the benefits to everyone. > So I've now been WFH for 2 months and honestly I hate

> leads to thinly-veiled, self-serving, biased arguments and proclamations of the benefits to everyone. > So I've now been WFH for 2 months and honestly I hate it. > I just don't think a company with 50,000+ employees can operate this way indefinitely. ok. Why do you consider your arguments against WFH not biased and useful. "other side is biased" ...quite funny :D

furyofantares 6y ago
> Why do you consider your arguments against WFH not biased and useful. The software industry is doing quite well for itself, busily collecting all the world’s money. It doesn’t mean it’s doing everything right but it does put a larger burden of proof on advocates for change.
- detaro 6y ago
  The software industry likely is also among the industries with the highest amount of WFH already.
- andreilys 6y ago
  Wordpress/Automatic is a fully remote company. Considering that the number of total active websites is estimated at over 1.3 billion according to a survey published by Netcraft, that means that around 455,000,000 websites are using WordPress right now, which means that around 20% of all self-hosted websites use WordPress. So I’d say they’re doing pretty well for themselves.
  - trustfundbaby 6y ago
    Also Github.
- prostheticvamp 6y ago
  But a big part of how it’s doing that is using technologies to unbundle functions, that used to be bundled for practical reasons, to create new efficiencies and value. So...
cletus 6y ago
> ok. Why do you consider your arguments against WFH not biased and useful. Because what I'm saying is objectively true: physical colocation with your coworkers is inherently easier to work with than working remotely and no one in their right mind disputes that. The best you can argue for WFH-first is that it can be made to work. Your other clue is the choice of language. I said, for example, "I hate WFH" and (paraphrased) "I like having a catered office". These are my personal preferences. You can't really argue that it isn't my personal preference. You can argue that those preferences don't work for you, which is 100% fine and indisputable. In comparison, so many things I see written about WFH are stated with broad generalizations of "WFH is better because ..." when you can clearly tell that really means "I want to WFH and I'm going to argue my preference as being a general good". You've had other people in this thread and elsewhere agree that a mixed WFH/in-person team is (to quote another commenter here) "the worst of both worlds". If you take that as true it then means that for people to most effectively WFH they need everyone else they're working with to do it as well. It's intellectually dishonest. To be clear, if you can make WFH work for you and you like doing it, great. I hope you find an employer who works like that or will allow at least some of the team to work remotely. Prognostications that Covid-19 will lead to some seachange in WFH-first employment strikes me as unsubstantiated wishful thinking however. Just go and look at all the blog posts and articles written about how to make WFH work. Why aren't there just as many (or more) articles about making WFO (Working From Office) work if the benefits are so self-apparent? There are certain kinds of work that could be remote and would be just fine to do so but they still generally aren't (eg call center work; apart from obvious offshoring cases, a lot of US domestic call center work is still from an office for some reason). But I don't put software engineering at scale in that category.
- pm90 6y ago
  To address your comment about wfo... it works since it’s been the default way that people have worked since the industrial revolution. As such we have institutional collective knowledge and culture on how to make it work. The blog posts about making wfh work are going against a couple of centuries of knowledge, which is why you see the difference. But to address a finer point: there is still a lot of activity about open vs closed plan etc. So wfo is not a fully solved problem either!

furyofantares 6y ago

> Why do you consider your arguments against WFH not biased and useful. The software industry is doing quite well for itself, busily collecting all the world’s money. It doesn’t mean it’s doing everything right but it does put a larger burden of proof on advocates for change.

detaro 6y ago
The software industry likely is also among the industries with the highest amount of WFH already.
andreilys 6y ago
Wordpress/Automatic is a fully remote company. Considering that the number of total active websites is estimated at over 1.3 billion according to a survey published by Netcraft, that means that around 455,000,000 websites are using WordPress right now, which means that around 20% of all self-hosted websites use WordPress. So I’d say they’re doing pretty well for themselves.
- trustfundbaby 6y ago
  Also Github.
prostheticvamp 6y ago
But a big part of how it’s doing that is using technologies to unbundle functions, that used to be bundled for practical reasons, to create new efficiencies and value. So...

cletus 6y ago

> ok. Why do you consider your arguments against WFH not biased and useful. Because what I'm saying is objectively true: physical colocation with your coworkers is inherently easier to work with than working remotely and no one in their right mind disputes that. The best you can argue for WFH-first is that it can be made to work. Your other clue is the choice of language. I said, for example, "I hate WFH" and (paraphrased) "I like having a catered office". These are my personal preferences. You can't really argue that it isn't my personal preference. You can argue that those preferences don't work for you, which is 100% fine and indisputable. In comparison, so many things I see written about WFH are stated with broad generalizations of "WFH is better because ..." when you can clearly tell that really means "I want to WFH and I'm going to argue my preference as being a general good". You've had other people in this thread and elsewhere agree that a mixed WFH/in-person team is (to quote another commenter here) "the worst of both worlds". If you take that as true it then means that for people to most effectively WFH they need everyone else they're working with to do it as well. It's intellectually dishonest. To be clear, if you can make WFH work for you and you like doing it, great. I hope you find an employer who works like that or will allow at least some of the team to work remotely. Prognostications that Covid-19 will lead to some seachange in WFH-first employment strikes me as unsubstantiated wishful thinking however. Just go and look at all the blog posts and articles written about how to make WFH work. Why aren't there just as many (or more) articles about making WFO (Working From Office) work if the benefits are so self-apparent? There are certain kinds of work that could be remote and would be just fine to do so but they still generally aren't (eg call center work; apart from obvious offshoring cases, a lot of US domestic call center work is still from an office for some reason). But I don't put software engineering at scale in that category.

pm90 6y ago
To address your comment about wfo... it works since it’s been the default way that people have worked since the industrial revolution. As such we have institutional collective knowledge and culture on how to make it work. The blog posts about making wfh work are going against a couple of centuries of knowledge, which is why you see the difference. But to address a finer point: there is still a lot of activity about open vs closed plan etc. So wfo is not a fully solved problem either!