10 ms·

I honestly don't know whether these articles are over-stating their case, and neither do I know how typical my own experience is, but for some reason it bothers

I honestly don't know whether these articles are over-stating their case, and neither do I know how typical my own experience is, but for some reason it bothers me that the tone of the HN discussion is so reflexively dismissive. I understand that a lot of people will respond to a question of whether they intend to quit their job with a 'you bet!' even at the best of times, but I'm seeing a lot of people quitting and switching right now, as different company plans are crystallized for the 'new normal'. In my current company (for another 2 months) I was interviewed to join a team of 12 tech developers, and a couple of months ago the first of the switchers quit to leave for another company specifically because they were guaranteeing remote-first work. Then another five of us quit over the following few weeks. We met up last week for a goodbye lunch in the park: half the team that I joined a year ago leaving the company over the Spring and Summer. Is a 50% quit-rate normal? Maybe each of us had slightly different priorities and plans for the future? But I do know for sure that people are reflecting more than I've ever experienced before, about their work environment, the balance in their lives, and prioritizing other things than 40-50 hours each week sitting in front of a screen, inside an office.

foobarian 5y ago
Interesting game-theoretic play: play chicken with return to work plans. Big co promises remote-first work indefinitely, scoops a bunch of talent from competitors who return to office first, then later go back on their word when nobody else is offering those terms. Even if some get to stay remote new hires may not be offered that. Corollary I guess is that some of us might be able to lock in a remote-only position if we act now.
- analognoise 5y ago
  As someone who wants to stay remote, this theory gave me anxiety.
  - dougmwne 5y ago
    It's not really realistic. Remote workers would often have no intention to relocate. If a company changes its policy later, the majority of those people will just quit. It would also create a ton of bad will and so there is no real advantage for a company to self-immolate like that. Hiring is hard, but a mass exodus of your best employees is harder.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  They could pull the same trick with pay, healthcare, or anything else they offer when their employees are starting. There's a reason they don't do that.
  - foobarian 5y ago
    They may not alter the existing terms but they could change future offers they make.
- slumdev 5y ago
  Requiring someone to come in to the office when it's been promised all along that he would be WFH permanently? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal
mdorazio 5y ago
I can only speak from personal experience, but fwiw I'm currently consulting with 2 non-tech Fortune 500 companies. Both have implemented "hybrid" return to office policies where employees have to live within 100 miles of the office and be able to come in 1 day a week or 1 day a month depending on team. I've talked with executives in charge of large teams at both companies about this issue and so far it looks like the actual resignation rate due to the policy is less than 10%. Hiring, on the other hand, has gotten significantly harder and candidates are citing need for wfh as a reason they're not interested in open roles. So, personally I think tech workers are overrepresented in the "wfh or quit" discussions, but there's a longer-term shift of some kind that's going to play out, especially in hiring.
- pjc50 5y ago
  > "hybrid" return to office policies where employees have to live within 100 miles of the office and be able to come in 1 day a week or 1 day a month depending on team. This is where I suspect a lot of places are going to end up in the medium term. I'm not back to the office in the first place, and I'm aware that I have a nice office and moderate commute, but I still want some wfh time, as well as some time seeing my colleagues. A balance. The problem is that in a hyper-optimizing environment balance is something to be eliminated.
  - Bishizel 5y ago
    The problem is that the req to live within 100mi doesn’t allow workers to fully engage in location arbitrage in the way the workers would like. I think most people want a better work/life balance, which is what all this ultimately represents. I imagine the eventual long term settle is somewhere more in the “wfh, but with team gatherings for a few days once a month” in a lot of industries.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      There is one exception to your location arbitrage: those who want a hobby farm. if you need to go to the office every day your hobby farm will be close to the city. If you only go in once a week a 1.5 hour drive doesn't sound so bad and you can move farther out meaning more land for the same number of people who want a horse or whatever. This is only a tiny subset of people though, and is more the exception that proves the rule.
redisman 5y ago
It’s also not just WFH. Covid made many people think hard about their lives with all the extra idle time they had and traumatic and world changing events tend to do that. I left my job in February because I realized I wasn’t happy and could do better. I had just slowly gotten used to the insanity but covid snapped me out of it
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
baby 5y ago
I know a bunch of FAANG people who left the bay and were not planning to go back to work. I asked if they would quit if they were forced and they said yes. Like they bought a house and shit.

foobarian 5y ago

Interesting game-theoretic play: play chicken with return to work plans. Big co promises remote-first work indefinitely, scoops a bunch of talent from competitors who return to office first, then later go back on their word when nobody else is offering those terms. Even if some get to stay remote new hires may not be offered that. Corollary I guess is that some of us might be able to lock in a remote-only position if we act now.

analognoise 5y ago
As someone who wants to stay remote, this theory gave me anxiety.
- dougmwne 5y ago
  It's not really realistic. Remote workers would often have no intention to relocate. If a company changes its policy later, the majority of those people will just quit. It would also create a ton of bad will and so there is no real advantage for a company to self-immolate like that. Hiring is hard, but a mass exodus of your best employees is harder.
whatshisface 5y ago
They could pull the same trick with pay, healthcare, or anything else they offer when their employees are starting. There's a reason they don't do that.
- foobarian 5y ago
  They may not alter the existing terms but they could change future offers they make.
slumdev 5y ago
Requiring someone to come in to the office when it's been promised all along that he would be WFH permanently? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal

mdorazio 5y ago

I can only speak from personal experience, but fwiw I'm currently consulting with 2 non-tech Fortune 500 companies. Both have implemented "hybrid" return to office policies where employees have to live within 100 miles of the office and be able to come in 1 day a week or 1 day a month depending on team. I've talked with executives in charge of large teams at both companies about this issue and so far it looks like the actual resignation rate due to the policy is less than 10%. Hiring, on the other hand, has gotten significantly harder and candidates are citing need for wfh as a reason they're not interested in open roles. So, personally I think tech workers are overrepresented in the "wfh or quit" discussions, but there's a longer-term shift of some kind that's going to play out, especially in hiring.

pjc50 5y ago
> "hybrid" return to office policies where employees have to live within 100 miles of the office and be able to come in 1 day a week or 1 day a month depending on team. This is where I suspect a lot of places are going to end up in the medium term. I'm not back to the office in the first place, and I'm aware that I have a nice office and moderate commute, but I still want some wfh time, as well as some time seeing my colleagues. A balance. The problem is that in a hyper-optimizing environment balance is something to be eliminated.
- Bishizel 5y ago
  The problem is that the req to live within 100mi doesn’t allow workers to fully engage in location arbitrage in the way the workers would like. I think most people want a better work/life balance, which is what all this ultimately represents. I imagine the eventual long term settle is somewhere more in the “wfh, but with team gatherings for a few days once a month” in a lot of industries.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    There is one exception to your location arbitrage: those who want a hobby farm. if you need to go to the office every day your hobby farm will be close to the city. If you only go in once a week a 1.5 hour drive doesn't sound so bad and you can move farther out meaning more land for the same number of people who want a horse or whatever. This is only a tiny subset of people though, and is more the exception that proves the rule.

redisman 5y ago

It’s also not just WFH. Covid made many people think hard about their lives with all the extra idle time they had and traumatic and world changing events tend to do that. I left my job in February because I realized I wasn’t happy and could do better. I had just slowly gotten used to the insanity but covid snapped me out of it

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

baby 5y ago

I know a bunch of FAANG people who left the bay and were not planning to go back to work. I asked if they would quit if they were forced and they said yes. Like they bought a house and shit.