8 ms·

It’s also awful timing. After what, 18 months of productive WFH now they want to cut salary?

chitowneats 5y ago
If Google felt that WFH had no negative effect on productivity, they could go the route of Twitter and others. The C-level clearly disagrees that this arrangement is ideal for the company, and are disincentivizing it with pay cuts.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  I think that the c suite makes these decisions on a much more emotional basis than they let on. Honestly, I think they’re sad seeing their big, expensive office spaces not being fully utilized, and want to be able around and physically see workers working.
  - HumblyTossed 5y ago
    Current management practices are very inefficient. When not actively engaging with subordinates, most of the rest of their time is finger fiddling (meetings and what-not with other managers and such take up the remainder of their time, but those meetings themselves are usually not as productive as they would let on). They need subs in seats or they'll have to admit how inefficient their job is.
- 52-6F-62 5y ago
  Are you sure it's that simple? Google was previously known in the wider world for imposing longer than average work days under the guise of "you love it here at the office we have pingpong and rock climbing". It wasn't about extracting productivity, it was about imposing culture.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    Given what we know about longer hours and productivity, plus Google’s low retention figures, I’m going to go with the latter.
    - arebop 5y ago
      What do we know about Google's retention figures?
      - steelframe 5y ago
        I'd like to know that too. Anecdotally, in the past 6 months 7 people I've previously worked with on projects at Google left after having been there about 10 years.
        ghaff 5y ago
        I don't know how good the data out there is but the meme seems to be that people are moving around a lot right now. Certainly I've seen a disproportionate number of long term employees I know deciding to either retire or switch jobs.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        Can’t speak post Covid, but last time I checked they weren’t terribly impressive. IIRC the median was 1.1 years. Facebook usually tops the FAANG charts for retention, but the numbers still aren’t great.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    > Google was previously known in the wider world for imposing longer than average work days under the guise of "you love it here at the office we have pingpong and rock climbing". Honesty, in my experience this impression is just desperate cope from people with worse work environments. My time at Google was the easiest/most relaxing of my career by far. Hell, that's why I left. But whenever people would ask me about all the flashy perks and I'd confirm we had them, 100% of the time they'd follow up by _telling_ me (not asking): "they work you like a dog though". It was an early and dramatic lesson in how powerfully people are chained to the just-world fallacy: their emotional incontinence was severe enough that it literally prevented them from conceiving of a work environment that was simply more pleasant than theirs. Google's perk-filled environment doesn't need to be explained by anything but golden handcuffs + productivity boosts from having recreation/convenience onsite.
    - 52-6F-62 5y ago
      Hey hey—I didn't say one way or the other whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. But I've been in and out of Google (Waterloo). They were there long, long hours often. Just the same, people seemed happy and fulfilled. I don't think I would be—I covet my time. But I recognize that it wasn't designed around me, so whatever. It's a fact of the process though: Google wanted people in the office longer, so they installed resources to keep people in the office longer. In that way, it's not overly surprising to me that they're trying to get people back into the office. Similarly with Apple: they didn't build that big fancy ring for nothing.
      - guyzero 5y ago
        Depending which team you're on, just work west coast hours from Waterloo. No one will notice.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - wutbrodo 5y ago
        > Hey hey—I didn't say one way or the other whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. But I've been in and out of Google (Waterloo). They were there long, long hours often. Just the same, people seemed happy and fulfilled. "Imposing" in your original comment is doing a lot of work here. Creating an environment that benefits your employees and allows them to be happier, more fulfilled, _and_ more productive doesn't quite fit the framing of being "imposed" upon. You could just as well say that companies who allow remote work are "imposing" longer hours/more productivity on those for whom a flexible schedule is a better fit. But that renders the point meaningless.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Imposing culture and keeping people around at all hours was in the service of company productivity. At least that is their philosophy. It really is that simple.
    - 52-6F-62 5y ago
      > in the service of company productivity This is the only thing I question, given the mix of data suggesting the opposite is true. Stanford ran a project about it some time ago: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/crunchmode/econ-hours-productivity.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/crunc... That may boil down to execution, though. That project emerged out of pretty scathing posts from the boiler room programming environments of EA. I'm pretty confident Google operates very differently, and probably learned from those calamities.
    - igetspam 5y ago
      I can confirm that we happily worked nitty days for a very long time and the perks helped keep us happy and sane. After some number of years though, your personal well of energy starts to dry up and no amount of weird crap in a fridge is going to solve it. We were very productive until that point though.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      I doubt it. We know that over work reduces creativity and productivity. Hell, as an outsider you can practically see this in what Google offers; they’ve totally lost their way and keep rehashing the same products in repeatedly inferior ways. Rather, I think that they feel that it’s more productive or that it gives them more control. Neither of which is a rational argument
- echelon 5y ago
  Really ironic given how Google isn't innovating anymore (relative to their market cap). I'd argue the company itself isn't very productive and is just treading water with its ridiculously profitable cash cow and moat. That's a C-suite bug.
  - _huayra_ 5y ago
    Given the fact that they can't even put together a decent chat application it's pretty embarrassing. Hangouts was bereft of features, and the new Chat replacement adds a few more features only to be incredibly slow. Progress? Nope. Most people I know at G are working on something related to the cash cow of "spying on people to sell them more stuff better". The number of folks working on actual hard problems seems to be very slim, though highly publicized.
  - stackbutterflow 5y ago
    One might wonder whether google employees are even creating value at this point or if they are just burning cash. What was the last product launched by Google that was a success? Which Google product hasn't gotten worse in the last 10 years? Gmail, google search, the 50 flavors of google chat, youtube, all were better 10 years ago. Maps stayed the same which is an achievement compared to any other Google products.
- mgkimsal 5y ago
  maybe it's OK in the short term - they can keep the lights on keep current initiatives going - but it might have an impact on the process for developing new strategic initiatives. people can be 'productive' in one sense, but it might still be in the interest of the company to have some class of workers 'on site' vs WFH as a default. I'm not saying this is definitely the case in google's situation, just... "effect on productivity" is hard to measure, and may have more than one measurement.
- ascar 5y ago
  I think people overestimate the short term impact of C-levels in these giant organizations. Google isn't run like a startup anymore. There is an existing compensation structure at place that pays employees differently based on the location they are working in. The HR and legal department has probably a pretty firm stance on assuring these structures are applied fairly and unequivocally. And if the C-suit is presented the options of cutting pay of some or raising pay of many others, we all know what a business would go for.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  You're wasting your breath. It took me many years to reach this conclusion, but HN threads about Google are the official meeting place of people bitter about their failed interviews. Just look around this thread to see how wild-eyed and frothing the conspiracy theories can get
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    For the record, I passed my Google interview, and they demanded that I move to NYC which I was unwilling to do. I ended up taking other work, and haven’t bothered with them since. So perhaps don’t jump to conclusions, especially when you’re doing it to impugn other people. It’s a bad look.
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      > So perhaps don’t jump to conclusions, especially when you’re doing it to impugn other people. It’s a bad look. I 100% don't doubt that there are individual people here that have irrational feelings about Google for reasons other than the one I mentioned, or that have rational-but-uncharitable feelings about them. I'm not even particularly bothered by the target: Google in 2021 has a mountain of things to answer for that I think it deserves very harsh criticism for. But the collective IQ of HN drops about 30 points whenever they come up, far beyond the level of the general anti-big-tech attitude you generally see here. The amount of circular reasoning and comments that don't stand up to a second's scrutiny is palpably higher than in the average HN thread, and over the last almost-decade of observing this fascinating dynamic, the one constant I've noticed has been a deep and abiding bitterness. Contrast this with, say, Facebook: while they get plenty of HN hate, it's of the same type that you find anywhere, and lacks a lot of the pitiful contortions you find HNers squeezing themselves into on the topic of Google.
- p_j_w 5y ago
  The C-level have had months to prepare and show data about productivity dropping and have, so far, refused to do so. At this point, they can put up or shut up. I refuse to just believe them because they say so.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    The empty platitudes of “we work better together” is a giveaway that they don’t have that data.
sdevonoes 5y ago
Why wouldn't they? Any "sane" company out there will cut your salary as soon as they find a good excuse to do so. Working from home VS working from the office is the perfect excuse. Productivity doesn't matter because if you go below the minimum bar, you are lay off.
- paulgb 5y ago
  This might be a good heuristic if we were talking about a factory job, but this is a job at a tech company. Competition for talent is pretty fierce, a good enough reason not to cut someone's salary is that it's likely they can go elsewhere and make what they're making now, plus a signing bonus.
  - sdevonoes 5y ago
    I used to believe the tech industry was better than other industries. > Competition for talent is pretty fierce, a good enough reason not to cut someone's salary is that it's likely they can go elsewhere and make what they're making now, plus a signing bonus I really hope that scenario will happen. IT companies tend to repeat what Google, Amazon, and other tech giants do; so I expect most IT companies will follow Google regarding the topic we are discussing here. I hope am wrong.
  - Frost1x 5y ago
    Less the costs of transferring jobs. The industry has done everything in its power to try and retain people through disincentives (interview processes, on boarding process, expectations of often absurd spinup to productivity times, etc.) while not focusing on the incentives (increased pay, more time off, better work life balance, etc.). All of this, acting as sort of collusion agreement proxy to reduce poaching across the industry, makes it less attractive to jump ship and businesses know that. Spending the time to update my resume, market it a bit, deal with a mixture of mostly sweatshops with some reasonable employers mixed in, and a few actual good employers hiring processes (recruiter spam, LC gauntlets, full day technical interviews) and often employers expecting you to clairvoyantly know their idiosyncrasies (internal infrastructure, business processes, pre-existing code bases and dozens of arbitrary dependencies they chose and worked with for years)--all of which businesses pretend aren't costs and externalize on employees, makes it less attractive. Let's add in the mix of normal/traditional job switches: meeting and meshing with new coworkers, changing your commute which may not be insignificant, overhead of switching and moving your benefits packages around, delays for building/taking time off, new uncertainties/risks about stability, etc. and suddenly, that sign-on bonus with the near same package doesn't look so attractive. Anymore, for me to even consider jumping ship I'd need a pretty hefty sign-on bonus just to deal with the rest that will turn into lost personal time and stress. I really need a significant TC bump and hopefully, better work/life balance and/or a combination of my current employer TC degrading due to increased demand, hours, stress, stagnant growth, etc. otherwise, industry has created so many disincentive barriers that I'll stay where I am. Maybe it's not as tiresome/costly for some, but it certainly is for me.
washadjeffmad 5y ago
People collectively don't seem to know how to value their labor. If anything, they should argue for a pay increase to offset the costs Google is externalizing in utilities, on-site benefits, need for security, food, space, etc. If Google is progressive, they should buck the trend and do something like build sound-proof office-apartments that employees can hotel in for a few days at a time, and allow children. That would be worth a 10% "pay cut" to at least some of the people they want to remain on site. We're in a new world. There's no reason to make employees suffer because someone did things a certain way a generation or two ago.
- igetspam 5y ago
  Came here looking for this. Back in my G days, before they were the high paying behemoth they are now, there were regular complaints about compensation. The first corporate response was absolutely tone-deaf. They created a tool for you to see your total compensation that included all-in values like on-site amenities. The natural response was one of unhappiness and people requesting to opt out of eating at work and promising to never use the laundry facilities or the gym or many of the other bits of bait they use to lure new grads. The next response came much later and it was a broad leveling of pay. Obviously the second pass was better. Alphabet will save a lot of money by not having so many warm bodies in the office. They eat less, they poop less, they generate less heat and make the AC work better, they require fewer support staff to be in the buildings, etc. Reducing pay because you're using fewer company paid resources is just as tone-deaf as that first try.
  - steelframe 5y ago
    > they poop less I worked at Google for about 10 years. Never having to hunt for an open bathroom stall while under a certain degree of physiological distress has perhaps been the greatest benefit to WFH for me.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Alphabet made the calculation a long time ago that paying for you to poop in the building is a rounding error compared to the extra productivity doing so allows them to squeeze out of you. That hasn't changed and it's unclear to me why the pandemic would change it.
silicon2401 5y ago
Companies are finally accepting that covid is here to stay and they're adjusting their game plan accordingly. The laid-back attitude was a PR stunt to look cool and caring. With things still getting worse, it's clear that this isn't going to end soon, so companies are going to drop the nice guy act and revert to the usual expectation of "in-office, heads-down, do what it takes to make that happen"

If Google felt that WFH had no negative effect on productivity, they could go the route of Twitter and others. The C-level clearly disagrees that this arrangement is ideal for the company, and are disincentivizing it with pay cuts.

ashtonkem 5y ago
I think that the c suite makes these decisions on a much more emotional basis than they let on. Honestly, I think they’re sad seeing their big, expensive office spaces not being fully utilized, and want to be able around and physically see workers working.
- HumblyTossed 5y ago
  Current management practices are very inefficient. When not actively engaging with subordinates, most of the rest of their time is finger fiddling (meetings and what-not with other managers and such take up the remainder of their time, but those meetings themselves are usually not as productive as they would let on). They need subs in seats or they'll have to admit how inefficient their job is.
52-6F-62 5y ago
Are you sure it's that simple? Google was previously known in the wider world for imposing longer than average work days under the guise of "you love it here at the office we have pingpong and rock climbing". It wasn't about extracting productivity, it was about imposing culture.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  Given what we know about longer hours and productivity, plus Google’s low retention figures, I’m going to go with the latter.
  - arebop 5y ago
    What do we know about Google's retention figures?
    - steelframe 5y ago
      I'd like to know that too. Anecdotally, in the past 6 months 7 people I've previously worked with on projects at Google left after having been there about 10 years.
      - ghaff 5y ago
        I don't know how good the data out there is but the meme seems to be that people are moving around a lot right now. Certainly I've seen a disproportionate number of long term employees I know deciding to either retire or switch jobs.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      Can’t speak post Covid, but last time I checked they weren’t terribly impressive. IIRC the median was 1.1 years. Facebook usually tops the FAANG charts for retention, but the numbers still aren’t great.
- wutbrodo 5y ago
  > Google was previously known in the wider world for imposing longer than average work days under the guise of "you love it here at the office we have pingpong and rock climbing". Honesty, in my experience this impression is just desperate cope from people with worse work environments. My time at Google was the easiest/most relaxing of my career by far. Hell, that's why I left. But whenever people would ask me about all the flashy perks and I'd confirm we had them, 100% of the time they'd follow up by _telling_ me (not asking): "they work you like a dog though". It was an early and dramatic lesson in how powerfully people are chained to the just-world fallacy: their emotional incontinence was severe enough that it literally prevented them from conceiving of a work environment that was simply more pleasant than theirs. Google's perk-filled environment doesn't need to be explained by anything but golden handcuffs + productivity boosts from having recreation/convenience onsite.
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    Hey hey—I didn't say one way or the other whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. But I've been in and out of Google (Waterloo). They were there long, long hours often. Just the same, people seemed happy and fulfilled. I don't think I would be—I covet my time. But I recognize that it wasn't designed around me, so whatever. It's a fact of the process though: Google wanted people in the office longer, so they installed resources to keep people in the office longer. In that way, it's not overly surprising to me that they're trying to get people back into the office. Similarly with Apple: they didn't build that big fancy ring for nothing.
    - guyzero 5y ago
      Depending which team you're on, just work west coast hours from Waterloo. No one will notice.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - wutbrodo 5y ago
      > Hey hey—I didn't say one way or the other whether it was a good thing or a bad thing. But I've been in and out of Google (Waterloo). They were there long, long hours often. Just the same, people seemed happy and fulfilled. "Imposing" in your original comment is doing a lot of work here. Creating an environment that benefits your employees and allows them to be happier, more fulfilled, _and_ more productive doesn't quite fit the framing of being "imposed" upon. You could just as well say that companies who allow remote work are "imposing" longer hours/more productivity on those for whom a flexible schedule is a better fit. But that renders the point meaningless.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Imposing culture and keeping people around at all hours was in the service of company productivity. At least that is their philosophy. It really is that simple.
  - 52-6F-62 5y ago
    > in the service of company productivity This is the only thing I question, given the mix of data suggesting the opposite is true. Stanford ran a project about it some time ago: https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/crunchmode/econ-hours-productivity.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/crunc... That may boil down to execution, though. That project emerged out of pretty scathing posts from the boiler room programming environments of EA. I'm pretty confident Google operates very differently, and probably learned from those calamities.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    I can confirm that we happily worked nitty days for a very long time and the perks helped keep us happy and sane. After some number of years though, your personal well of energy starts to dry up and no amount of weird crap in a fridge is going to solve it. We were very productive until that point though.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    I doubt it. We know that over work reduces creativity and productivity. Hell, as an outsider you can practically see this in what Google offers; they’ve totally lost their way and keep rehashing the same products in repeatedly inferior ways. Rather, I think that they feel that it’s more productive or that it gives them more control. Neither of which is a rational argument
echelon 5y ago
Really ironic given how Google isn't innovating anymore (relative to their market cap). I'd argue the company itself isn't very productive and is just treading water with its ridiculously profitable cash cow and moat. That's a C-suite bug.
- _huayra_ 5y ago
  Given the fact that they can't even put together a decent chat application it's pretty embarrassing. Hangouts was bereft of features, and the new Chat replacement adds a few more features only to be incredibly slow. Progress? Nope. Most people I know at G are working on something related to the cash cow of "spying on people to sell them more stuff better". The number of folks working on actual hard problems seems to be very slim, though highly publicized.
- stackbutterflow 5y ago
  One might wonder whether google employees are even creating value at this point or if they are just burning cash. What was the last product launched by Google that was a success? Which Google product hasn't gotten worse in the last 10 years? Gmail, google search, the 50 flavors of google chat, youtube, all were better 10 years ago. Maps stayed the same which is an achievement compared to any other Google products.
mgkimsal 5y ago
maybe it's OK in the short term - they can keep the lights on keep current initiatives going - but it might have an impact on the process for developing new strategic initiatives. people can be 'productive' in one sense, but it might still be in the interest of the company to have some class of workers 'on site' vs WFH as a default. I'm not saying this is definitely the case in google's situation, just... "effect on productivity" is hard to measure, and may have more than one measurement.
ascar 5y ago
I think people overestimate the short term impact of C-levels in these giant organizations. Google isn't run like a startup anymore. There is an existing compensation structure at place that pays employees differently based on the location they are working in. The HR and legal department has probably a pretty firm stance on assuring these structures are applied fairly and unequivocally. And if the C-suit is presented the options of cutting pay of some or raising pay of many others, we all know what a business would go for.
wutbrodo 5y ago
You're wasting your breath. It took me many years to reach this conclusion, but HN threads about Google are the official meeting place of people bitter about their failed interviews. Just look around this thread to see how wild-eyed and frothing the conspiracy theories can get
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  For the record, I passed my Google interview, and they demanded that I move to NYC which I was unwilling to do. I ended up taking other work, and haven’t bothered with them since. So perhaps don’t jump to conclusions, especially when you’re doing it to impugn other people. It’s a bad look.
  - wutbrodo 5y ago
    > So perhaps don’t jump to conclusions, especially when you’re doing it to impugn other people. It’s a bad look. I 100% don't doubt that there are individual people here that have irrational feelings about Google for reasons other than the one I mentioned, or that have rational-but-uncharitable feelings about them. I'm not even particularly bothered by the target: Google in 2021 has a mountain of things to answer for that I think it deserves very harsh criticism for. But the collective IQ of HN drops about 30 points whenever they come up, far beyond the level of the general anti-big-tech attitude you generally see here. The amount of circular reasoning and comments that don't stand up to a second's scrutiny is palpably higher than in the average HN thread, and over the last almost-decade of observing this fascinating dynamic, the one constant I've noticed has been a deep and abiding bitterness. Contrast this with, say, Facebook: while they get plenty of HN hate, it's of the same type that you find anywhere, and lacks a lot of the pitiful contortions you find HNers squeezing themselves into on the topic of Google.
p_j_w 5y ago
The C-level have had months to prepare and show data about productivity dropping and have, so far, refused to do so. At this point, they can put up or shut up. I refuse to just believe them because they say so.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  The empty platitudes of “we work better together” is a giveaway that they don’t have that data.

sdevonoes 5y ago

Why wouldn't they? Any "sane" company out there will cut your salary as soon as they find a good excuse to do so. Working from home VS working from the office is the perfect excuse. Productivity doesn't matter because if you go below the minimum bar, you are lay off.

paulgb 5y ago
This might be a good heuristic if we were talking about a factory job, but this is a job at a tech company. Competition for talent is pretty fierce, a good enough reason not to cut someone's salary is that it's likely they can go elsewhere and make what they're making now, plus a signing bonus.
- sdevonoes 5y ago
  I used to believe the tech industry was better than other industries. > Competition for talent is pretty fierce, a good enough reason not to cut someone's salary is that it's likely they can go elsewhere and make what they're making now, plus a signing bonus I really hope that scenario will happen. IT companies tend to repeat what Google, Amazon, and other tech giants do; so I expect most IT companies will follow Google regarding the topic we are discussing here. I hope am wrong.
- Frost1x 5y ago
  Less the costs of transferring jobs. The industry has done everything in its power to try and retain people through disincentives (interview processes, on boarding process, expectations of often absurd spinup to productivity times, etc.) while not focusing on the incentives (increased pay, more time off, better work life balance, etc.). All of this, acting as sort of collusion agreement proxy to reduce poaching across the industry, makes it less attractive to jump ship and businesses know that. Spending the time to update my resume, market it a bit, deal with a mixture of mostly sweatshops with some reasonable employers mixed in, and a few actual good employers hiring processes (recruiter spam, LC gauntlets, full day technical interviews) and often employers expecting you to clairvoyantly know their idiosyncrasies (internal infrastructure, business processes, pre-existing code bases and dozens of arbitrary dependencies they chose and worked with for years)--all of which businesses pretend aren't costs and externalize on employees, makes it less attractive. Let's add in the mix of normal/traditional job switches: meeting and meshing with new coworkers, changing your commute which may not be insignificant, overhead of switching and moving your benefits packages around, delays for building/taking time off, new uncertainties/risks about stability, etc. and suddenly, that sign-on bonus with the near same package doesn't look so attractive. Anymore, for me to even consider jumping ship I'd need a pretty hefty sign-on bonus just to deal with the rest that will turn into lost personal time and stress. I really need a significant TC bump and hopefully, better work/life balance and/or a combination of my current employer TC degrading due to increased demand, hours, stress, stagnant growth, etc. otherwise, industry has created so many disincentive barriers that I'll stay where I am. Maybe it's not as tiresome/costly for some, but it certainly is for me.

washadjeffmad 5y ago

People collectively don't seem to know how to value their labor. If anything, they should argue for a pay increase to offset the costs Google is externalizing in utilities, on-site benefits, need for security, food, space, etc. If Google is progressive, they should buck the trend and do something like build sound-proof office-apartments that employees can hotel in for a few days at a time, and allow children. That would be worth a 10% "pay cut" to at least some of the people they want to remain on site. We're in a new world. There's no reason to make employees suffer because someone did things a certain way a generation or two ago.

igetspam 5y ago
Came here looking for this. Back in my G days, before they were the high paying behemoth they are now, there were regular complaints about compensation. The first corporate response was absolutely tone-deaf. They created a tool for you to see your total compensation that included all-in values like on-site amenities. The natural response was one of unhappiness and people requesting to opt out of eating at work and promising to never use the laundry facilities or the gym or many of the other bits of bait they use to lure new grads. The next response came much later and it was a broad leveling of pay. Obviously the second pass was better. Alphabet will save a lot of money by not having so many warm bodies in the office. They eat less, they poop less, they generate less heat and make the AC work better, they require fewer support staff to be in the buildings, etc. Reducing pay because you're using fewer company paid resources is just as tone-deaf as that first try.
- steelframe 5y ago
  > they poop less I worked at Google for about 10 years. Never having to hunt for an open bathroom stall while under a certain degree of physiological distress has perhaps been the greatest benefit to WFH for me.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Alphabet made the calculation a long time ago that paying for you to poop in the building is a rounding error compared to the extra productivity doing so allows them to squeeze out of you. That hasn't changed and it's unclear to me why the pandemic would change it.

silicon2401 5y ago

Companies are finally accepting that covid is here to stay and they're adjusting their game plan accordingly. The laid-back attitude was a PR stunt to look cool and caring. With things still getting worse, it's clear that this isn't going to end soon, so companies are going to drop the nice guy act and revert to the usual expectation of "in-office, heads-down, do what it takes to make that happen"