3 ms·

This is what I came here to say. As usual, arguments (just in the general) are polarised: it’s either in the office 40 hours a week or work from a beach in Thai

This is what I came here to say. As usual, arguments (just in the general) are polarised: it’s either in the office 40 hours a week or work from a beach in Thailand and nothing in between. How about the sensible reality where we have an office, that we can get to, but we aren’t expected to turn up there every day just because? Where I work from home a few days a week to get that tricky stuff done – heaps harder in a distracting office – but then I go in a few days to connect with colleagues, catch up on the conversations, overhear things across the partition? This saves my sanity, money, and time, and saves my employer ~50% of their office space. Win-win, surely? (Not that I disagree with the sentiment that all processes should be made WFH-friendly. I think that’s very sensible. But it doesn’t mean that I necessarily must WFH the whole time.)

TACIXAT 6y ago
I believe their argument is that if you have one remote person you need to have a remote culture so that person is not left out of communications. If you rely on the office to communicate, a remote person is going to really miss out.
ghaff 6y ago
>saves my employer ~50% of their office space. Win-win, surely? Only if you hotel, which a lot of people don't want. In general, I agree with you. But if that's the norm it means people still need to live at least somewhat accessible to the office. For even one day per week, a 3 hour each way commute isn't really sustainable. And what if a team consists almost entirely of people who want to come in 3 or 4 days per week? They'll likely end up just ghosting the one person who will reluctantly drag themselves in 1 day per week.