4 ms·
I’ve started to approach the remote/in-person discussion with the same thought process I use for planning/management, which is to say that it’s best to structur
by wjossey 6y ago
I’ve started to approach the remote/in-person discussion with the same thought process I use for planning/management, which is to say that it’s best to structure the process around the team, rather the team around the process.
What I mean by that is that for sufficiently large organizations, you can have options for folks. Some teams can be remote, hybrid, or in person. But make sure the teams understand what their structure is and have them build their processes and tools around that as appropriate. Then if you have an employee that wants to go remote, have them join one of the remote or hybrid teams. Have someone who wants to go to the office every day? Great, you can still be on a remote team, or here are the in person teams available to you as well (although realistically in person is preferred so you aren’t using up teleconference rooms unnecessarily).
For smaller companies, and as someone who started a remote first company in ‘17, it really needs to be an all or nothing. Being mixed creates weird dynamics on small teams, and it takes a lot of diligence to include the remote team members on off the cuff conversations.
I, for one, don’t plan on ever going back to an office full time. My wife and I just purchased our first home, and we bought a large enough place for two offices so we could both stay remote. We do multi generational living with my mom providing child care during the day, and a one year old running around like a banshee. It’s a really wonderful setup and I’m thankful to see so much of my son each day during these early years. No in person meetings come even remotely close to being as valuable as the time I get with him.
But, as with all things, these are just my $0.02. I get why there are varied opinions on this, and don’t begrudge companies that are going to ask everyone to go back in.
- maest 6y agoSounds like you should be willing to take a pay cut for the lifestyle you're enjoying
- kilolima 6y agoWhy should he take a pay cut? His employer no longer has to spend money for his use of office space. The costs associated with having an office have been externalized onto the employee. If anything, he should be paid more for saving his employer those costs.
- the-dude 6y agoWhat if the employer still has a multi-year lease?
- morlockabove 6y agoThen when the lease expires, they can downsize. Or if they're growing, they can not lease additional space when they otherwise would have.
- 908B64B197 6y agoHonestly if he's worried about that he's not making good enough margins. Just look at the profits per engineer at Facebook.
- bradleyjg 6y agoShould has nothing to do with it. Jobs that have non-monetary benefits, all other things held equal, have lower market clearing rates of pay. That could be job security, working with famous people, prestige, or in this case geographic flexibility.
- abnercoimbre 6y agoWhat is the idea behind getting paid less when working with famous people, or in a job that has prestige? That you can cash out on the side?
- bradleyjg 6y agoPeople just like those things, or at least enough do. There are lots of lawyers that want to wear a black robe, get called “your honor”, make decisions, being deferred to, and so on. So even though judges don’t make much money, comparatively speaking, there’s no shortage of people that want the job.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tomrod 6y agoThe employer shouldn't care what an employee does with their money. They should only care that they get the services rendered and requested.
- bradleyjg 6y agoBy that logic the employee shouldn’t care about anything other than the market rate, which is less for remote.
- mech422 6y agoMy last 3 remote gigs (2 of which were pre-covid) have all been at higher rates (over each other, and over prior on-site work). The 'you have to take less for remote' thing is by no means universal...
- pdimitar 6y agoThe statement that remote workers get paid less hasn't been true for me in the last 10 years.
- jgwil2 6y agoCitation?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tomrod 6y agoNo, because that ignores the savings the employer receives for not having to hotel the employee. But employees stioo have to ensure their working space. So remote==cheaper is not guaranteed.
- bradleyjg 6y agoWhy does that matter? You said the employer shouldn’t care what the employee does with their money. In that case, so too the employee shouldn’t care what the employer does with its money. Under that logic all that matters is the market clearing rate—-not savings or extra costs for either the employee or employer.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- lucidone 6y agoSure, and then I'll get a new job. Cuts both ways.
- pdimitar 6y agoWhat an extremely insensitive comment. I get money in return of delivering value, not to suffer.
- mathattack 6y agoI think you’re very right. One offs don’t work well, and the smaller the org, the more you need to be “All In” otherwise things done get documented and people get left out. The multigenerational thing looks like it will work well for all involved too.
- fancyfish 6y agoI’ve become a big fan of this multigenerational lifestyle which you’ve described, especially with remote work. You can truly have your cake and eat it too by having parents give free childcare during the workday. I have little ones running around like banshees also, and it really helps when my parents look after them 3-5 days per week so I can focus on work.