5 ms·

This article misinterpreted the survey. 91% of people don't want to work from home, 91% want it as an option, and that's only people who are currently working f

This article misinterpreted the survey. 91% of people don't want to work from home, 91% want it as an option, and that's only people who are currently working from home who used to not. 57% seems more accurate: "But once the crisis is over, most (57%) of those who were working before the outbreak and who intend to stay part of the workforce say they want to be able to continue working from home." Actual survey results: https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-reports/2020/09/22/most-workers-want-work-home-after-covid-19 https://yougov.co.uk/topics/economy/articles-reports/2020/09...

duxup 6y ago
I agree. I feel like there's a VERY important needle to thread here about what people mean by saying they "want to work from home". And that sentiment might also change post-COVID. I also wonder what this means for people who aren't in the best situation to work remotely.
- anewaccount2021 6y ago
  > what people mean by saying they "want to work from home". Its not complicated, "I", "want", "to", "work", "from", "home".
  - duxup 6y ago
    The parent to my comment indicated what the nuances are.
  - dang 6y ago
    "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
jrockway 6y ago
To me the concern here is that if a company offers working remotely as an option, remote workers will always be second-class citizens. (The bad habit of Slack DMs instead of conversations in a public channel is already pretty entrenched.) People that work in the office will have casual conversations that exclude people working remotely, and the remote workers will always be a little behind. I think for that reason that all or nothing is the most fair. (I wonder if giving people a coworking space for free is the answer to people that need to get away from home, which is a completely reasonable concern.)
- vp8989 6y ago
  I think all or nothing is not realistic for most companies unless the CEOs are very progressive and just deeply believe in it. A decent workaround is to have entirely remote teams and entirely in-office teams. That way people can be on teams where they feel like being remote is not a detriment to their careers (because ALL discussion takes place online) and people who prefer working in-person don't have to force everything onto Slack just to have the remote people feel included.
  - vineyardmike 6y ago
    At my company we’ve always had teams that appeared “all remote”. They just were teams not stationed in the HQ and they were clearly less important (or that was the vibe) and they were usually in a low COL country instead. The mix definitely will make a cohort of “second class citizens”
    - vp8989 6y ago
      Ye I totally get what you mean and I have observed this a lot too. I think for some people though, this might be an acceptable trade off (even temporarily) where they favor being able to WFH and not need to be tethered to train lines / highways for commuting over being "close to the action". If companies offered this trade off across the board it would be a good way to retain employees over the long term as your life situation changes (kids etc ...) you can kind still find a place at the same company that can accomodate the lifestyle you desire at that point in time.
    - pnutjam 6y ago
      On the flip side. I find that when people don't see me, they treat me better. I sound white and have a white name, but I'm brown and this seems to cause issues.
- carlisle_ 6y ago
  >People that work in the office will have casual conversations that exclude them, and they'll always be a little behind. My experience is that this behavior doesn't get translated to remote-only workplaces. Casual in-person conversation doesn't shift to chat platforms, it just happens less frequently. People being remote that miss out on office chit-chat aren't actually missing out on something if their coworkers can help it. I think these interactions are incredibly important for people who value them, and fear of "leaving out" remote workers isn't a very good reason to prevent them. The most effective workplaces I've been at that have had successful remote workers are the teams that try to consistently involve those people. It's not a set of rules or trainings that makes people do this, it's a mix of cultural values and individual conscientiousness.
dang 6y ago
Ok, we've changed the URL above from https://simon-moxon.medium.com/employers-will-have-no-choice-but-to-offer-an-option-for-remote-working-a38ea7fe9a9c https://simon-moxon.medium.com/employers-will-have-no-choice... to a (more recent) article about the YouGov poll.

duxup 6y ago

I agree. I feel like there's a VERY important needle to thread here about what people mean by saying they "want to work from home". And that sentiment might also change post-COVID. I also wonder what this means for people who aren't in the best situation to work remotely.

anewaccount2021 6y ago
> what people mean by saying they "want to work from home". Its not complicated, "I", "want", "to", "work", "from", "home".
- duxup 6y ago
  The parent to my comment indicated what the nuances are.
- dang 6y ago
  "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

jrockway 6y ago

To me the concern here is that if a company offers working remotely as an option, remote workers will always be second-class citizens. (The bad habit of Slack DMs instead of conversations in a public channel is already pretty entrenched.) People that work in the office will have casual conversations that exclude people working remotely, and the remote workers will always be a little behind. I think for that reason that all or nothing is the most fair. (I wonder if giving people a coworking space for free is the answer to people that need to get away from home, which is a completely reasonable concern.)

vp8989 6y ago
I think all or nothing is not realistic for most companies unless the CEOs are very progressive and just deeply believe in it. A decent workaround is to have entirely remote teams and entirely in-office teams. That way people can be on teams where they feel like being remote is not a detriment to their careers (because ALL discussion takes place online) and people who prefer working in-person don't have to force everything onto Slack just to have the remote people feel included.
- vineyardmike 6y ago
  At my company we’ve always had teams that appeared “all remote”. They just were teams not stationed in the HQ and they were clearly less important (or that was the vibe) and they were usually in a low COL country instead. The mix definitely will make a cohort of “second class citizens”
  - vp8989 6y ago
    Ye I totally get what you mean and I have observed this a lot too. I think for some people though, this might be an acceptable trade off (even temporarily) where they favor being able to WFH and not need to be tethered to train lines / highways for commuting over being "close to the action". If companies offered this trade off across the board it would be a good way to retain employees over the long term as your life situation changes (kids etc ...) you can kind still find a place at the same company that can accomodate the lifestyle you desire at that point in time.
  - pnutjam 6y ago
    On the flip side. I find that when people don't see me, they treat me better. I sound white and have a white name, but I'm brown and this seems to cause issues.
carlisle_ 6y ago
>People that work in the office will have casual conversations that exclude them, and they'll always be a little behind. My experience is that this behavior doesn't get translated to remote-only workplaces. Casual in-person conversation doesn't shift to chat platforms, it just happens less frequently. People being remote that miss out on office chit-chat aren't actually missing out on something if their coworkers can help it. I think these interactions are incredibly important for people who value them, and fear of "leaving out" remote workers isn't a very good reason to prevent them. The most effective workplaces I've been at that have had successful remote workers are the teams that try to consistently involve those people. It's not a set of rules or trainings that makes people do this, it's a mix of cultural values and individual conscientiousness.

dang 6y ago

Ok, we've changed the URL above from https://simon-moxon.medium.com/employers-will-have-no-choice-but-to-offer-an-option-for-remote-working-a38ea7fe9a9c https://simon-moxon.medium.com/employers-will-have-no-choice... to a (more recent) article about the YouGov poll.