4 ms·

Depends on the recession, right? Five percent unemployment? You've still got some leverage. Nine-and-a-half percent (the peak during the Great Recession), and

Depends on the recession, right? Five percent unemployment? You've still got some leverage. Nine-and-a-half percent (the peak during the Great Recession), and a lot of folks behind you in line will happily come into the office.

karmasimida 4y ago
Well that is kinda accurate Not sure if count tech specifically, the recession might already start? Only Amazon seems to hire aggressively at this point...
- lowbloodsugar 4y ago
  Plenty of WFH jobs at Amazon. Looking at a couple myself. Apple just removed themselves from my list. Actually said this was coming and they were already off my list.
asdff 4y ago
If its a recession why are you spending money on overhead like an office when you have plenty of potential employees happy to work from their home, an office you the employer are basically are getting for free?
- rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
  Because it's much easier to squeeze in-person employees harder. I'm being facetious, but I don't think it's entirely a bad thing. I'm not sure if you've even worked in a fast-paced environment where everyone is absolutely buzzing, but it's quite exciting and I'm not convinced there's a remote equivalent.
  - dont__panic 4y ago
    Alternatively, WFH employees have way fewer benefits (no in-office coffee or food, potentially no internet or equipment support beyond a laptop, no electricity, HVAC, refrigerators, badges, security, commuter benefits, etc) and don't waste 1-3 hours per day commuting to and from the office + parking costs + 1 hour just to get too and from crappy unhealthy lunch spots. Their hours are much more flexible -- if the desk is right in your house, it's not crazy to hop on the computer quick before bed to finish up a report or send an email or review a PR. So when "crunch time" actually happens, WFH employees can spend more time working than in-office employees, and work less afterward to avoid burnout. The flexibility has additional benefits for coordination across time zones: I work from home, and I can get up at 6 AM to meet with folks in Australia from my home office. Or I can take off early and come back at 8PM to meet with folks in India. Not an option for in-office work. If you try, you'll be taking the meeting from your couch or some other suboptimal spot, not a home office. If your company is upwards of 5,000 employees, you probably have multiple offices. This means most of your meetings are in conference rooms with a video call anyway. Effectively no different from WFH meetings, except for crappier volume control, microphone gain, and visibility. Seems like for giant companies, WFH is a no-brainer for coordination purposes across multiple time zones and physical locations. And for small companies, WFH is a no-brainer because there's a ton of static-cost overhead that comes with physical offices.
- Raptor22 4y ago
  See, the problem is you used logic here, unlike senior management.

karmasimida 4y ago

Well that is kinda accurate Not sure if count tech specifically, the recession might already start? Only Amazon seems to hire aggressively at this point...

lowbloodsugar 4y ago
Plenty of WFH jobs at Amazon. Looking at a couple myself. Apple just removed themselves from my list. Actually said this was coming and they were already off my list.

asdff 4y ago

If its a recession why are you spending money on overhead like an office when you have plenty of potential employees happy to work from their home, an office you the employer are basically are getting for free?

rrrrrrrrrrrryan 4y ago
Because it's much easier to squeeze in-person employees harder. I'm being facetious, but I don't think it's entirely a bad thing. I'm not sure if you've even worked in a fast-paced environment where everyone is absolutely buzzing, but it's quite exciting and I'm not convinced there's a remote equivalent.
- dont__panic 4y ago
  Alternatively, WFH employees have way fewer benefits (no in-office coffee or food, potentially no internet or equipment support beyond a laptop, no electricity, HVAC, refrigerators, badges, security, commuter benefits, etc) and don't waste 1-3 hours per day commuting to and from the office + parking costs + 1 hour just to get too and from crappy unhealthy lunch spots. Their hours are much more flexible -- if the desk is right in your house, it's not crazy to hop on the computer quick before bed to finish up a report or send an email or review a PR. So when "crunch time" actually happens, WFH employees can spend more time working than in-office employees, and work less afterward to avoid burnout. The flexibility has additional benefits for coordination across time zones: I work from home, and I can get up at 6 AM to meet with folks in Australia from my home office. Or I can take off early and come back at 8PM to meet with folks in India. Not an option for in-office work. If you try, you'll be taking the meeting from your couch or some other suboptimal spot, not a home office. If your company is upwards of 5,000 employees, you probably have multiple offices. This means most of your meetings are in conference rooms with a video call anyway. Effectively no different from WFH meetings, except for crappier volume control, microphone gain, and visibility. Seems like for giant companies, WFH is a no-brainer for coordination purposes across multiple time zones and physical locations. And for small companies, WFH is a no-brainer because there's a ton of static-cost overhead that comes with physical offices.
Raptor22 4y ago
See, the problem is you used logic here, unlike senior management.