5 ms·

Some people like things. Some people don't like things. Can we just accept that different people are different and move on?

3gg 5y ago
As long as it gets you a blog post. Did you also notice how the TLDR is at the end of that whole rant?
- fma 5y ago
  Majority of the long posts I've seen on reddit have the tldr at the bottom...
  - 3gg 5y ago
    Looks like I got downvoted for not spending enough time on Reddit.
ev1 5y ago
The problem becomes when one group unilaterally attempts to force an [arguably bad for certain demographics and teams] choice without giving options. The way I see it the problem is that if you let people choose (no matter what, including 100% office or 100% remote), then it's fine.
- void_mint 5y ago
  Agreed.
- marto1 5y ago
  There is quite a serious problem with letting people choose - financial overhead. If we go back to pre-2020 the systems that needed to be maintained, e.g. office space, pipes, parking, etc. was a done deal. Since 2020 the lines are quite a bit more blurry so providing for employees at the same level would mean worst case scenario double the burden for the employer, because both options come with their own requirements. Then you could say - but hey now employers can just adjust the office space for a lower number of employees and we're good. Not really, though, because for one the efficiency of yesteryear came from buying up stuff/services in bulk with a fixed capacity - we don't have that now. Then there is training your managers to deal with a hybrid environment, new systems/software - all additional costs. My point is in a lot of cases maintaining options for people costs money/time/effort/opportunity for the provider. That's money that could have gone to your pocket. And note I'm not saying we're not going to have both options - just don't expect to live in a simpler, more cost efficient system.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bedobi 5y ago
Sounds reasonable but in practice it's a bit disingenuous to say that as the status quo is still that office is the default, often for no good reason.
Yhippa 5y ago
https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/ https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/
danjac 5y ago
The problem is when some people are managers and get to decide and some people are not.
vosper 5y ago
No, sadly I think we're going to get the endless "remote did/didn't work for me and that's why it's good/bad" posts every single time this is discussed here, forever.
- erik_seaberg 5y ago
  I think a lot of people are judging WFH by looking at the results of sudden unplanned WFH with no childcare and no coworking spaces/coffee shops/libraries.
beltsazar 5y ago
But some people like to discuss things that some people like but some people don't like. Actually, most things are not universally liked or disliked (except ice cream).
tonyedgecombe 5y ago
Some people don't like change. Some people thrive in one environment. Some in the opposite. Sometimes I even feel a little schadenfreude when my opposite claims they are suffering.

3gg 5y ago

As long as it gets you a blog post. Did you also notice how the TLDR is at the end of that whole rant?

fma 5y ago
Majority of the long posts I've seen on reddit have the tldr at the bottom...
- 3gg 5y ago
  Looks like I got downvoted for not spending enough time on Reddit.

ev1 5y ago

The problem becomes when one group unilaterally attempts to force an [arguably bad for certain demographics and teams] choice without giving options. The way I see it the problem is that if you let people choose (no matter what, including 100% office or 100% remote), then it's fine.

void_mint 5y ago
Agreed.
marto1 5y ago
There is quite a serious problem with letting people choose - financial overhead. If we go back to pre-2020 the systems that needed to be maintained, e.g. office space, pipes, parking, etc. was a done deal. Since 2020 the lines are quite a bit more blurry so providing for employees at the same level would mean worst case scenario double the burden for the employer, because both options come with their own requirements. Then you could say - but hey now employers can just adjust the office space for a lower number of employees and we're good. Not really, though, because for one the efficiency of yesteryear came from buying up stuff/services in bulk with a fixed capacity - we don't have that now. Then there is training your managers to deal with a hybrid environment, new systems/software - all additional costs. My point is in a lot of cases maintaining options for people costs money/time/effort/opportunity for the provider. That's money that could have gone to your pocket. And note I'm not saying we're not going to have both options - just don't expect to live in a simpler, more cost efficient system.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

bedobi 5y ago

Sounds reasonable but in practice it's a bit disingenuous to say that as the status quo is still that office is the default, often for no good reason.

Yhippa 5y ago

https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/ https://pbfcomics.com/comics/skub/

danjac 5y ago

The problem is when some people are managers and get to decide and some people are not.

vosper 5y ago

No, sadly I think we're going to get the endless "remote did/didn't work for me and that's why it's good/bad" posts every single time this is discussed here, forever.

erik_seaberg 5y ago
I think a lot of people are judging WFH by looking at the results of sudden unplanned WFH with no childcare and no coworking spaces/coffee shops/libraries.

beltsazar 5y ago

But some people like to discuss things that some people like but some people don't like. Actually, most things are not universally liked or disliked (except ice cream).

tonyedgecombe 5y ago

Some people don't like change. Some people thrive in one environment. Some in the opposite. Sometimes I even feel a little schadenfreude when my opposite claims they are suffering.