4 ms·

From your company's point of view, it's probably you who is ruining the situation, not them. It takes two sides to have a disagreement like that, and it's wron

From your company's point of view, it's probably you who is ruining the situation, not them. It takes two sides to have a disagreement like that, and it's wrong to portray it as though one side is responsible for ruining everything.

horns4lyfe 5y ago
Except on one side I have to either spend a high percentage of my waking life commuting or a huge portion of my income living close in a city in what’s probably not a great place to raise a family. On the other side, someone has to talk to me over a webcam. Which penalty is higher?
- blub 5y ago
  It's reasonable to ask to be able to work from home, but it's equally reasonable for the company to refuse the request. Going to a physical location to work is how things were done and continue to be done for most people on the planet. This is what you signed up for when you accepted the job; if you don't like that and the company does not allow you to work from home you always have the option of quitting and finding another job. You signed a contract and now want to force a renegotiation. That's not how things work.
  - jakupovic 5y ago
    >You signed a contract and now want to force a renegotiation This is exactly how things work. Contracts are renegotiated all the time and either of the parties can initiate it.
  - horns4lyfe 5y ago
    Of course the company has the option, that’s not the issue at hand. The issue is that the post above is equating being forced to work in an office with being forced to work with other employees that work from home, and it’s not a valid comparison.
unsui 5y ago
That's not quite true. WFH was instituted as an emergency response to COVID-19, thus it can't really be stated that employers forced WFH upon employees capriciously. Enlightened employers can and have seen the value of hybrid policies that take employee preferences into account: those who prefer at-office can choose to come in, and those who prefer remote can choose WFH. The disagreement is when an employer is unwilling to work with the employee to reach an understanding that benefits both mutually. Taken from the other perspective, were a company to become entirely remote, then it could be seen to ruin the relationship for employees who had wanted to come into the office. That is the case here: what is ruined is that no attempt has been made to reach a middle ground, whereby those who wish to remain at the office can do so, and those who prefer WFH can do so. It is this reluctance to appreciate the learnings from our collective covid experience: that WFH is a significant boon to a large percentage of employees, and indeed is a competitive advantage, that has ruined an otherwise wonderful working relationship with an employer. And thus, the only response is to look for employers who appreciate WFH as the competitive advantage it is.
walrus01 5y ago
Senior engineers at many companies were 95% WFH for years before covid19 hit. I know of entire ISPs that have: a) datacenter/telecom space b) field technicians with vans, sets of tools and diagnostic equipment. and in metro areas a storage room/logistics space in a warehouse or industrial area somewhere to receive incoming shipments and keep spare inventory, consumables inventory. c) fully remote engineering staff, admin staff, literally no office whatsoever.
- twblalock 5y ago
  Yes, but that was an agreement they made before the pandemic. That is very different from a situation where an engineer works in the office, works from home during the pandemic, is asked to go back to the office after the pandemic is over (which they agreed to do before the pandemic!) and decides not to do it.

horns4lyfe 5y ago

Except on one side I have to either spend a high percentage of my waking life commuting or a huge portion of my income living close in a city in what’s probably not a great place to raise a family. On the other side, someone has to talk to me over a webcam. Which penalty is higher?

blub 5y ago
It's reasonable to ask to be able to work from home, but it's equally reasonable for the company to refuse the request. Going to a physical location to work is how things were done and continue to be done for most people on the planet. This is what you signed up for when you accepted the job; if you don't like that and the company does not allow you to work from home you always have the option of quitting and finding another job. You signed a contract and now want to force a renegotiation. That's not how things work.
- jakupovic 5y ago
  >You signed a contract and now want to force a renegotiation This is exactly how things work. Contracts are renegotiated all the time and either of the parties can initiate it.
- horns4lyfe 5y ago
  Of course the company has the option, that’s not the issue at hand. The issue is that the post above is equating being forced to work in an office with being forced to work with other employees that work from home, and it’s not a valid comparison.

unsui 5y ago

That's not quite true. WFH was instituted as an emergency response to COVID-19, thus it can't really be stated that employers forced WFH upon employees capriciously. Enlightened employers can and have seen the value of hybrid policies that take employee preferences into account: those who prefer at-office can choose to come in, and those who prefer remote can choose WFH. The disagreement is when an employer is unwilling to work with the employee to reach an understanding that benefits both mutually. Taken from the other perspective, were a company to become entirely remote, then it could be seen to ruin the relationship for employees who had wanted to come into the office. That is the case here: what is ruined is that no attempt has been made to reach a middle ground, whereby those who wish to remain at the office can do so, and those who prefer WFH can do so. It is this reluctance to appreciate the learnings from our collective covid experience: that WFH is a significant boon to a large percentage of employees, and indeed is a competitive advantage, that has ruined an otherwise wonderful working relationship with an employer. And thus, the only response is to look for employers who appreciate WFH as the competitive advantage it is.

walrus01 5y ago

Senior engineers at many companies were 95% WFH for years before covid19 hit. I know of entire ISPs that have: a) datacenter/telecom space b) field technicians with vans, sets of tools and diagnostic equipment. and in metro areas a storage room/logistics space in a warehouse or industrial area somewhere to receive incoming shipments and keep spare inventory, consumables inventory. c) fully remote engineering staff, admin staff, literally no office whatsoever.

twblalock 5y ago
Yes, but that was an agreement they made before the pandemic. That is very different from a situation where an engineer works in the office, works from home during the pandemic, is asked to go back to the office after the pandemic is over (which they agreed to do before the pandemic!) and decides not to do it.