4 ms·
This is my experience as well. Also the majority of 'remote' ads are only considering the US really, which is pretty tiresome to shift through. Then there are
by a_imho 5y ago
This is my experience as well. Also the majority of 'remote' ads are only considering the US really, which is pretty tiresome to shift through. Then there are the ads where in theory it is possible to hire someone remotely but they would rather have someone from nearby (I totally get this sentiment, but there should be a more useful term for this instead of remote), and last but not least the remote-as-in-cost-cutting (contractors, outsourcing) where the final offer will be considered not on the skills or value add you would bring to the table, but rather where on the map you are located at. There are still only a handful of companies looking for remote employees.
tldr; the revolution is still a bit further down the road
- ghaff 5y ago>a more useful term for this instead of remote Flex or hybrid seems to be most common. So can work from home some days but will come into the office, possibly on a schedule, on a fairly regular basis. (With the implication you need to be within some semblance of commuting distance.) Nothing wrong with that of course. Flexibility is good but it obviously has constraints that full remote doesn't.
- skeeter2020 5y agoThat's not what the GP is saying though; the employer is not offering a mix (which as what my team almost universally wants) but "we want someone local but will consider remote as a second-place option". The later is the worst scenario for remote as it says there are two classes of employees: co-located, then remote. In this case, RUN!