4 ms·

I'm on a team that has a mandatory "in-person" day twice a month. This seems to be the best balance for everyone as it's just infrequent enough to not feel like

I'm on a team that has a mandatory "in-person" day twice a month. This seems to be the best balance for everyone as it's just infrequent enough to not feel like a grind but frequent enough to keep everyone moving in the same direction.

bodge5000 4y ago
Given the choice, I'd never take a hybrid role. It means I still need to keep the "infrastructure" needed to get to the office (eg a car, public transport around me is terrible), but it sits unused 90% of the time. I can't get properly comfortable working at home or in the office because I'm constantly in between the two. Its just not for me.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  For twice a month you could probably Uber / rent a car and expense it, no?
  - jcpst 4y ago
    Every time I’ve traveled for work, they do not expense the portion where you leave from your home. It’s up to you to get to work. So if you drive, you “leave from the office” (i.e. calc the distance from there), or drive to the airport, and getting from home to the airport is on you. Curious to hear if this is different for others.
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      If your principal “work location” is home, then the travel is a business expense and your employer should pay. Many articles on this when you Google, but here’s one from a CPA https://www.bpbcpa.com/the-rules-employers-must-know-for-reimbursing-remote-workers-by-adam-cohen-cpa/ https://www.bpbcpa.com/the-rules-employers-must-know-for-rei...
      - jcpst 4y ago
        Ah ok, thanks. I didn’t think of “home” being a possible principle work location, but of course it is.
    - throwaway294566 4y ago
      I've worked for a government entity in Germany where this was regulated as follows. I think most of the private companies do it similarly as a baseline and are more generous as an optional perk: When you are doing "real" work from home (in bureaucrat-German: "Telearbeit"), your regular workplace is at your home. You need a separate, lockable room, the room needs to be inspected by the employer's safety advisor and data protection officer, equipment such as chair and desk as well the room and electricity are paid by the employer. Safety and health regulations apply in your home same as for the company office, e.g. lighting has to have appropriate brightness, no storing dangerous chemicals like toilet cleaner in the bathroom, etc. Since your office is at home, public holidays (which are location-dependent in Germany), taxes and regulations of your home apply to you. If you travel to the office, it is reimbursed as regular business travel ("Dienstgang"). Any other business travel is reimbursed as having started from your actual starting location (e.g. your girlfriend's) or your home, whichever is cheaper for the employer. But since all this is incredibly onerous and expensive, nobody does "Telearbeit". The alternative, which everyone uses, is "mobile work" (bureaucrat-German: "mobiles Arbeiten"). That was actually intended as a regulation for e.g. salesmen traveling from customer to customer, only sometimes working from the office. Here, your regular workplace is in the office, meaning that traveling between your home and the office is never reimbursed. Rules, holidays, etc. apply as if you were in the office, even if you are working from somewhere else, e.g. a customer's or your home. Since things are thought to be "mobile" and "random", workplace safety regulations do apply but do not need to be inspected. The employee is responsible for observing them at their current work location (i.e. usually not at all caring about all that crap). If you do "mobile work" from your home, you pay for your own chair, desk and power. When HR writes emails about WFH and you do pay attention, you will notice that they are carefully avoiding the term "Telearbeit" and maybe even "home office" and phrase everything in terms of "mobile work" (which is optionally 100% from your home) ;)
    - willcipriano 4y ago
      This sort of reveals the problem I have with this calculus. "Working from the office is more productive." "Great do you offer higher rates to offset the costs and share some of that additional productivity?" "Not really. We offer the market average of all jobs, wfh and wfo. We can't really afford more, renting office space is expensive." "Would you lease a car for me, count commute time towards the workday and refund my gas and toll costs?" "No! That wouldn't be cost effective!" It may be that WFO does make the business a bit more, but it's actually less than the employees cost to get into the office each day. In my experience most employers would happily load their employees with thousands in costs to make a couple extra hundred bucks themselves.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- matwood 4y ago
  I wouldn't consider 2x/month hybrid. It's close, but IMO is more like typical remote work where the team gets together periodically.
- tomtheelder 4y ago
  I'd have to imagine that the universe of people who have terrible public transit around them yet don't own a car for day to day life has to be very small. I recognize your situation, but surely you are an edge case here.

bodge5000 4y ago

Given the choice, I'd never take a hybrid role. It means I still need to keep the "infrastructure" needed to get to the office (eg a car, public transport around me is terrible), but it sits unused 90% of the time. I can't get properly comfortable working at home or in the office because I'm constantly in between the two. Its just not for me.

andsoitis 4y ago
For twice a month you could probably Uber / rent a car and expense it, no?
- jcpst 4y ago
  Every time I’ve traveled for work, they do not expense the portion where you leave from your home. It’s up to you to get to work. So if you drive, you “leave from the office” (i.e. calc the distance from there), or drive to the airport, and getting from home to the airport is on you. Curious to hear if this is different for others.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    If your principal “work location” is home, then the travel is a business expense and your employer should pay. Many articles on this when you Google, but here’s one from a CPA https://www.bpbcpa.com/the-rules-employers-must-know-for-reimbursing-remote-workers-by-adam-cohen-cpa/ https://www.bpbcpa.com/the-rules-employers-must-know-for-rei...
    - jcpst 4y ago
      Ah ok, thanks. I didn’t think of “home” being a possible principle work location, but of course it is.
  - throwaway294566 4y ago
    I've worked for a government entity in Germany where this was regulated as follows. I think most of the private companies do it similarly as a baseline and are more generous as an optional perk: When you are doing "real" work from home (in bureaucrat-German: "Telearbeit"), your regular workplace is at your home. You need a separate, lockable room, the room needs to be inspected by the employer's safety advisor and data protection officer, equipment such as chair and desk as well the room and electricity are paid by the employer. Safety and health regulations apply in your home same as for the company office, e.g. lighting has to have appropriate brightness, no storing dangerous chemicals like toilet cleaner in the bathroom, etc. Since your office is at home, public holidays (which are location-dependent in Germany), taxes and regulations of your home apply to you. If you travel to the office, it is reimbursed as regular business travel ("Dienstgang"). Any other business travel is reimbursed as having started from your actual starting location (e.g. your girlfriend's) or your home, whichever is cheaper for the employer. But since all this is incredibly onerous and expensive, nobody does "Telearbeit". The alternative, which everyone uses, is "mobile work" (bureaucrat-German: "mobiles Arbeiten"). That was actually intended as a regulation for e.g. salesmen traveling from customer to customer, only sometimes working from the office. Here, your regular workplace is in the office, meaning that traveling between your home and the office is never reimbursed. Rules, holidays, etc. apply as if you were in the office, even if you are working from somewhere else, e.g. a customer's or your home. Since things are thought to be "mobile" and "random", workplace safety regulations do apply but do not need to be inspected. The employee is responsible for observing them at their current work location (i.e. usually not at all caring about all that crap). If you do "mobile work" from your home, you pay for your own chair, desk and power. When HR writes emails about WFH and you do pay attention, you will notice that they are carefully avoiding the term "Telearbeit" and maybe even "home office" and phrase everything in terms of "mobile work" (which is optionally 100% from your home) ;)
  - willcipriano 4y ago
    This sort of reveals the problem I have with this calculus. "Working from the office is more productive." "Great do you offer higher rates to offset the costs and share some of that additional productivity?" "Not really. We offer the market average of all jobs, wfh and wfo. We can't really afford more, renting office space is expensive." "Would you lease a car for me, count commute time towards the workday and refund my gas and toll costs?" "No! That wouldn't be cost effective!" It may be that WFO does make the business a bit more, but it's actually less than the employees cost to get into the office each day. In my experience most employers would happily load their employees with thousands in costs to make a couple extra hundred bucks themselves.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
matwood 4y ago
I wouldn't consider 2x/month hybrid. It's close, but IMO is more like typical remote work where the team gets together periodically.
tomtheelder 4y ago
I'd have to imagine that the universe of people who have terrible public transit around them yet don't own a car for day to day life has to be very small. I recognize your situation, but surely you are an edge case here.