4 ms·

That’s the plan! In order to do that though, there has to be some team which requires its members to show up (those who were remote during the pandemic, those w

That’s the plan! In order to do that though, there has to be some team which requires its members to show up (those who were remote during the pandemic, those who may wish to join later), which the parent feels is unfair. I think both our preferences are legitimate and people should be able to sort themselves into teams that suit their preferences. I understand people are distressed about commuting and the office. I’m also distressed about the prospect of spending the majority of my waking hours over the next 30 years on Zoom. If that’s the way things are shaping up I need to go be a farmer or something.

MaknMoreGtnLess 5y ago
> If that’s the way things are shaping up I need to go be a farmer or something. Is this something you entertain as an actual possibility or shudder to think about?
- closeparen 5y ago
  I knew I was meant to be a software engineer from about 9 years old until March 2020. I think I will code for the rest of my life. Hopefully I’ll find some way to collaborate in person with people about technical projects for the long haul. But I don’t know how many more videoconferences I can take. 5.5 hours of them today. Anything to make it stop.
Buttons840 5y ago
Just to be clear, I don't think it's always unfair for companies to require employees to "show up". I only think it is unfair if the only reason they are doing so is to satisfy the personal social needs of employees, because they are putting the personal needs of some employees above the personal needs of other employees.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > because they are putting the personal needs of some employees above the personal needs of other employees. If a company stays remote because you do not personally need social interaction at the office, what has just happened? Your personal needs have been put above the personal needs of other employees.
  - arubania2 5y ago
    I don’t think the parent was suggesting that companies stay remote _because_ the employees don’t need interaction. (IMO companies stay this way because it’s simply cheaper and the hiring pool is bigger, but that’s not important in this discussion) It just happens to benefit those whose prefer to stay at home.
    - paulcole 5y ago
      > the hiring pool is bigger In the US, this is only a benefit to bigger businesses or businesses with a presence in multiple states already (or those willing to take on quite a bit of new administrative work). I work for a 15-person remote company based in a single state and the additional overhead required to understand taxation, labor laws, and other issues in even neighboring states is higher than you might think. We're putting it off and just hiring locally for now.
      - midasuni 5y ago
        What do companies near the border do? If you are a small firm in NYC I can’t imagine it being unusual to employ people from NJ and Connecticut ad well as NY, and even further afield like PA. in Baltimore I can see you could have commuters from both virginias, Maryland, Delaware, Phillidelphoa, New Jersey and DC.
        jklein11 5y ago
        If you can’t afford to pay to work out all of that complexity you probably can’t afford to be based in NYC. You might be better off being located in one of the suburbs and pulling talent from only one of those states. Also there are probably a number of firms that specialize in dealing with that kind of situation so you can get outside help affordably.
        paulcole 5y ago
        I think NY,CT, NJ are some of the few states with a kind of reciprocity agreement in place that makes this a bit easier. I’m in Portland, OR and pre-pandemic, we’d have no issue hiring someone in Vancouver, WA, because they’d drive 15 minutes to our Portland office. Now, we choose to turn them away because of the bureaucracy and worry that we’re going to do something wrong. One day we’ll have to cross that (metaphorical/physical) bridge, but we’re not there quite yet. It’s really easy for big businesses that have big HR departments and/or already have a physical presence in another state. But for 15 people, one doing HR part-time, it’s just not worth it right now.
Lascaille 5y ago
>people should be able to sort themselves into teams that suit their preferences. The teams are going to be companies, in my opinion. There are going to be 'remote' companies and 'in person' companies. That's the only way this type of self-sorting will work, people won't join a company not knowing for sure whether they're committing to an in-person or remote working experience.
- jklein11 5y ago
  I disagree. I think this is going to be like other work life balance questions. Yes the tone is set from the top but each team is going to interact with each other in different ways. I think it will be difficult for an entire organization to make a hard and fast rule.
  - Lascaille 5y ago
    > I think it will be difficult for an entire organization to make a hard and fast rule. Thinking about it more, I guess you're right. There will always be sectors within organisations where it's considered that face-to-face meetings and working physically in the presence of other team members is necessary to make effective progress.

MaknMoreGtnLess 5y ago

> If that’s the way things are shaping up I need to go be a farmer or something. Is this something you entertain as an actual possibility or shudder to think about?

closeparen 5y ago
I knew I was meant to be a software engineer from about 9 years old until March 2020. I think I will code for the rest of my life. Hopefully I’ll find some way to collaborate in person with people about technical projects for the long haul. But I don’t know how many more videoconferences I can take. 5.5 hours of them today. Anything to make it stop.

Buttons840 5y ago

Just to be clear, I don't think it's always unfair for companies to require employees to "show up". I only think it is unfair if the only reason they are doing so is to satisfy the personal social needs of employees, because they are putting the personal needs of some employees above the personal needs of other employees.

paulcole 5y ago
> because they are putting the personal needs of some employees above the personal needs of other employees. If a company stays remote because you do not personally need social interaction at the office, what has just happened? Your personal needs have been put above the personal needs of other employees.
- arubania2 5y ago
  I don’t think the parent was suggesting that companies stay remote _because_ the employees don’t need interaction. (IMO companies stay this way because it’s simply cheaper and the hiring pool is bigger, but that’s not important in this discussion) It just happens to benefit those whose prefer to stay at home.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    > the hiring pool is bigger In the US, this is only a benefit to bigger businesses or businesses with a presence in multiple states already (or those willing to take on quite a bit of new administrative work). I work for a 15-person remote company based in a single state and the additional overhead required to understand taxation, labor laws, and other issues in even neighboring states is higher than you might think. We're putting it off and just hiring locally for now.
    - midasuni 5y ago
      What do companies near the border do? If you are a small firm in NYC I can’t imagine it being unusual to employ people from NJ and Connecticut ad well as NY, and even further afield like PA. in Baltimore I can see you could have commuters from both virginias, Maryland, Delaware, Phillidelphoa, New Jersey and DC.
      - jklein11 5y ago
        If you can’t afford to pay to work out all of that complexity you probably can’t afford to be based in NYC. You might be better off being located in one of the suburbs and pulling talent from only one of those states. Also there are probably a number of firms that specialize in dealing with that kind of situation so you can get outside help affordably.
      - paulcole 5y ago
        I think NY,CT, NJ are some of the few states with a kind of reciprocity agreement in place that makes this a bit easier. I’m in Portland, OR and pre-pandemic, we’d have no issue hiring someone in Vancouver, WA, because they’d drive 15 minutes to our Portland office. Now, we choose to turn them away because of the bureaucracy and worry that we’re going to do something wrong. One day we’ll have to cross that (metaphorical/physical) bridge, but we’re not there quite yet. It’s really easy for big businesses that have big HR departments and/or already have a physical presence in another state. But for 15 people, one doing HR part-time, it’s just not worth it right now.

Lascaille 5y ago

>people should be able to sort themselves into teams that suit their preferences. The teams are going to be companies, in my opinion. There are going to be 'remote' companies and 'in person' companies. That's the only way this type of self-sorting will work, people won't join a company not knowing for sure whether they're committing to an in-person or remote working experience.

jklein11 5y ago
I disagree. I think this is going to be like other work life balance questions. Yes the tone is set from the top but each team is going to interact with each other in different ways. I think it will be difficult for an entire organization to make a hard and fast rule.
- Lascaille 5y ago
  > I think it will be difficult for an entire organization to make a hard and fast rule. Thinking about it more, I guess you're right. There will always be sectors within organisations where it's considered that face-to-face meetings and working physically in the presence of other team members is necessary to make effective progress.