3 ms·

> Eh i love remote work but people saying no one is slacking at home show a clear lack of judgement themselves. No one is saying "no one is slacking at home".

> Eh i love remote work but people saying no one is slacking at home show a clear lack of judgement themselves. No one is saying "no one is slacking at home". Individuals who don't slack at home are saying "I don't slack at home, and I don't want to be weird tangent punished for your other incompetent employees. If they aren't doing their jobs fire them, I'm not going back, and I'm worth more to your company than you are to me."

twayt 4y ago
+1 to this. I'd go one step further and say that it doesn't matter who is actually slacking at home. The same people probably slack at the office too. In any case, if work from home increases the number of people who slack or the magnitude of slacking, it should be apparent in their performance. If this is set up correctly, you can identify those don't benefit from working from home and have a conversation with them about it.
davidguetta 4y ago
If all competent employees are equally competent at home but some other slack more at home then WFH is a net negative for the employer. Hence the policy. Also you're assuming it's possible to control who is slacking / incompetent or not. It's not.. it's a partial information game. Hence the policy.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- twayt 4y ago
  People should be allowed to do what makes them the most productive, be given feedback and coached if they’re not productive enough and finally let go if that doesn’t work. That’s how it has always been. There are always many factors affecting one’s performance in person or remote. It is never possible to control people but you can certainly measure productivity if your management is good.
  - davidguetta 4y ago
    I stopped reading at "People should". You can do a lot of stuff with should. I mean I understand your point but the employer's viewpoint is really not hard to see, it's just what I'm saying

twayt 4y ago

+1 to this. I'd go one step further and say that it doesn't matter who is actually slacking at home. The same people probably slack at the office too. In any case, if work from home increases the number of people who slack or the magnitude of slacking, it should be apparent in their performance. If this is set up correctly, you can identify those don't benefit from working from home and have a conversation with them about it.

davidguetta 4y ago

If all competent employees are equally competent at home but some other slack more at home then WFH is a net negative for the employer. Hence the policy. Also you're assuming it's possible to control who is slacking / incompetent or not. It's not.. it's a partial information game. Hence the policy.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
twayt 4y ago
People should be allowed to do what makes them the most productive, be given feedback and coached if they’re not productive enough and finally let go if that doesn’t work. That’s how it has always been. There are always many factors affecting one’s performance in person or remote. It is never possible to control people but you can certainly measure productivity if your management is good.
- davidguetta 4y ago
  I stopped reading at "People should". You can do a lot of stuff with should. I mean I understand your point but the employer's viewpoint is really not hard to see, it's just what I'm saying