6 ms·

As things stand I'd need a significant pay rise to start working from an office again. Bills and mortgage increases have eaten the benefits I got from not havin

As things stand I'd need a significant pay rise to start working from an office again. Bills and mortgage increases have eaten the benefits I got from not having to travel so if I had to travel into work most days I'd be significantly worse off. There seems to be an implicit assumption that WFH is somehow less productive. I've not seen much evidence of this personally. It certainly makes management harder but it's a small price to pay when it's saving a bunch of travel costs for the employee and office costs for the employer

batch12 4y ago
> As things stand I'd need a significant pay rise to start working from an office again If I am understanding the parent, the point being made is this may be less of an option for many if companies revert. If there aren't many opportunities to work remotely, this will become more of a perk, like free lunches, and not something other organizations will compensate you for. Not everyone may have a choice to demand more money if the number of WFH options are very limited.
- VBprogrammer 4y ago
  WFH being very limited doesn't reflect the situation I'm seeing at the moment. Over half my team have been hired since WFH was introduced, almost all of them live too far away for commuting more than occasionally to be an option. One of them even got it written into his job offer that he has to do at most 1 day a month in office and he gets paid travel expenses. Apple and Google might be able to pull it off but run of the mill non-unicorn companies? Not convinced.
  - tcmart14 4y ago
    Another thing to consider for the non-unicorn companies. If the big players axe WFH, the smaller companies and "non-unicorn" could be in a good position to use WFH has a hedge to attract talent. People who would apply and get hired at MANGA, but they will pass it up for the ability to live and work anywhere. My guess, there are a lot of talented engineers who would take that.
    - mcphage 4y ago
      Why did we switch F to M when Facebook became Meta, but not G to A when Google became Alphabet?
      - jlokier 4y ago
        Because Google didn't rename to Alphabet. They created a parent company called Alphabet which owns Google and a bunch of other subsidiary companies, but Google is still itself and still wants to be called Google. Whereas Facebook made a big announcement that they were renaming the company Meta. They asked to be called Meta.
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Are there payrates at Alphabet lower than at Google? Typically, I have always read the acronym in relation to high paying jobs or high performing stocks.
        jrockway 4y ago
        I worked for what was technically an Alphabet company, and it was no different from working at Google. I was told, but never confirmed myself, that I worked for Google and Google contracted me out to the subsidiary. Maybe things have changed in the intervening 5 years since I was there, but this was something for the accountants and not something that affected everyday life. Hiring a CFO from the banking industry did make it more difficult to get the free food, though. The cause and effect there was immediately noticeable.
        nostrademons 4y ago
        I don't think they're lower, but they're different. Notably, Alphabet employees of the other Bets (Waymo, Loon, Verily, etc.) get stock in the bet rather than GOOG stock. This is privately held and so a lot less liquid than GOOG, and you lose your unvested shares if you transfer to the mothership. It has a lot of the same risk/reward tradeoffs as working for a startup.
      - 4y ago
- whatshisface 4y ago
  A bad economy is also bad for companies, which should be glad that they have something to offer as an alternative to pay.
  - matwood 4y ago
    And can cut spend on office space.
mancerayder 4y ago
I don't know if there's an implicit assumption that WFH is less productive, quite possibly. But if we look at the power dynamics of the question, it's about (tech in this case) labor being able to demand what it wants when it's in demand. I think the point above is that this dynamic will change with the economy going south. With labor having less power, it's likely that the members of senior management who don't like WFH (for a multitude of reasons right and wrong) will have more sway in the conversation.

batch12 4y ago

> As things stand I'd need a significant pay rise to start working from an office again If I am understanding the parent, the point being made is this may be less of an option for many if companies revert. If there aren't many opportunities to work remotely, this will become more of a perk, like free lunches, and not something other organizations will compensate you for. Not everyone may have a choice to demand more money if the number of WFH options are very limited.

VBprogrammer 4y ago
WFH being very limited doesn't reflect the situation I'm seeing at the moment. Over half my team have been hired since WFH was introduced, almost all of them live too far away for commuting more than occasionally to be an option. One of them even got it written into his job offer that he has to do at most 1 day a month in office and he gets paid travel expenses. Apple and Google might be able to pull it off but run of the mill non-unicorn companies? Not convinced.
- tcmart14 4y ago
  Another thing to consider for the non-unicorn companies. If the big players axe WFH, the smaller companies and "non-unicorn" could be in a good position to use WFH has a hedge to attract talent. People who would apply and get hired at MANGA, but they will pass it up for the ability to live and work anywhere. My guess, there are a lot of talented engineers who would take that.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    Why did we switch F to M when Facebook became Meta, but not G to A when Google became Alphabet?
    - jlokier 4y ago
      Because Google didn't rename to Alphabet. They created a parent company called Alphabet which owns Google and a bunch of other subsidiary companies, but Google is still itself and still wants to be called Google. Whereas Facebook made a big announcement that they were renaming the company Meta. They asked to be called Meta.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        Are there payrates at Alphabet lower than at Google? Typically, I have always read the acronym in relation to high paying jobs or high performing stocks.
        jrockway 4y ago
        I worked for what was technically an Alphabet company, and it was no different from working at Google. I was told, but never confirmed myself, that I worked for Google and Google contracted me out to the subsidiary. Maybe things have changed in the intervening 5 years since I was there, but this was something for the accountants and not something that affected everyday life. Hiring a CFO from the banking industry did make it more difficult to get the free food, though. The cause and effect there was immediately noticeable.
        nostrademons 4y ago
        I don't think they're lower, but they're different. Notably, Alphabet employees of the other Bets (Waymo, Loon, Verily, etc.) get stock in the bet rather than GOOG stock. This is privately held and so a lot less liquid than GOOG, and you lose your unvested shares if you transfer to the mothership. It has a lot of the same risk/reward tradeoffs as working for a startup.
    - 4y ago
whatshisface 4y ago
A bad economy is also bad for companies, which should be glad that they have something to offer as an alternative to pay.
- matwood 4y ago
  And can cut spend on office space.

mancerayder 4y ago

I don't know if there's an implicit assumption that WFH is less productive, quite possibly. But if we look at the power dynamics of the question, it's about (tech in this case) labor being able to demand what it wants when it's in demand. I think the point above is that this dynamic will change with the economy going south. With labor having less power, it's likely that the members of senior management who don't like WFH (for a multitude of reasons right and wrong) will have more sway in the conversation.