3 ms·

I work on-site and from home. There are pros and cons to each. Some people prefer one or the other. A hybrid solution is probably best, but I can do either or b

by _wldu 4y ago

I work on-site and from home. There are pros and cons to each. Some people prefer one or the other. A hybrid solution is probably best, but I can do either or both. Each side has valid arguments (empty office space, office rent cost, lack of in-person chemistry) versus (no commute, more time to focus, just as productive). Some people do take advantage of WFH and work less. Some people who cannot WFH feel it is unfair. It's a complex issue and both sides should work together to come to a fair solution for everyone. Bickering about it and not compromising is unproductive.

kkfx 4y ago
Two random notes: > A hybrid solution is probably best IMVHO definitively not because of some practical aspects: a company needs offices to host workers, and using them less they are paid and less used, also people need gears, witch means or moving stuff around or have two set of anything. Surely, offices can be rent, can be smaller etc but I see exactly no reason to even try hybrid setup. It's like at war having two generals with opposite ideas and decide to put themselves in the middle, witch means something that does not work in BOTH cases... Not counting the fact that for hybrid setups remote workers still need to be at a reasonable distance to reach the office as needed cutting some economic and life options for many... > Some people do take advantage of WFH and work less. Some people who cannot WFH feel it is unfair. Normally we should be paid for the value we gives to the company, not for how hard we work... If with much less effort I do more there is nothing wrong from the company POV, at maximum I might feel overqualified or being happy with the load. The complexity lay IMVHO in the fact that there is very little experience in WFH on scale, witch scare many, there is incertitude for the future so many do not want to invest in something new until the society stabilize etc unfortunately like for ANY "new" thing we can't have "young and experienced workers". We can progress taking risks and eventually profiting from results or remain as we are giving up progress, research, development. Both can work a bit, until something break things again. Since we have only one life and no undo for it I prefer exploring instead of remaining locked. With care, surely, taking time to live and breath but still evolving.
pc86 4y ago
I do think there are valid arguments in favor of in-office work, but "empty office space" and "office rent cost" are not valid. An old employer of mine had a company car that got shared when people had to go to remote sites for same-day work. That wasn't getting passed around during COVID just because they were paying for it, it just sat there unused. The cost in particular is just a sunk cost fallacy. You're paying for the office regardless, so because of that you're going to force people to pay out of pocket for gas and other incidentals just so they can sit there and (at least for most software engineers) be less productive? And you've also just increased your own costs because you probably could have left the lights and HVAC off? Nonsense.

by _wldu 4y ago

kkfx 4y ago

Two random notes: > A hybrid solution is probably best IMVHO definitively not because of some practical aspects: a company needs offices to host workers, and using them less they are paid and less used, also people need gears, witch means or moving stuff around or have two set of anything. Surely, offices can be rent, can be smaller etc but I see exactly no reason to even try hybrid setup. It's like at war having two generals with opposite ideas and decide to put themselves in the middle, witch means something that does not work in BOTH cases... Not counting the fact that for hybrid setups remote workers still need to be at a reasonable distance to reach the office as needed cutting some economic and life options for many... > Some people do take advantage of WFH and work less. Some people who cannot WFH feel it is unfair. Normally we should be paid for the value we gives to the company, not for how hard we work... If with much less effort I do more there is nothing wrong from the company POV, at maximum I might feel overqualified or being happy with the load. The complexity lay IMVHO in the fact that there is very little experience in WFH on scale, witch scare many, there is incertitude for the future so many do not want to invest in something new until the society stabilize etc unfortunately like for ANY "new" thing we can't have "young and experienced workers". We can progress taking risks and eventually profiting from results or remain as we are giving up progress, research, development. Both can work a bit, until something break things again. Since we have only one life and no undo for it I prefer exploring instead of remaining locked. With care, surely, taking time to live and breath but still evolving.

pc86 4y ago

I do think there are valid arguments in favor of in-office work, but "empty office space" and "office rent cost" are not valid. An old employer of mine had a company car that got shared when people had to go to remote sites for same-day work. That wasn't getting passed around during COVID just because they were paying for it, it just sat there unused. The cost in particular is just a sunk cost fallacy. You're paying for the office regardless, so because of that you're going to force people to pay out of pocket for gas and other incidentals just so they can sit there and (at least for most software engineers) be less productive? And you've also just increased your own costs because you probably could have left the lights and HVAC off? Nonsense.