4 ms·

I dislike this comment because it implies remote workers are a burden. As soon as you have one on-site worker, you need a physical office space, security, and s

I dislike this comment because it implies remote workers are a burden. As soon as you have one on-site worker, you need a physical office space, security, and sanitation staff. These things are not free. Either type of worker imposes burdens when you objectively consider the fully loaded costs. I would argue adding a remote worker is lower cost because a Zoom call is cheaper than office rent and physical building maintenance.

IMTDb 5y ago
Well...they are, for companies that have decided to be primarily office oriented, and have invested a lot in making that work. And similarly, office worker are a burden for remote oriented organisations because they incur costs that were not considered to be necessary. My point is that "let's invest in great offices for those who want, but let people do what they want regardless" is not really an option, because you are paying the organisational and financial price, and not really getting the benefits of either. I believe most organisation working in "hybrid" model will impose fixed days at the office - so they can get the full benefits of the "in-office" time. And let other days at home, so that people working better remotely can enjoy that as well. Teams will organise around that, eg by schedule most meetings on "in-office" days.
- ihateolives 5y ago
  > Well...they are, for companies that have decided to be primarily office oriented, and have invested a lot in making that work. This is awfully close to sunken cost fallacy - we have invested so much in it, therefore we have to use it no matter what circumstances. > I believe most organisation working in "hybrid" model will impose fixed days at the office - so they can get the full benefits of the "in-office" time. And let other days at home, so that people working better remotely can enjoy that as well. This is the worst option for many people because it would force them still live within reasonable commuting distance, resulting them not being able to move to lcol area or closer to their parents/communities/etc. What's the point then of allowing them to go remote when it's not really remote, but rather "not here, but still close"? Yea, it will work with some pople, but for others it makes things worse.
  - IMTDb 5y ago
    It's only a sunken cost fallacy if you consider that the cost to be in-office is lower than the benefits it brings. Otherwise you can see this as being able to get the benefits of an investment, which would be strange not to do. Some agree with the idea that remote is strictly "better", but many do not. Bear in mind that we had the opportunity to create fully remotes companies for a long time, and some succeeded, but most companies were still office-only or office-first. Similarly, some companies will move to remote-first post pandemic, but it does not look like everyone will - far from it. And everyone is making their pro-and-cons analysis. > What's the point then of allowing them to go remote when it's not really remote Here is the point: this is not remote. It's office-first with some days were you are going to be allowed not to come, in order to lower the commuting time and get more "alone" time. For people who want to work remote, from anywhere, this is not cutting it. And it's not trying to. For people who still love the office but have some complain about having to go every single day, this is a nice option.
- salawat 5y ago
  >My point is that "let's invest in great offices for those who want, but let people do what they want regardless" is not really an option, because you are paying the organisational and financial price, and not really getting the benefits of either. Amazing how the realities of our financial system and transaction structure basically necessitates projection of a management groups will on others isn't it? Couldn't have anything to do with the overrepresentation of psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies amongst corporate decisionmakers...
CydeWeys 5y ago
Remote workers are a burden when working from office is the status quo, though. No two ways around it. It sounds like that because that's what it is. Disliking it doesn't make it untrue.

IMTDb 5y ago

Well...they are, for companies that have decided to be primarily office oriented, and have invested a lot in making that work. And similarly, office worker are a burden for remote oriented organisations because they incur costs that were not considered to be necessary. My point is that "let's invest in great offices for those who want, but let people do what they want regardless" is not really an option, because you are paying the organisational and financial price, and not really getting the benefits of either. I believe most organisation working in "hybrid" model will impose fixed days at the office - so they can get the full benefits of the "in-office" time. And let other days at home, so that people working better remotely can enjoy that as well. Teams will organise around that, eg by schedule most meetings on "in-office" days.

ihateolives 5y ago
> Well...they are, for companies that have decided to be primarily office oriented, and have invested a lot in making that work. This is awfully close to sunken cost fallacy - we have invested so much in it, therefore we have to use it no matter what circumstances. > I believe most organisation working in "hybrid" model will impose fixed days at the office - so they can get the full benefits of the "in-office" time. And let other days at home, so that people working better remotely can enjoy that as well. This is the worst option for many people because it would force them still live within reasonable commuting distance, resulting them not being able to move to lcol area or closer to their parents/communities/etc. What's the point then of allowing them to go remote when it's not really remote, but rather "not here, but still close"? Yea, it will work with some pople, but for others it makes things worse.
- IMTDb 5y ago
  It's only a sunken cost fallacy if you consider that the cost to be in-office is lower than the benefits it brings. Otherwise you can see this as being able to get the benefits of an investment, which would be strange not to do. Some agree with the idea that remote is strictly "better", but many do not. Bear in mind that we had the opportunity to create fully remotes companies for a long time, and some succeeded, but most companies were still office-only or office-first. Similarly, some companies will move to remote-first post pandemic, but it does not look like everyone will - far from it. And everyone is making their pro-and-cons analysis. > What's the point then of allowing them to go remote when it's not really remote Here is the point: this is not remote. It's office-first with some days were you are going to be allowed not to come, in order to lower the commuting time and get more "alone" time. For people who want to work remote, from anywhere, this is not cutting it. And it's not trying to. For people who still love the office but have some complain about having to go every single day, this is a nice option.
salawat 5y ago
>My point is that "let's invest in great offices for those who want, but let people do what they want regardless" is not really an option, because you are paying the organisational and financial price, and not really getting the benefits of either. Amazing how the realities of our financial system and transaction structure basically necessitates projection of a management groups will on others isn't it? Couldn't have anything to do with the overrepresentation of psychopathic/sociopathic tendencies amongst corporate decisionmakers...

CydeWeys 5y ago

Remote workers are a burden when working from office is the status quo, though. No two ways around it. It sounds like that because that's what it is. Disliking it doesn't make it untrue.