12 ms·

"Emergency" WFH at my workplace have been slashed, everyone back in full since the start of the month. No reason publically given, been privately told "not abou

"Emergency" WFH at my workplace have been slashed, everyone back in full since the start of the month. No reason publically given, been privately told "not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2 year vacation so management is fed up". I have emails from the CEO personally thanking me for my commitment in going way over what was expected when basically saving the institution during lockdown, so now I also feel kind of personally insulted and victim of ham-handed collective punishment. I hate being back: My gear at home is better, I have to work in uncomfortable clothes and at a room temperature that makes me sweat within minutes. I have to work in an N95 mask since we are packed in small 4 person cubicles and COVID numbers are still too high in my area. I'm spending more on gas and wasting time in traffic. I'm eating worse quality food. I keep getting interrupted by exactly those sames guys that took the 2 year vacation. I feel hard to concentrate and I'm angry all the time so my output has suffered. I keep sending IMs to people I work with, we never need to actually meet. Now you have to apply for a new more restrictive WFH scheme. Those wanting to sign up to it had a meeting with our direct manager where he tried to discourage us with thinly veiled threats about "special performance measuring procedures" and trite arguments about how it is unfair not being here for the people that want to come. We applied the same, but now HR is telling us that they can't approve our WFH requests since they can't guarantee that our screen setup at home is safe and we haven't completed a "Data Display Device Setup and Handling" course in the last three years. They don't know when the course will be offered again. I've been programming for more than 35 years now, so again I kind of feel doubly insulted, both by the bare faced obstructionism and ridiculous particular hurdle. I'd leave, I even feel I'm morally in the wrong for not leaving. But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this is a place where I have ample slack for tuning my output and inmerse myself in side projects or personal improvement, so their loss...

rkangel 5y ago
I think it is indefensible to bring people back to work in any workplace where mask wearing is needed at your desk. If you're admitting in that way that there is a risk in being in the office then you shouldn't be requiring them to be there!
- Freak_NL 5y ago
  Wow no indeed. I would be looking for a new job. Masks are a measure for times when no other option is available, not a standard check mark for every employee. From which management level upward do these rules not apply? It probably coincides with having your own private office…
  - 0des 5y ago
    > wow no indeed Ween yourself off the "yeah, no" pattern.
    - Freak_NL 5y ago
      I'm not using that pattern here am I? I don't use it anywhere — I find it ill-suited for written communication. Those three words serve only to convey my agreement with rkangel and utter surprise at this being mandated for a desk job.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - benhurmarcel 5y ago
    My company has been mandating 3 days/week at the office, with mandatory masks also. You're right, managers above a certain level have their private office and don't need to wear a mask all day.
- ryeights 5y ago
  It sounds like GP is wearing a mask voluntarily.
- cpcallen 5y ago
  With the obvious exception of essential jobs that cannot be done remotely, such as hands-on medical care.
imchillyb 5y ago
Today it's a job-seeker's market, and that is likely to continue for some time to come. If your company won't play ball, it's time to find another field to play in.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  If so many people are pissed off at coming back to office wouldn't remote jobs would be super demanded? I've looked at some recently and tons of jobs require office presence. Finding something outside of US is near impossible.
  - cableshaft 5y ago
    They are highly demanded[1], companies are just extremely stubborn and are trying to force employees to accept their terms. You could see that the past year and a half in restaurants that are willing to close down entirely (often with a sign saying they're short staffed) for days, weeks, or permanently, rather than raise their wages enough to hire and keep the employees they need to function. [1]: "Newly published research from the Pew Research Center that surveyed roughly 10,000 Americans from Jan. 24 to Jan. 30 found that nearly two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, roughly 6 in 10 U.S. workers who say their jobs can be done from home, at 59 percent, are doing so from home all or most of the time. Now, more workers say they are working from home out of choice than necessity. Among those who have a workplace outside of their home, 61 percent said they are choosing not to go in, while 38 percent said they’re working from home specifically because their workplace is closed or unavailable to them. Interestingly, Pew Research noted just the opposite was true earlier in the pandemic, with 64 percent of people indicating they were working from home because their office was closed while 36 percent said they were choosing to work from home." https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities/594565-more-americans-choosing-to-work-from-home-instead-of https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities...
  - thedougd 5y ago
    I've been desperate to hire for the last two years. There's no way I can filter for location at this point. It took work, but we've made remote only official through HR and made our last several hires as remote only. We still aim for same or similar time zone. Most companies are in this situation.
user_named 5y ago
When we returned to the office in 2020 after a few months of WFH at a Chinese megacorp, due to the lack of meeting rooms, everyone just did zoom meetings from their desk. Nobody really needed to be in the office; we never met due to the size of the company.
detaro 5y ago
> that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this is a place where I have ample slack so you also have time to go hunt for another job before quitting at least, if that's where you want to go.
ajdegol 5y ago
This guy goes into a bar in Mexico and there’s a dog lying in the corner, every so often the dog whimpers and whines a little. The guy asks the barman “what’s up with that dog?” And the barman said “oh, he’s probably lying on a nail.” After a few more minutes and another set of whines, the guy asks the barman “so why doesn’t he move?” And the barman says “it probably doesn’t hurt enough for him to get up.”
- fcatalan 5y ago
  "Nailed" it. Perfect description of my situation. I wish I weren't like this
  - endymi0n 5y ago
    To say it with the words of my first boss that stuck with me: "Love it, change it or leave it. No amount of complaining will ever do anything else than paint you as a naysayer." Was a hard pill to swallow, but my own experience proved me again and again he was spot on.
    - mjevans 5y ago
      In this case, would the 'change it' option be to just work from home and see what happens?
      - bob2222 5y ago
        find a fully remote job if you can
        pfarrell 5y ago
        At least give it a try. I suspect based on join dates that I’m similar or older than the OP. The more senior you get, the more time it can take on a search, but with remote work, you should definitely be trying.
        dzhiurgis 5y ago
rosmax_1337 5y ago
>I have emails from the CEO personally thanking me for my commitment in going way over what was expected when basically saving the institution during lockdown It's a business not a skate park, tell your CEO that you appreciate the positive feedback but that if he really means what he is saying: he should put his money where his mouth is and give you a sizable raise or a considerable bonus.
- tonyedgecombe 5y ago
  Money doesn't solve every problem.
  - nkrisc 5y ago
    Money will solve the problems at the top of most people’s lists. By the time money stops solving problems you’re pretty well off.
    - afiori 5y ago
      In this context money will not solve hating your job, unless they pay you enough to retire.
  - iso1210 5y ago
    Money makes them think about value. When I took my current job in 2016 I wanted more than they could pay, they wanted me to be based in an office (Oh it would only be officially we dont mind you working from home) We compromised, my contract says I work from home and they pay me for my time and travel if I go somewhere, and they can afford me. Can they justify paying you an extra $50k a year (or $10k, or $100k) just to have you in an office?
  - gonzo41 5y ago
    Yes it mostly always does. To think that it's not is to be in a position where you have to much of it.
    - 5y ago
xenocratus 5y ago
> not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2 year vacation so management is fed up How is it not easier to fire those individuals? And not now, when you can just bring them to the office and have them be productive from day one (unlike new hires who would replace them), but one year ago.
- fcatalan 5y ago
  Welcome to government jobs, where it's way easier to squeeze those who do the work than fire those that won't.
  - gonzo41 5y ago
    It's actually pretty easy to fire people in government jobs. The problem is its uncomfortable to have hard conversations. Most government jobs are so far away form service delivery that they are very abstract. This makes the impact of lazy people seem insignificant. However, if you look at government with more of a service delivery focus, think FEMA. You wouldn't see many people who just laze about because the work is right there in front of them and they can link their work with outcomes in the real world. When you write policy or work in some meat grinder paperwork mill or even do just regular ICT sys admins corporate services stuff everything starts to get blurry. Anyway, the rules and processes exists. Essentially PIP someone, explain and document expectations, and follow up. And you know what, most of the time, people can improve.
    - is_true 5y ago
      Not all government are the same. Where I live is almost imposible to get fired from a government job.
    - prepend 5y ago
      > It's actually pretty easy to fire people in government jobs I suppose it depends on the government, but my experience is that it’s extremely difficult to fire people. I spoke with HR at a US federal organization that said their termination rate is .1% of employees and half of those are during the 1-year probation period. That’s extremely low and I think an indicator of how hard it is to fire people in government. I do have people say funny things like “It’s easy to fire people, you just fill out this paperwork and spend 20% of your time tracking a performance plan for two years.” Even though theyve never successfully fired anyone. While pointing to their group’s lack of firing as an example of their great management. I think this is an example where theoretically it is possible, but practically it is very difficult. As evidenced by very few being fired.
minimaul 5y ago
> I have emails from the CEO personally thanking me for my commitment in going way over what was expected when basically saving the institution during lockdown, so now I also feel kind of personally insulted and victim of ham-handed collective punishment. Have you used these to go to your CEO directly re your WFH request? It's where I'd start.
- greedo 5y ago
  Depending on how flat your organization is, this would be a job killer in many companies. Your CEO may grant you WFH, but all of the execs you report to will be aware of you going over their heads. Depending on how much political capital you have, this can be very risky.
  - aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
    Be a rung in an unfulfilled ladder, that'll be fine?
    - greedo 5y ago
      Nope, work with your direct manager and if that's ineffective, change jobs. The amount of times you'd be able to access the CEO for help is extremely low. If you've developed a "Rabbi" at your company, you might be able to circumvent a bad manager eventually, but until you escape his influence and control you'll have to deal with him. Get a new job is usually the best way to deal with poor immediate managers.
rkangel 5y ago
I love working from home, and I have a very enlightened employer but I do have some sympathy with the companies that have a chunk of employees who just don't work when they're at home. The situation in my company is simple to manage - we hire good people who are very capable and then trust them to get on and do the job. That works with the sort of people we hire and the sort of work we ask them to do. If they're at home we'll generally work just the same, because we're pretty well motivated. Not all companies are like that though. My partner worked for a charity where maybe 2/3 of people worked exactly the same during the pandemic, but a good chunk (mostly of the lower level admin staff) didn't. Some of them were very unsubtle - they'd never answer Teams calls, and would return them half an hour later and never produced any output anyway. Some were more subtle like the colleague who'd log into Teams first thing and then go back to the Playstation for a few hours of the morning before actually starting work. Having these people in the office WOULD result in more work being done. What we need is for these employers to be focusing on output rather than hours in the office. They are stuck in a mindset and approach that barely worked in the past where if you had someone in an office for 8 hours a day you'd probably get something out of them. If they focused a little more on what they were getting (and I don't just mean some basic metrics with no human insight) then we wouldn't need bums on seats and the people not doing anything at home would be pretty obvious.
- fcatalan 5y ago
  It's the same here as in your partner's place. Even the proportions. This is government work: hiring practices are bad by design and "firing practices" unexistant. No one is ever fired. This means that the place is perennially understaffed in practice and depends fully on the goodwill, personal/professional ethics and patience of those that will do the work. But since they can't fire and we all have to live together somehow, management likes to keep the illusion that everyone is the same. So sometimes they will design promotion schemes or bonuses that favor slackers over the guys doing the job, or punish everyone equally for the sins of a few. It's a pretty kafkian environment, but it's sort of a golden cage too: Pay is good, benefits great, stability rock solid. I'm used to a freedom of agency and independence that I'm afraid would go over badly in a normal place. So I stay.
pzs 5y ago
"I'd leave, I even feel I'm morally in the wrong for not leaving. But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this is a place where I have ample slack for tuning my output and inmerse myself in side projects or personal improvement, so their loss..." - this tells me that you are a very loyal employee and you also find security more important than other aspects of your career. That is certainly your decision, but I suggest you to keep looking at the balance and consider the compromises you are making because of this. Based on my experience there is considerable talent shortage on the job market, and loyalty is seen as a positive by reasonable hiring managers.
verve_rat 5y ago
Sounds like it is time for you to take your two year vacation.
chris_overseas 5y ago
> But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this is a place where I have ample slack for tuning my output and inmerse myself in side projects or personal improvement, so their loss... None of those points prevent you from looking to see what other jobs are available and applying for any that look interesting. Who knows, you might find something that is better on all counts. Worst case scenario you don't find anything better, which will mean you're no worse off than you are already, you learned a few things in the interview processes, and maybe the knowledge that your current role is better than various alternatives you looked at makes things seem a bit more tolerable where you are now?
efsavage 5y ago
As someone who has probably experienced it, I wonder if ageism is more or less prevalent in remote jobs. I suspect, with zero evidence, that it might be diminished a bit, and could even be an asset since you've got a proven track record of being disciplined and productive in a remote environment. Perhaps it's worth testing the job market and finding something that is a better fit.
matwood 5y ago
> "not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2 year vacation so management is fed up" Then it's time to let people go. Early on in COVID leeway definitely needed to be given with daycares closed, people transitioning to WFH, etc... But at this point, if someone can't get their work done remotely, then they should find a non-remote job. We went fully remote prior to the pandemic, and I remember someone in senior management asking me, 'how will we know people are working at home?' My response was 'how do we know they are working in the office?' If people aren't getting any work done it doesn't matter where they are. Management just feels better about seeing them in the office.
- Nextgrid 5y ago
  Alternatively, if these people have taken a 2 year vacation and the company appears to be operating fine, maybe there's no problem? I don't understand why this issue is being raised now - surely they already have existing processes in place to deal with people who underperform, in which case those same processes can be applied regardless of WFH status. The fact that they haven't suggests that in the end work is being done satisfactorily and someone is just jealous or on a power trip.
  - syshum 5y ago
    If they can take a 2 year vacation and the company is operating fine then their roles should be eliminated because they do not serve any function to the company A Company is not a charity, people are not kept on payroll just because
  - IMTDb 5y ago
    Alternatively, the world was in a state were these people really did not need really to be working because economy was so slow, and government grants were paying for those salaries anyway, so people were kept on the payroll. Now that the economy is "back on track", we need them to be working - like they did before the pandemic, not like they did during the pandemic - so the work organisation gets back to a pre-pandemic state.
    - 5y ago
g051051 5y ago
That was me. I worked in a place for 22 years that completely devalued WFH, and cancelled it entirely (pre-pandemic) with the Big Boss stating "We all know a 15 minute face-to-face conversation is better than a multi-day email chain". Then our organization collapsed under the weight of being "Agile" and laid off the entire group. I'm glad they did...I got a substantial severance package, "retiree" benefits, and a much better fully remote WFH gig that pays better. I would have stayed at the first place if it was possible to do so, but I'm much happier since they forced my hand. I'm certain I won't have to go back to an office before I retire.
evancoop 5y ago
"...not about people like you." My wife, who spent much of her career in corporate HR, would often note: "People who want to work, will work wherever you put them. People who don't want to work will find a way not to work wherever you put them." The people who used WFH as a "2 year vacation" are the same people who will wander the office engaging in random conversations and scrolling Facebook the remainder of the day. I always wondered why we presume traffic and cubicles are a cure for the lack of motivation.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  It’s a level of friction that discourages the worst behaviors. You probably lock the front door of your house. The reality is, it’s not a meaningful thing in most cases, as a moderately in shape middle aged man, I could likely kick or pry it in in seconds. We do it because it keeps honest people out and increases the friction for the bad guys - kicking the door down in itself becomes a felony. (Burglary) Likewise, people are on a bell curve of sorts with respect to motivation. The people on the bottom are a waste of oxygen and require explicit directions for every task, and the other extreme are self-motivated and will create novel tasks to complete without any direction. Some people need the office to function appropriately on that curve. I have one guy on my team who came to work physically every day during the full lockdowns in NYC because for him, the context shift of being in the office was important. He is probably the smartest person I’ve ever met, but he can’t work at home. Another colleague is living on an island somewhere. The rest of us are in the middle. Combine that with other business requirements, and you have to make a decision that’s best for the business.
  - afiori 5y ago
    Since the door/lock analogy is widely used I would like to point that they have 2 other major advantages 1: they have the effect of warning you of unauthorized access: you can maybe break a door/window in a matter of minutes but you wont catch me napping nor you will be able to make it look like nobody broke in. 2: they keep unmotivated attackers out and can move the attacks off to you and on less protected properties.
cgio 5y ago
They could be telling the “not about you” to everyone, though, and that would also act as some kind of free carrot for them, I.e. you feel somehow appreciated in a very abstract way with no cost to the company. I haven’t seen any organisation where one person can keep things running, so hard to believe this as an argument. I assume, like most companies outside segments such as hospitality, yours also did well in the last couple years. In that case, the excuse that people were on leave is insulting and should be insulting to you too.
acdha 5y ago
> No reason publically given, been privately told "not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2 year vacation so management is fed up". This is exasperating: it’s basically saying managers aren’t doing their jobs and you should pay the consequences. If someone really did goof off that much, their supervisor should be looking for a new job too. What I suspect is that nobody did this and what you’re really hearing is that senior management are distrustful and don’t believe people are working if they don’t see them. Everywhere I’ve heard that, it’s been pure projection. Either way, I’d reconsider leaving. You have a stable situation so you can look for a place you really like without time pressure but the respect gradient probably won’t improve unless you have C-level turnover.
nesky 5y ago
> "I hate being back: My gear at home is better, I have to work in uncomfortable clothes and at a room temperature that makes me sweat within minutes. I have to work in an N95 mask since we are packed in small 4 person cubicles and COVID numbers are still too high in my area. I'm spending more on gas and wasting time in traffic. I'm eating worse quality food. I keep getting interrupted by exactly those sames guys that took the 2 year vacation. I feel hard to concentrate and I'm angry all the time so my output has suffered." We start back at the office next week and this sums up exactly why I have no interest in going back full time.
silicon2401 5y ago
> But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market Your decision to not even try will cost you more jobs than ageism All your reasons is why I have never had any interest in working in an office, ever. Now that my current company has been remote since the start of the pandemic and I've gotten an exception to be permanently remote, I will never step foot in an office again if there's anything I can do about it. I couldn't care less about supposed career growth impacts, free snacks or food, collaboration, all the other propaganda they put out. You are right to be insulted by not having an option to work remotely and you should just start looking for better jobs
quotemstr 5y ago
> I'd leave I've found that once you start having thoughts like this, you've left already, if only in spirit, and you remain physically only as a form of self-delusion or rationalization of fear. You can find good pay and slack elsewhere. Your current employer sounds like a nightmare.
sodapopcan 5y ago
I got anxiety reading this. I hope are able to find something else, even if (judging by your last sentence) you don't want to.
thelittleone 5y ago
I'm similar age. Twice in the last few years I left great jobs due to somewhat similar reasons of misaligned environment and values. I left without having anything new lined up. I also kinda needed the money. But despite my fears I quit. Within days, on both occasions, I got a new higher paying job that aligned better with my preferences and values. But perhaps most valuable was a sense of satisfaction for having integrity.. the old expression "being able to look in the mirror...". This approach worked well for me, but maybe I was just lucky.
mekal 5y ago
"they can't guarantee that our screen setup at home is safe and we haven't completed a "Data Display Device Setup and Handling" course" - I work for a small company so pardon my ignorance here but...ergonomically safe?? Please god tell me it's something more than that. Like some sort of security measure. What's so hard about flipping open a laptop and using a VPN?
la64710 5y ago
throwaway46ty 5y ago
> ageism This. WFH fights this more than anything. When interviews were happening online, i had deliberately set lighting to be low so that my wrinkles are not clear.
blaser-waffle 5y ago
What company is this? I'm job hunting and want to know who to avoid...

rkangel 5y ago

I think it is indefensible to bring people back to work in any workplace where mask wearing is needed at your desk. If you're admitting in that way that there is a risk in being in the office then you shouldn't be requiring them to be there!

Freak_NL 5y ago
Wow no indeed. I would be looking for a new job. Masks are a measure for times when no other option is available, not a standard check mark for every employee. From which management level upward do these rules not apply? It probably coincides with having your own private office…
- 0des 5y ago
  > wow no indeed Ween yourself off the "yeah, no" pattern.
  - Freak_NL 5y ago
    I'm not using that pattern here am I? I don't use it anywhere — I find it ill-suited for written communication. Those three words serve only to convey my agreement with rkangel and utter surprise at this being mandated for a desk job.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- benhurmarcel 5y ago
  My company has been mandating 3 days/week at the office, with mandatory masks also. You're right, managers above a certain level have their private office and don't need to wear a mask all day.
ryeights 5y ago
It sounds like GP is wearing a mask voluntarily.
cpcallen 5y ago
With the obvious exception of essential jobs that cannot be done remotely, such as hands-on medical care.

imchillyb 5y ago

Today it's a job-seeker's market, and that is likely to continue for some time to come. If your company won't play ball, it's time to find another field to play in.

dzhiurgis 5y ago
If so many people are pissed off at coming back to office wouldn't remote jobs would be super demanded? I've looked at some recently and tons of jobs require office presence. Finding something outside of US is near impossible.
- cableshaft 5y ago
  They are highly demanded[1], companies are just extremely stubborn and are trying to force employees to accept their terms. You could see that the past year and a half in restaurants that are willing to close down entirely (often with a sign saying they're short staffed) for days, weeks, or permanently, rather than raise their wages enough to hire and keep the employees they need to function. [1]: "Newly published research from the Pew Research Center that surveyed roughly 10,000 Americans from Jan. 24 to Jan. 30 found that nearly two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, roughly 6 in 10 U.S. workers who say their jobs can be done from home, at 59 percent, are doing so from home all or most of the time. Now, more workers say they are working from home out of choice than necessity. Among those who have a workplace outside of their home, 61 percent said they are choosing not to go in, while 38 percent said they’re working from home specifically because their workplace is closed or unavailable to them. Interestingly, Pew Research noted just the opposite was true earlier in the pandemic, with 64 percent of people indicating they were working from home because their office was closed while 36 percent said they were choosing to work from home." https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities/594565-more-americans-choosing-to-work-from-home-instead-of https://thehill.com/changing-america/resilience/smart-cities...
- thedougd 5y ago
  I've been desperate to hire for the last two years. There's no way I can filter for location at this point. It took work, but we've made remote only official through HR and made our last several hires as remote only. We still aim for same or similar time zone. Most companies are in this situation.

user_named 5y ago

When we returned to the office in 2020 after a few months of WFH at a Chinese megacorp, due to the lack of meeting rooms, everyone just did zoom meetings from their desk. Nobody really needed to be in the office; we never met due to the size of the company.

detaro 5y ago

> that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this is a place where I have ample slack so you also have time to go hunt for another job before quitting at least, if that's where you want to go.

ajdegol 5y ago

This guy goes into a bar in Mexico and there’s a dog lying in the corner, every so often the dog whimpers and whines a little. The guy asks the barman “what’s up with that dog?” And the barman said “oh, he’s probably lying on a nail.” After a few more minutes and another set of whines, the guy asks the barman “so why doesn’t he move?” And the barman says “it probably doesn’t hurt enough for him to get up.”

fcatalan 5y ago
"Nailed" it. Perfect description of my situation. I wish I weren't like this
- endymi0n 5y ago
  To say it with the words of my first boss that stuck with me: "Love it, change it or leave it. No amount of complaining will ever do anything else than paint you as a naysayer." Was a hard pill to swallow, but my own experience proved me again and again he was spot on.
  - mjevans 5y ago
    In this case, would the 'change it' option be to just work from home and see what happens?
    - bob2222 5y ago
      find a fully remote job if you can
      - pfarrell 5y ago
        At least give it a try. I suspect based on join dates that I’m similar or older than the OP. The more senior you get, the more time it can take on a search, but with remote work, you should definitely be trying.
      - dzhiurgis 5y ago

rosmax_1337 5y ago

>I have emails from the CEO personally thanking me for my commitment in going way over what was expected when basically saving the institution during lockdown It's a business not a skate park, tell your CEO that you appreciate the positive feedback but that if he really means what he is saying: he should put his money where his mouth is and give you a sizable raise or a considerable bonus.

tonyedgecombe 5y ago
Money doesn't solve every problem.
- nkrisc 5y ago
  Money will solve the problems at the top of most people’s lists. By the time money stops solving problems you’re pretty well off.
  - afiori 5y ago
    In this context money will not solve hating your job, unless they pay you enough to retire.
- iso1210 5y ago
  Money makes them think about value. When I took my current job in 2016 I wanted more than they could pay, they wanted me to be based in an office (Oh it would only be officially we dont mind you working from home) We compromised, my contract says I work from home and they pay me for my time and travel if I go somewhere, and they can afford me. Can they justify paying you an extra $50k a year (or $10k, or $100k) just to have you in an office?
- gonzo41 5y ago
  Yes it mostly always does. To think that it's not is to be in a position where you have to much of it.
  - 5y ago

xenocratus 5y ago

> not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2 year vacation so management is fed up How is it not easier to fire those individuals? And not now, when you can just bring them to the office and have them be productive from day one (unlike new hires who would replace them), but one year ago.

fcatalan 5y ago
Welcome to government jobs, where it's way easier to squeeze those who do the work than fire those that won't.
- gonzo41 5y ago
  It's actually pretty easy to fire people in government jobs. The problem is its uncomfortable to have hard conversations. Most government jobs are so far away form service delivery that they are very abstract. This makes the impact of lazy people seem insignificant. However, if you look at government with more of a service delivery focus, think FEMA. You wouldn't see many people who just laze about because the work is right there in front of them and they can link their work with outcomes in the real world. When you write policy or work in some meat grinder paperwork mill or even do just regular ICT sys admins corporate services stuff everything starts to get blurry. Anyway, the rules and processes exists. Essentially PIP someone, explain and document expectations, and follow up. And you know what, most of the time, people can improve.
  - is_true 5y ago
    Not all government are the same. Where I live is almost imposible to get fired from a government job.
  - prepend 5y ago
    > It's actually pretty easy to fire people in government jobs I suppose it depends on the government, but my experience is that it’s extremely difficult to fire people. I spoke with HR at a US federal organization that said their termination rate is .1% of employees and half of those are during the 1-year probation period. That’s extremely low and I think an indicator of how hard it is to fire people in government. I do have people say funny things like “It’s easy to fire people, you just fill out this paperwork and spend 20% of your time tracking a performance plan for two years.” Even though theyve never successfully fired anyone. While pointing to their group’s lack of firing as an example of their great management. I think this is an example where theoretically it is possible, but practically it is very difficult. As evidenced by very few being fired.

minimaul 5y ago

> I have emails from the CEO personally thanking me for my commitment in going way over what was expected when basically saving the institution during lockdown, so now I also feel kind of personally insulted and victim of ham-handed collective punishment. Have you used these to go to your CEO directly re your WFH request? It's where I'd start.

greedo 5y ago
Depending on how flat your organization is, this would be a job killer in many companies. Your CEO may grant you WFH, but all of the execs you report to will be aware of you going over their heads. Depending on how much political capital you have, this can be very risky.
- aaaaaaaaata 5y ago
  Be a rung in an unfulfilled ladder, that'll be fine?
  - greedo 5y ago
    Nope, work with your direct manager and if that's ineffective, change jobs. The amount of times you'd be able to access the CEO for help is extremely low. If you've developed a "Rabbi" at your company, you might be able to circumvent a bad manager eventually, but until you escape his influence and control you'll have to deal with him. Get a new job is usually the best way to deal with poor immediate managers.

rkangel 5y ago

I love working from home, and I have a very enlightened employer but I do have some sympathy with the companies that have a chunk of employees who just don't work when they're at home. The situation in my company is simple to manage - we hire good people who are very capable and then trust them to get on and do the job. That works with the sort of people we hire and the sort of work we ask them to do. If they're at home we'll generally work just the same, because we're pretty well motivated. Not all companies are like that though. My partner worked for a charity where maybe 2/3 of people worked exactly the same during the pandemic, but a good chunk (mostly of the lower level admin staff) didn't. Some of them were very unsubtle - they'd never answer Teams calls, and would return them half an hour later and never produced any output anyway. Some were more subtle like the colleague who'd log into Teams first thing and then go back to the Playstation for a few hours of the morning before actually starting work. Having these people in the office WOULD result in more work being done. What we need is for these employers to be focusing on output rather than hours in the office. They are stuck in a mindset and approach that barely worked in the past where if you had someone in an office for 8 hours a day you'd probably get something out of them. If they focused a little more on what they were getting (and I don't just mean some basic metrics with no human insight) then we wouldn't need bums on seats and the people not doing anything at home would be pretty obvious.

fcatalan 5y ago
It's the same here as in your partner's place. Even the proportions. This is government work: hiring practices are bad by design and "firing practices" unexistant. No one is ever fired. This means that the place is perennially understaffed in practice and depends fully on the goodwill, personal/professional ethics and patience of those that will do the work. But since they can't fire and we all have to live together somehow, management likes to keep the illusion that everyone is the same. So sometimes they will design promotion schemes or bonuses that favor slackers over the guys doing the job, or punish everyone equally for the sins of a few. It's a pretty kafkian environment, but it's sort of a golden cage too: Pay is good, benefits great, stability rock solid. I'm used to a freedom of agency and independence that I'm afraid would go over badly in a normal place. So I stay.

pzs 5y ago

"I'd leave, I even feel I'm morally in the wrong for not leaving. But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this is a place where I have ample slack for tuning my output and inmerse myself in side projects or personal improvement, so their loss..." - this tells me that you are a very loyal employee and you also find security more important than other aspects of your career. That is certainly your decision, but I suggest you to keep looking at the balance and consider the compromises you are making because of this. Based on my experience there is considerable talent shortage on the job market, and loyalty is seen as a positive by reasonable hiring managers.

verve_rat 5y ago

Sounds like it is time for you to take your two year vacation.

chris_overseas 5y ago

> But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market, and also this is a place where I have ample slack for tuning my output and inmerse myself in side projects or personal improvement, so their loss... None of those points prevent you from looking to see what other jobs are available and applying for any that look interesting. Who knows, you might find something that is better on all counts. Worst case scenario you don't find anything better, which will mean you're no worse off than you are already, you learned a few things in the interview processes, and maybe the knowledge that your current role is better than various alternatives you looked at makes things seem a bit more tolerable where you are now?

efsavage 5y ago

As someone who has probably experienced it, I wonder if ageism is more or less prevalent in remote jobs. I suspect, with zero evidence, that it might be diminished a bit, and could even be an asset since you've got a proven track record of being disciplined and productive in a remote environment. Perhaps it's worth testing the job market and finding something that is a better fit.

matwood 5y ago

> "not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2 year vacation so management is fed up" Then it's time to let people go. Early on in COVID leeway definitely needed to be given with daycares closed, people transitioning to WFH, etc... But at this point, if someone can't get their work done remotely, then they should find a non-remote job. We went fully remote prior to the pandemic, and I remember someone in senior management asking me, 'how will we know people are working at home?' My response was 'how do we know they are working in the office?' If people aren't getting any work done it doesn't matter where they are. Management just feels better about seeing them in the office.

Nextgrid 5y ago
Alternatively, if these people have taken a 2 year vacation and the company appears to be operating fine, maybe there's no problem? I don't understand why this issue is being raised now - surely they already have existing processes in place to deal with people who underperform, in which case those same processes can be applied regardless of WFH status. The fact that they haven't suggests that in the end work is being done satisfactorily and someone is just jealous or on a power trip.
- syshum 5y ago
  If they can take a 2 year vacation and the company is operating fine then their roles should be eliminated because they do not serve any function to the company A Company is not a charity, people are not kept on payroll just because
- IMTDb 5y ago
  Alternatively, the world was in a state were these people really did not need really to be working because economy was so slow, and government grants were paying for those salaries anyway, so people were kept on the payroll. Now that the economy is "back on track", we need them to be working - like they did before the pandemic, not like they did during the pandemic - so the work organisation gets back to a pre-pandemic state.
  - 5y ago

g051051 5y ago

That was me. I worked in a place for 22 years that completely devalued WFH, and cancelled it entirely (pre-pandemic) with the Big Boss stating "We all know a 15 minute face-to-face conversation is better than a multi-day email chain". Then our organization collapsed under the weight of being "Agile" and laid off the entire group. I'm glad they did...I got a substantial severance package, "retiree" benefits, and a much better fully remote WFH gig that pays better. I would have stayed at the first place if it was possible to do so, but I'm much happier since they forced my hand. I'm certain I won't have to go back to an office before I retire.

evancoop 5y ago

"...not about people like you." My wife, who spent much of her career in corporate HR, would often note: "People who want to work, will work wherever you put them. People who don't want to work will find a way not to work wherever you put them." The people who used WFH as a "2 year vacation" are the same people who will wander the office engaging in random conversations and scrolling Facebook the remainder of the day. I always wondered why we presume traffic and cubicles are a cure for the lack of motivation.

Spooky23 5y ago
It’s a level of friction that discourages the worst behaviors. You probably lock the front door of your house. The reality is, it’s not a meaningful thing in most cases, as a moderately in shape middle aged man, I could likely kick or pry it in in seconds. We do it because it keeps honest people out and increases the friction for the bad guys - kicking the door down in itself becomes a felony. (Burglary) Likewise, people are on a bell curve of sorts with respect to motivation. The people on the bottom are a waste of oxygen and require explicit directions for every task, and the other extreme are self-motivated and will create novel tasks to complete without any direction. Some people need the office to function appropriately on that curve. I have one guy on my team who came to work physically every day during the full lockdowns in NYC because for him, the context shift of being in the office was important. He is probably the smartest person I’ve ever met, but he can’t work at home. Another colleague is living on an island somewhere. The rest of us are in the middle. Combine that with other business requirements, and you have to make a decision that’s best for the business.
- afiori 5y ago
  Since the door/lock analogy is widely used I would like to point that they have 2 other major advantages 1: they have the effect of warning you of unauthorized access: you can maybe break a door/window in a matter of minutes but you wont catch me napping nor you will be able to make it look like nobody broke in. 2: they keep unmotivated attackers out and can move the attacks off to you and on less protected properties.

cgio 5y ago

They could be telling the “not about you” to everyone, though, and that would also act as some kind of free carrot for them, I.e. you feel somehow appreciated in a very abstract way with no cost to the company. I haven’t seen any organisation where one person can keep things running, so hard to believe this as an argument. I assume, like most companies outside segments such as hospitality, yours also did well in the last couple years. In that case, the excuse that people were on leave is insulting and should be insulting to you too.

acdha 5y ago

> No reason publically given, been privately told "not about people like you, but some others have taken a 2 year vacation so management is fed up". This is exasperating: it’s basically saying managers aren’t doing their jobs and you should pay the consequences. If someone really did goof off that much, their supervisor should be looking for a new job too. What I suspect is that nobody did this and what you’re really hearing is that senior management are distrustful and don’t believe people are working if they don’t see them. Everywhere I’ve heard that, it’s been pure projection. Either way, I’d reconsider leaving. You have a stable situation so you can look for a place you really like without time pressure but the respect gradient probably won’t improve unless you have C-level turnover.

nesky 5y ago

> "I hate being back: My gear at home is better, I have to work in uncomfortable clothes and at a room temperature that makes me sweat within minutes. I have to work in an N95 mask since we are packed in small 4 person cubicles and COVID numbers are still too high in my area. I'm spending more on gas and wasting time in traffic. I'm eating worse quality food. I keep getting interrupted by exactly those sames guys that took the 2 year vacation. I feel hard to concentrate and I'm angry all the time so my output has suffered." We start back at the office next week and this sums up exactly why I have no interest in going back full time.

silicon2401 5y ago

> But the thing is that the pay is good, that I'm of an age prone to experiencing ageism in the job market Your decision to not even try will cost you more jobs than ageism All your reasons is why I have never had any interest in working in an office, ever. Now that my current company has been remote since the start of the pandemic and I've gotten an exception to be permanently remote, I will never step foot in an office again if there's anything I can do about it. I couldn't care less about supposed career growth impacts, free snacks or food, collaboration, all the other propaganda they put out. You are right to be insulted by not having an option to work remotely and you should just start looking for better jobs

quotemstr 5y ago

> I'd leave I've found that once you start having thoughts like this, you've left already, if only in spirit, and you remain physically only as a form of self-delusion or rationalization of fear. You can find good pay and slack elsewhere. Your current employer sounds like a nightmare.

sodapopcan 5y ago

I got anxiety reading this. I hope are able to find something else, even if (judging by your last sentence) you don't want to.

thelittleone 5y ago

I'm similar age. Twice in the last few years I left great jobs due to somewhat similar reasons of misaligned environment and values. I left without having anything new lined up. I also kinda needed the money. But despite my fears I quit. Within days, on both occasions, I got a new higher paying job that aligned better with my preferences and values. But perhaps most valuable was a sense of satisfaction for having integrity.. the old expression "being able to look in the mirror...". This approach worked well for me, but maybe I was just lucky.

mekal 5y ago

"they can't guarantee that our screen setup at home is safe and we haven't completed a "Data Display Device Setup and Handling" course" - I work for a small company so pardon my ignorance here but...ergonomically safe?? Please god tell me it's something more than that. Like some sort of security measure. What's so hard about flipping open a laptop and using a VPN?

la64710 5y ago

throwaway46ty 5y ago

> ageism This. WFH fights this more than anything. When interviews were happening online, i had deliberately set lighting to be low so that my wrinkles are not clear.

blaser-waffle 5y ago

What company is this? I'm job hunting and want to know who to avoid...