5 ms·

I appreciate your opinion, but you use words like "impose"/"force" and bring up prison. You have the choice to choose your own employer and if you don't like t

I appreciate your opinion, but you use words like "impose"/"force" and bring up prison. You have the choice to choose your own employer and if you don't like the terms, the choice to leave. A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from employees after being asked to go back into the office a bit absurd.

kelnos 5y ago
> You have the choice to choose your own employer and if you don't like the terms, the choice to leave. That assumes two things: 1) That a company exists that will grant you your (let's presume reasonable) terms, and 2) That there are enough companies accepting those terms such that there are enough jobs available for everyone who wants those terms. My ideal job would be a part-time gig where I get the benefits of a full-time gig (health insurance, 401k, equity, etc.), but can choose my hours (essentially 100% flexibly), perhaps with some sort of weekly minimum, and get paid by the number of hours worked. It would be fully remote, and I could work from wherever I want. But there are very few companies that will agree to terms like that (maybe even no companies), even though I'd be just as (probably more) productive than their "standard" full-time employees. > A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from employees after being asked to go back into the office a bit absurd. It's not absurd, it's people who have traditionally been on the bad end of a power imbalance (employees) finally getting the flexibility they've always wanted, proving that they can be just as productive that way, and then being pissed off that employers are requiring them to go back into the office for little reason other than management's desire to control their employees' lives. And it's really funny that you find that absurd, because many of them are doing exactly what you claim they should do: leave and find a different employer that will accept their terms. Post-pandemic there are a lot more employers that will accept flexible/remote work arrangements than there were previously, and employers that are requiring employees to come back to the office are going to lose some talent.
- dbrueck 5y ago
  That ideal job can exist, though you may have to create the company yourself (that's what I ended up doing). We were very small (5-7 people) and thought it'd be fun to try out different forms of compensation, so after some experimentation we settled on: - very healthy hourly rate - min commit of X hours per month (I think it was 80), then work as few or as many as you want beyond that (though for planning purposes we'd often ask people to give us a rough idea of their plans for the next few weeks) - various bonuses that would kick in when the group reached different milestones each month (this was a consulting company, so a lot of them revolved around billable hours) - no additional paid benefits at all That last one took the most time for people to get on board with initially, but ultimately proved to be really popular. I think it had to do with how entrenched the mindset is around the norm, but concepts like getting paid even though you're not working, or having your employer be involved with your health insurance are pretty odd if you think about it. Things like sick leave, paid time off, etc. are also things that look nice on paper but IMO tend to be a net loss for employees - they tend to be assigned inflated values by the companies and are used as leverage against employees.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
That is what is happening. People talking about it with their employers before bouncing is not that surprising, especially in a situation that is in flux.
gravypod 5y ago
Some light game theory to add to this discussion.... > A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from employees after being asked to go back into the office a bit absurd. For all of the negative stuff coming from people who do not want to return to an office I find one thing in common: they all usually really like their company and job. While "If you don't like it, leave" is the reality of the situation it doesn't change that this is somewhat irrational behavior. It is the {CEO, Boss, Manager}'s decision as to who gets to work remote obviously. That's the power dynamic at hand. However, if you think of this in any other situation you can see that there's something about remote work that makes some managers loose their cool. Imagine employees saying this: 1. I have back pain and if I had an (ergonomic chair|standing desk) I'd be able to work for longer without getting up and walking around. This would make me more productive. 2. The coffee machine makes bad coffee and everyone walks to the coffee shop across the street 3 times a day. If we just got good grinds and a machine in the office we'd all save money and we'd save ~1hr/day/engineer on context switching for coffee. A {CEO, Boss, Manager) has every right to say: "If you don't like your (coffee|desk|chair) then you can leave" but they are obviously acting pretty childish here. If you look at all of these situations logically you're looking for a small input effort for a large continuous return on investment. If you add into the fact that myself, and many others, think working from home makes us MUCH more productive you can arrive at the following conclusions: 1. We are not more productive, we just think we are. 2. We are more productive, and we commute less (save money + sanity). If we think out this decision matrix: - Employee + !Productive, Boss + WFH: the employee is no more productive - maybe even slightly less productive - and this comes up in their performance reviews and they're asked to come back to the office. The employee will probably see that WFH does not work for them if this performance review is fair (ex not "You called into the meeting but since you didn't come in person you were obviously not listening as well"). - Employee + Productive, Boss + !WFH: The employee can quit and find a WFH company. The employee may be willing to accept *less* money and will produce *more* value for the new employer. This new employer now has a major leg up (in most industries) over the old employer. - Employee + !Productive, Boss + !WFH: The employee could still jump to another company for less wages at a lower output if WFH means a lot to them. - Employee + Productive, Boss + WFH: Company gains efficiency for no extra money. Employee is happier. In this chart we see in every situation except one the employee wins out over the company. In the situations in which the employer allows the employee to try WFH the employer wins out massively: their employee is either happy that they were given a chance or the company has found a way to make someone much more productive.

kelnos 5y ago

> You have the choice to choose your own employer and if you don't like the terms, the choice to leave. That assumes two things: 1) That a company exists that will grant you your (let's presume reasonable) terms, and 2) That there are enough companies accepting those terms such that there are enough jobs available for everyone who wants those terms. My ideal job would be a part-time gig where I get the benefits of a full-time gig (health insurance, 401k, equity, etc.), but can choose my hours (essentially 100% flexibly), perhaps with some sort of weekly minimum, and get paid by the number of hours worked. It would be fully remote, and I could work from wherever I want. But there are very few companies that will agree to terms like that (maybe even no companies), even though I'd be just as (probably more) productive than their "standard" full-time employees. > A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from employees after being asked to go back into the office a bit absurd. It's not absurd, it's people who have traditionally been on the bad end of a power imbalance (employees) finally getting the flexibility they've always wanted, proving that they can be just as productive that way, and then being pissed off that employers are requiring them to go back into the office for little reason other than management's desire to control their employees' lives. And it's really funny that you find that absurd, because many of them are doing exactly what you claim they should do: leave and find a different employer that will accept their terms. Post-pandemic there are a lot more employers that will accept flexible/remote work arrangements than there were previously, and employers that are requiring employees to come back to the office are going to lose some talent.

dbrueck 5y ago
That ideal job can exist, though you may have to create the company yourself (that's what I ended up doing). We were very small (5-7 people) and thought it'd be fun to try out different forms of compensation, so after some experimentation we settled on: - very healthy hourly rate - min commit of X hours per month (I think it was 80), then work as few or as many as you want beyond that (though for planning purposes we'd often ask people to give us a rough idea of their plans for the next few weeks) - various bonuses that would kick in when the group reached different milestones each month (this was a consulting company, so a lot of them revolved around billable hours) - no additional paid benefits at all That last one took the most time for people to get on board with initially, but ultimately proved to be really popular. I think it had to do with how entrenched the mindset is around the norm, but concepts like getting paid even though you're not working, or having your employer be involved with your health insurance are pretty odd if you think about it. Things like sick leave, paid time off, etc. are also things that look nice on paper but IMO tend to be a net loss for employees - they tend to be assigned inflated values by the companies and are used as leverage against employees.

lotsofpulp 5y ago

That is what is happening. People talking about it with their employers before bouncing is not that surprising, especially in a situation that is in flux.

gravypod 5y ago

Some light game theory to add to this discussion.... > A lot of people were hired on the condition of going into the office and I find it all the backlash from employees after being asked to go back into the office a bit absurd. For all of the negative stuff coming from people who do not want to return to an office I find one thing in common: they all usually really like their company and job. While "If you don't like it, leave" is the reality of the situation it doesn't change that this is somewhat irrational behavior. It is the {CEO, Boss, Manager}'s decision as to who gets to work remote obviously. That's the power dynamic at hand. However, if you think of this in any other situation you can see that there's something about remote work that makes some managers loose their cool. Imagine employees saying this: 1. I have back pain and if I had an (ergonomic chair|standing desk) I'd be able to work for longer without getting up and walking around. This would make me more productive. 2. The coffee machine makes bad coffee and everyone walks to the coffee shop across the street 3 times a day. If we just got good grinds and a machine in the office we'd all save money and we'd save ~1hr/day/engineer on context switching for coffee. A {CEO, Boss, Manager) has every right to say: "If you don't like your (coffee|desk|chair) then you can leave" but they are obviously acting pretty childish here. If you look at all of these situations logically you're looking for a small input effort for a large continuous return on investment. If you add into the fact that myself, and many others, think working from home makes us MUCH more productive you can arrive at the following conclusions: 1. We are not more productive, we just think we are. 2. We are more productive, and we commute less (save money + sanity). If we think out this decision matrix: - Employee + !Productive, Boss + WFH: the employee is no more productive - maybe even slightly less productive - and this comes up in their performance reviews and they're asked to come back to the office. The employee will probably see that WFH does not work for them if this performance review is fair (ex not "You called into the meeting but since you didn't come in person you were obviously not listening as well"). - Employee + Productive, Boss + !WFH: The employee can quit and find a WFH company. The employee may be willing to accept *less* money and will produce *more* value for the new employer. This new employer now has a major leg up (in most industries) over the old employer. - Employee + !Productive, Boss + !WFH: The employee could still jump to another company for less wages at a lower output if WFH means a lot to them. - Employee + Productive, Boss + WFH: Company gains efficiency for no extra money. Employee is happier. In this chart we see in every situation except one the employee wins out over the company. In the situations in which the employer allows the employee to try WFH the employer wins out massively: their employee is either happy that they were given a chance or the company has found a way to make someone much more productive.