4 ms·

I’d like to propose a reframing of your scenarios for objectivity: WFH is horrible for some people in some scenarios. WFO (work from office) is also equally t

I’d like to propose a reframing of your scenarios for objectivity: WFH is horrible for some people in some scenarios. WFO (work from office) is also equally terrible for some people in some scenarios. It’s just that people have generally normalized and accepted that these horrible WFO situations are required to feed yourself. Barring jobs where you cannot function without physical presence, I’d say we need to fundamentally rethink why WFO is a default. And why we think a baseline of suffering for some people is generally OK.

jetru 6y ago
If everyone was as reasonable as you, the world would be a nice place
- nosequel 6y ago
  Their name checks out.
treis 6y ago
I feel like it's an all or nothing proposition. If you have some WFH and some in the office over time the office folks will out politic the WFH folks. It's also hard to be a remote attendee of a meeting that's happening with some in person. Definitely feel like a third wheel. IMHO, if you mix WFH and office the WFH folks will end up like internal contractors that don't have the same advancement potential as their office colleagues.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I respectfully disagree. Many larger companies already are coordinating across multiple locations and timezones. One of the teams I work with has people on Eastern US time (though not all in the same office even before this) and Europe. Another group is in two geographically separated offices in Eastern Time. And other groups are just scattered all over.
  - tuna-piano 6y ago
    Just going to guess that whichever location the team has the most people and wherever manager works from become the places where big decisions are made and promotions come from. I've worked remote when the rest of the team is in an office, and it's definitely not for all positions/teams.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      I agree that situations where N-1 of the team is physically located in an office and one person isn't tend to be difficult. But we're mostly now often talking about significant distribution/WFH. The groups I'm involved with were already distributed with not much in terms of a "home base."
- spfzero 6y ago
  But it would have to be some really serious “advancement opportunity” to make up for the 90 minutes of your life spent commuting every day, no?
  - arbitrary_name 6y ago
    Yeah, I am early thirties, working in consulting, strong resume including faang member companies... and you will have to drag me back to an office screaming. I simply don't care enough about my career trajectory to have my entire lifestyle dictated by where my office happens to be.
richardwhiuk 6y ago
Can you provide some examples of WFO being such an issue? Is it mostly "commuting sucks"?
- 22c 6y ago
  Commuting, (mostly) fixed hours, noise levels, personal space. To expand a bit on the fixed hours, early-birds tend to be fine with getting to the office early, but night owls will either get kicked out or have to deal with people vacuuming floors around them.
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    Our workplace has a nice solution for this. Office timings are 8 to 5. Early birds can arrive at 8 and leave by 5. But this is not enforced. Many night owls only arrive by 11 or 12 and leave later or leave by 3 or 4 and continue work from home at their time. Leadership just needs to be flexible enough.
- snegu 6y ago
  I think the biggest issue is that you need to live near your office. This usually means you have to spend a lot more on housing than you would otherwise. This is why I went remote - we couldn't afford any houses near my workplace.
- treis 6y ago
  WFO nickels and dimes you on equipment. I can bill out 300k in hours a year but getting a company to spend $1,000 on monitors, chair, keyboard, etc. is like pulling teeth. They expect me to work on a 14" laptop and maybe an external monitor. At home I can use my setup.
  - perryizgr8 6y ago
    If I'm WFH why should I spend my money and use my equipment to work? I have a large gaming monitor, why should my company expect everyone to make similar purchases to be able to work properly? In office even though companies are miserly, they do provide a baseline of equipment that is good enough for most people.
ksk 6y ago
More companies would adopt WFH if they see the success (primarily economically) of other companies who adopt it. Its really as simple as that. Why would any company want to rent expensive commercial real-estate and other overhead if the end result was _worse_ for their bottom line. Personally, I believe that WFO is still the better way to function. Human collaboration is tied in closely with pre-existing conventions, using multiple modes of communication, and building camaraderie. I think its clear that conventions and ritualistic practices help a ton with social cohesion. Also we use multiple methods to communicate our ideas and feelings - verbal, non-verbal, physical, non-physical, facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. Someone punching the air when they've solved a hard problem, or some co-worker who isn't on your team that you only occasionally meet, excitedly telling you a fun story about their vacation or whatever. There is tons of communication that happens between humans in an office that is difficult if not impossible to replicate in a WFH environment. As a society, I think we'd be poorer for that if we lose it.

jetru 6y ago

If everyone was as reasonable as you, the world would be a nice place

nosequel 6y ago
Their name checks out.

treis 6y ago

I feel like it's an all or nothing proposition. If you have some WFH and some in the office over time the office folks will out politic the WFH folks. It's also hard to be a remote attendee of a meeting that's happening with some in person. Definitely feel like a third wheel. IMHO, if you mix WFH and office the WFH folks will end up like internal contractors that don't have the same advancement potential as their office colleagues.

ghaff 6y ago
I respectfully disagree. Many larger companies already are coordinating across multiple locations and timezones. One of the teams I work with has people on Eastern US time (though not all in the same office even before this) and Europe. Another group is in two geographically separated offices in Eastern Time. And other groups are just scattered all over.
- tuna-piano 6y ago
  Just going to guess that whichever location the team has the most people and wherever manager works from become the places where big decisions are made and promotions come from. I've worked remote when the rest of the team is in an office, and it's definitely not for all positions/teams.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I agree that situations where N-1 of the team is physically located in an office and one person isn't tend to be difficult. But we're mostly now often talking about significant distribution/WFH. The groups I'm involved with were already distributed with not much in terms of a "home base."
spfzero 6y ago
But it would have to be some really serious “advancement opportunity” to make up for the 90 minutes of your life spent commuting every day, no?
- arbitrary_name 6y ago
  Yeah, I am early thirties, working in consulting, strong resume including faang member companies... and you will have to drag me back to an office screaming. I simply don't care enough about my career trajectory to have my entire lifestyle dictated by where my office happens to be.

richardwhiuk 6y ago

Can you provide some examples of WFO being such an issue? Is it mostly "commuting sucks"?

22c 6y ago
Commuting, (mostly) fixed hours, noise levels, personal space. To expand a bit on the fixed hours, early-birds tend to be fine with getting to the office early, but night owls will either get kicked out or have to deal with people vacuuming floors around them.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  Our workplace has a nice solution for this. Office timings are 8 to 5. Early birds can arrive at 8 and leave by 5. But this is not enforced. Many night owls only arrive by 11 or 12 and leave later or leave by 3 or 4 and continue work from home at their time. Leadership just needs to be flexible enough.
snegu 6y ago
I think the biggest issue is that you need to live near your office. This usually means you have to spend a lot more on housing than you would otherwise. This is why I went remote - we couldn't afford any houses near my workplace.
treis 6y ago
WFO nickels and dimes you on equipment. I can bill out 300k in hours a year but getting a company to spend $1,000 on monitors, chair, keyboard, etc. is like pulling teeth. They expect me to work on a 14" laptop and maybe an external monitor. At home I can use my setup.
- perryizgr8 6y ago
  If I'm WFH why should I spend my money and use my equipment to work? I have a large gaming monitor, why should my company expect everyone to make similar purchases to be able to work properly? In office even though companies are miserly, they do provide a baseline of equipment that is good enough for most people.

ksk 6y ago

More companies would adopt WFH if they see the success (primarily economically) of other companies who adopt it. Its really as simple as that. Why would any company want to rent expensive commercial real-estate and other overhead if the end result was _worse_ for their bottom line. Personally, I believe that WFO is still the better way to function. Human collaboration is tied in closely with pre-existing conventions, using multiple modes of communication, and building camaraderie. I think its clear that conventions and ritualistic practices help a ton with social cohesion. Also we use multiple methods to communicate our ideas and feelings - verbal, non-verbal, physical, non-physical, facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. Someone punching the air when they've solved a hard problem, or some co-worker who isn't on your team that you only occasionally meet, excitedly telling you a fun story about their vacation or whatever. There is tons of communication that happens between humans in an office that is difficult if not impossible to replicate in a WFH environment. As a society, I think we'd be poorer for that if we lose it.