6 ms·
But Google let most people who asked to go remote, go remote. And said several times that if you haven’t asked to go remote yet, they’ll give you a 30 day notif
by opportune 5y ago
But Google let most people who asked to go remote, go remote. And said several times that if you haven’t asked to go remote yet, they’ll give you a 30 day notifications before you need to go back
I hate threads like these because people will circle around generic talking points while missing all the nuance and context behind this actual decision, like allowing almost any SWE to go remote that asks, giving a heads up, having a well-defined policy.
- coderintherye 5y ago>like allowing almost any SWE to go remote that asks Do you have the policy document or data to back that up? Asking because I am friends with a Google engineer who asked to go remote and was denied (even though nothing about their role requires them to be in-person).
- opportune 5y agoA little birdie told me that most denials were for specific roles (eg some entire departments were not going to let employees go remote, mostly not engineering). In engineering the bird told me most denials were due to being very junior, working on something that needed physical access, or poor performance
- dataflow 5y agoWhat about being a new hire? Do they get generally approved or denied?
- hn_go_brrrrr 5y agoAnecdatum: a coworker who joined mid-pandemic was approved for remote work.
- dataflow 5y agoThanks! But mid pandemic would be a year ago right? Not quite what I was thinking of as new hire, though cool to know regardless.
- hn_go_brrrrr 5y agoYeah, but he applied for remote work when he was still pretty new. I don't remember exactly when, but only a few months in.
- Thorrez 5y agoIf you haven't been hired yet, I recommend checking the box for "remote-eligible jobs" and telling the recruiter that's what you want. Full disclosure I work at Google. https://careers.google.com/jobs/results/?distance=50&has_remote=true https://careers.google.com/jobs/results/?distance=50&has_rem...
- justahuman74 5y agoSeems odd to have the juniors and poor performers sit around in an office together while everyone else is at home
- shadowgovt 5y agoI wouldn't accuse Google of having an effective management culture. They tend to promote from within and along the engineering track, which results in engineers reasoning from "What would I (a high-performing engineer) do?" and not necessarily what's best for the team.
- ariwilson 5y agoThere are other people who prefer to be an office that the juniors and poor performers can learn from...
- UncleMeat 5y agoThe large majority of SWEs didn't apply for remote work.
- 8note 5y agoImo SWEs aren't on top of things like applying for remote work, and most who will, will do it on the last day they can
- UncleMeat 5y agoI find it very hard to believe that in the next month like half of the company is going to apply for remote positions. We didn't see this happen the last time we were within 30 days of a planned return (on Jan 3).
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- UncleMeat 5y agoOrgs vary. There are absolutely people who had applications denied. All I can say is that in my org (hundreds of people), every single application was accepted.
- ceras 5y agoOP's article says 15% of requests were denied, i.e. 85% of requests were approved.
- inlined 5y agoI am a google manager of a hybrid remote team. It generally depends on your manager and your VP; both have to sign off. I’ve heard rumors that it’s harder for Junior members to get transferred, but I had two successful transfers, a junior engineer with a transfer request outstanding, and hired a remote worker today.
- slg 5y agoThere is not a whole lot of nuance to the word "mandate". If Google was truly this amenable to requests to go remote, why "mandate" employees back to the office rather than make it optional? Sure, welcome people back who want to be in the office, but don't require people to be there.
- opportune 5y agoBecause the article reporting on it is shitty. Why not let the tens of thousands of Google employees who actually know what’s happening clear things up? The people who applied and were accepted for fully remote aren’t the ones that need to go back. Only the people with an assigned desk in the offices that are re-opening are mandated to go back. You’re getting tripped on the wording of an article that was hastily written after a reporter got wind of an email
- slg 5y ago>Only the people with an assigned desk in the offices that are re-opening are mandated to go back. But you are still using the same word that I was getting tripped up on. Either the return to the office is optional or it is mandated. It can't be both.
- catlifeonmars 5y agoThe fact that the policy is company wide certainly lends more pressure towards returning to the office. That being said something can be mandated but poorly enforced. In the Google case, it appears that the enforcement is tuned down by an (apparently) usable exception mechanism. One can infer based on this, that in the language of the article, the new policy is somewhere between “mandated” and “optional”. With all due respect, I think you are being overly pedantic.
- pdpi 5y agoIt can be, and is, both. The decision to work as remote-first or office-first is, as I understand it, much more broadly available than it was. You are given the option to go remote-first and not return to the office at all. Returning to the office is optional. If you choose to go office-first, then you will be expected to actually be at the office. In that sense, return to the office is mandatory. The only thing that's really happening is them saying "you need to commit to one approach or the other, and act accordingly". This is understandable, you need to plan office capacity and other such practical considerations
- 8note 5y agoThere's still more nuance here - you can switch to remote, but will you get the same compensation?
- aikinai 5y agoNo, you won't, just like you wouldn't if you switched offices. Google is and always has been very clear about this. They pay market rates based on location.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- noasaservice 5y agoBecause where your computer, desk, and chair matters of the quality of work you do? No. These are shitty capitalist ploys trying to tell you the above is true when it's blatantly false. And well, they'd work you for no money, but they wouldn't have workers. If anything, I'd claim to live in a high CoL area while being in the Midwest. They get their quality work, I get my commensurate compensation. Fuck them for thinking otherwise.
- aikinai 5y agoIt has nothing to do with cost of living; it’s market rates which are set by supply and demand. London is super expensive but the pay is much lower than even the rural American pay scale since UK engineers don’t get paid well anywhere and will work for Google even if they’re getting half of what they’d get in the US. They could move to the US—Google would support the transfer—but they don’t, so there remains a supply of people who are willing to work for that rate in London. As others mentioned, if Google ignored supply and demand and paid for quality of work only, why would they pay everyone the high rates that were originally set by supply and demand in Silicon Valley? They’d pay a normal living wage for someone in India.
- humanrebar 5y ago
- nebula8804 5y ago>Since last June, Google has approved nearly 14,000 employees globally to transfer to a new location or go fully remote, Casey said. About 15% of applications have been denied, he added. 15% is still something I consider significant. Why were they denied? Are there people getting preference based on manager or their own personal reputation?
- morgante 5y agoThe most common reason is being a junior employee, who could still benefit from in-person mentorship.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rfks 5y agoAt least until Q4 2021, Google also told large groups of employees not to bother applying for remote, as their request will automatically be denied due to a combination of role / team / organisation / tenure / office location / remote work location. They may have reversed stance after I left, but I'm pretty sure the "15%" number cited is "15% of people that were considered eligible and had their manager support were declined."