4 ms·
The only difference being you could have that and others could have WFH? From what I see whenever this topic comes up, it seems that the only zealots are those
by hnedeotes 6y ago
The only difference being you could have that and others could have WFH?
From what I see whenever this topic comes up, it seems that the only zealots are those who want to work in the office. Remote working people are always more, "I work better this way, and you all can keep working as you prefer".
And, given the conditions you described most would be ok I guess. But, most don't have a 20min each way commute. Which then interferes with all the other points - seeing your children in the same vein as you do (if you have 1h or more of commute, you're going to miss the mornings and get home pretty much later, have less energy, etc), which also means you won't have the time to share on the home cooking (unless your partner does so and has a schedule that allows). You won't be cycling that distance either, instead you'll get a car, or public transportation. Running errands depends on the grace of your company, I'm sure many (and usually most where people are more inclined to work from home are exactly those where you won't be able to, either because the errands aren't geographically close enough or by office policy).
I do see value in in-person presence, be it for bonding, relaxing or discussing work, on the other hand, in terms of work I don't see why you would need 2 meetings and not a video call, or call, just as you could do over a coffee.
The other points about interaction, indeed, they have their own value.
- FlyingSnake 6y ago> you could have that and others could have WFH This is what I want in the end. Different people in different roles perform different operations, and unifying them under remote-only/office-only buckets is stupid. Finding acceptance for different view points is really hard these days.