4 ms·

Our CTO starts every meeting with a “reminder that working remotely is a privilege and can change at a minute” but everything I find in the HR trade press seems

Our CTO starts every meeting with a “reminder that working remotely is a privilege and can change at a minute” but everything I find in the HR trade press seems to indicate we are well past privilege. The rhetorical question is why are we still paying for a sixty story sky rise that is occupied by a dozen people on any day. I do know the answer to that question but still - I have no intention of going back. If remote work was revoked tomorrow I might go in for a couple weeks while I interview but that’s going to be it.

function_seven 4y ago
I may have some gripes with my company, but I’m thankful they’re not trying to float a return to the office—and will not any time soon. We’ve drastically downsized our real estate. Dozens of leases terminated, including our previous skyscraper headquarters. My old office doesn’t exist anymore. Now I just hope they don’t get catch the “6%” fever that’s been going around.
chii 4y ago
> If remote work was revoked tomorrow I might go in for a couple weeks while I interview but that’s going to be it. but what if there just aren't many companies offering the same remote that is being offered today? And companies that _do_ offer remote could then lower their salary because they know there's a glut of applicants wanting remote.
- bluepizza 4y ago
  The dynamic is not that simple. Remote companies do offer a lower salary than they would in person - as you don't have to pay for commute, and you can live in Wyoming. But not all remote companies are interested in a race to the bottom. If they were, they'd only hire from LatAm, Africa, and South Asia.
  - zxcvbn4038 4y ago
    IBM was playing that game since the 90s - you can keep your job, but you have to relocate to a third world country, at your own expense, and be paid the local rate, in the local currency. It was designed to be a raw deal that nobody would accept - we didn’t lay people off, they resigned rather then take relocation offer. Of course IBM stopped being relevant and fizzled out years ago, I can’t remember the last time I ran into anyone using their products or services, so I guess all their shady HR maneuvering was a loss in the end. I suspect the story will be that a few companies will try to reduce the salaries of their remote workers, it will backfire when they jump ship to better offers, and in the end companies will just be happy they don’t have to pay for real estate, office perks, parking, travel, and all the other stuff. The people who do go into the office will have to bring their own toilet paper - twitter style.
    - chii 4y ago
      > it will backfire when they jump ship to better offers which means they're offering too low if people would jump ship and yet get the same privileges. What i'm specifically talking about is the WFH premium, all else being equal.
    - wkat4242 4y ago
      IBM seems to be mainly doing consultancy stuff now. From what I can see they don't really know what they want to be, they seem to be scavenging for scraps in the market, lacking a clear strategy. They dabble a bit in everything from processors, servers, services to software but don't really shine anywhere. We used them as a data center provider for a while but they were really bad, doing stuff like scheduling backups during peak times. We have some consultancy suits on the floor like the ones from Deloitte too, mainly for "old boys network" reasons I think because they're not particularly knowledgeable. I think they'll be around mainly to support all their legacy but I don't really see them driving any technology anymore.
- mech422 4y ago
  As long as there is a shortage of talent, companies will do what it takes to attract them. If company A can't get people, because everyone is going to company B for WFH benefits, company A will offer it too. And there is still a shortage of people... The recent layoffs will result in resources moving around, not a severe shortage of positions.

function_seven 4y ago

I may have some gripes with my company, but I’m thankful they’re not trying to float a return to the office—and will not any time soon. We’ve drastically downsized our real estate. Dozens of leases terminated, including our previous skyscraper headquarters. My old office doesn’t exist anymore. Now I just hope they don’t get catch the “6%” fever that’s been going around.

chii 4y ago

> If remote work was revoked tomorrow I might go in for a couple weeks while I interview but that’s going to be it. but what if there just aren't many companies offering the same remote that is being offered today? And companies that _do_ offer remote could then lower their salary because they know there's a glut of applicants wanting remote.

bluepizza 4y ago
The dynamic is not that simple. Remote companies do offer a lower salary than they would in person - as you don't have to pay for commute, and you can live in Wyoming. But not all remote companies are interested in a race to the bottom. If they were, they'd only hire from LatAm, Africa, and South Asia.
- zxcvbn4038 4y ago
  IBM was playing that game since the 90s - you can keep your job, but you have to relocate to a third world country, at your own expense, and be paid the local rate, in the local currency. It was designed to be a raw deal that nobody would accept - we didn’t lay people off, they resigned rather then take relocation offer. Of course IBM stopped being relevant and fizzled out years ago, I can’t remember the last time I ran into anyone using their products or services, so I guess all their shady HR maneuvering was a loss in the end. I suspect the story will be that a few companies will try to reduce the salaries of their remote workers, it will backfire when they jump ship to better offers, and in the end companies will just be happy they don’t have to pay for real estate, office perks, parking, travel, and all the other stuff. The people who do go into the office will have to bring their own toilet paper - twitter style.
  - chii 4y ago
    > it will backfire when they jump ship to better offers which means they're offering too low if people would jump ship and yet get the same privileges. What i'm specifically talking about is the WFH premium, all else being equal.
  - wkat4242 4y ago
    IBM seems to be mainly doing consultancy stuff now. From what I can see they don't really know what they want to be, they seem to be scavenging for scraps in the market, lacking a clear strategy. They dabble a bit in everything from processors, servers, services to software but don't really shine anywhere. We used them as a data center provider for a while but they were really bad, doing stuff like scheduling backups during peak times. We have some consultancy suits on the floor like the ones from Deloitte too, mainly for "old boys network" reasons I think because they're not particularly knowledgeable. I think they'll be around mainly to support all their legacy but I don't really see them driving any technology anymore.
mech422 4y ago
As long as there is a shortage of talent, companies will do what it takes to attract them. If company A can't get people, because everyone is going to company B for WFH benefits, company A will offer it too. And there is still a shortage of people... The recent layoffs will result in resources moving around, not a severe shortage of positions.