4 ms·

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

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.
- Buttons840 5y ago
  Fair point. One important difference is that my social needs can be met on my own, while others want to force me into an unpreferred situation to fulfill their own needs. There's a difference between "just let me work the way I want" and "just make them work the way I want". Ideally, those who want to work from an office could, while others on the same team could work from home, and everyone would be considerate enough to make it work. This is working well enough at my current company.
  - paulcole 5y ago
    > Ideally, those who want to work from an office could, while others on the same team could work from home, and everyone would be considerate enough to make it work. Again, this is putting the personal preferences of one group above those of another group. What you describe is only ideal if the office people don't mind working with the at-home people and vice versa. You don't have to be considerate of someone else's preferences if you're willing to leave for another job. Personally, the next job I have will be office only with 0 off-site employees. It's my preference and hopefully I'll find a company whose preference aligns with my own. Every decision a company makes treats people differently. The goal should be treating everyone fairly. If a person disagrees that they are being treated fairly, they can make their case and try to get something to change or they can get a new job.
  - closeparen 5y ago
    If you were to somehow do your work in a way that didn’t require me to join video calls with you, that would be fine. I find those calls as hellish as you find commuting or the city.

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.
Buttons840 5y ago
Fair point. One important difference is that my social needs can be met on my own, while others want to force me into an unpreferred situation to fulfill their own needs. There's a difference between "just let me work the way I want" and "just make them work the way I want". Ideally, those who want to work from an office could, while others on the same team could work from home, and everyone would be considerate enough to make it work. This is working well enough at my current company.
- paulcole 5y ago
  > Ideally, those who want to work from an office could, while others on the same team could work from home, and everyone would be considerate enough to make it work. Again, this is putting the personal preferences of one group above those of another group. What you describe is only ideal if the office people don't mind working with the at-home people and vice versa. You don't have to be considerate of someone else's preferences if you're willing to leave for another job. Personally, the next job I have will be office only with 0 off-site employees. It's my preference and hopefully I'll find a company whose preference aligns with my own. Every decision a company makes treats people differently. The goal should be treating everyone fairly. If a person disagrees that they are being treated fairly, they can make their case and try to get something to change or they can get a new job.
- closeparen 5y ago
  If you were to somehow do your work in a way that didn’t require me to join video calls with you, that would be fine. I find those calls as hellish as you find commuting or the city.