6 ms·

What if it becomes clear across the industry that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs? Beyond reduced pay and benefit scenarios, I'm curiou

by loteck 4y ago

What if it becomes clear across the industry that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs? Beyond reduced pay and benefit scenarios, I'm curious if reduced job security will be a price workers are willng to pay for WFH.

sonotathrowaway 4y ago
Then employers smart enough to prioritize wfh will gain a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining talent
Johnny555 4y ago
What if it becomes clear that remote workers are the last to go since they have less overhead in office space and other office amenities that companies offer to entice them to come to the office (on site gym, snacks, lunch, etc). Amazon just got rid of a 29 acre property that they paid $123m for, why wouldn’t other companies recognize savings from remote workers?
- timr 4y ago
  > What if it becomes clear that remote workers are the last to go since they have less overhead in office space and other office amenities that companies offer to entice them to come to the office (on site gym, snacks, lunch, etc). The lavish amenities of big tech were put there for a reason -- to get people to work more. Maybe secondarily for retention. If you think that companies are going to look at declining productivity and think "hm, that's an acceptable tradeoff, since I'm paying less for office space!", then I'll take that bet.
  - nkozyra 4y ago
    > declining productivity Isn't this begging the question? I've never been as productive in an office as WFH. I know that's not everyone but I also know I'm not the only one.
    - timr 4y ago
      I'm not begging the question -- it's the core assumption of the entire thread. I am agnostic on the "who is more productive" question. I find it less interesting to speculate than to observe what is actually happening. Parent is asserting that even in a world where companies want employees in the office (i.e. the current world), they're going to cave on the matter because of the money they're saving on office stuff.
      - Johnny555 4y ago
        I made no such assumption, you read that into my comment. I made the same statement about productivity as the post I replied to… none. I guess I missed the decision that an in-office workforce is more productive than fully remote (I personally think that hybrid is bad for productivity, and companies should pick one or the other). There is certainly a lot of evidence and debate on both sides but no real proof one way or another. And of course I am talking about knowledge workers, not surgeons or assembly line workers.
        timr 4y ago
        As I said, it's the core assumption of the entire thread. GP set things off with: > What if it becomes clear across the industry that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs? Beyond reduced pay and benefit scenarios, I'm curious if reduced job security will be a price workers are willing to pay for WFH. I grant you that it's not explicitly stated, but it's reasonable to assume that companies aren't just laying off productive workers out of sheer pettiness. Replying to GP with the premise reversed (as you did) implies that the cost/benefit equation is reversed as well.
        Johnny555 4y ago
        >I grant you that it's not explicitly stated, but it's reasonable to assume that companies aren't just laying off productive workers out of sheer pettiness. The premise was that remote workers might be first in line for layoffs, no mention of productivity, and as you said, companies wouldn’t lay off more productive workers out of pettiness. So it’s fair to assume that the list of workers that are candidates to be laid off are already at the same level of productivity. My comment was asking what if the opposite was true and if when it came time for layoffs, workers in the office were first in line because laying off office workers saves money in office space. At no point did I say or imply that productivity would be ignored.
  - mensetmanusman 4y ago
    The secret is that economists have no idea how to measure productivity.
    - timr 4y ago
      Yours is probably the best rebuttal on the subthread. Measuring productivity is hard. I do think this is something that is identified in aggregate, however. Maybe you can't attribute the loss in productivity to individual employees, but you definitely notice if projects start taking a lot longer than they used to.
  - gibolt 4y ago
    They are paying less for all those amenities, too. Food and all the other things provided per employee really add up. When in a rough economy, cutting those things and keeping your 'best' employees regardless of WFH status is the best of both worlds for an MBA
unshavedyak 4y ago
Depends on how it's viewed. When you're looking to save money, WFH workers have less financial overhead than Office workers. They often take the burden of office, electricity, etc costs. After all, we're in a thread about Amazon selling an Office to save money.
simplotek 4y ago
> What if it becomes clear across the industry that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs? From the article: "The Bay Area’s office market has been hit hard over the past two years, as companies pivoted to remote work and gave up real estate to cut costs." It looks like remote work is not being singled out. In fact, it's pointed out as a cost saver. What makes you believe that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs?

by loteck 4y ago

sonotathrowaway 4y ago

Then employers smart enough to prioritize wfh will gain a competitive advantage in attracting and retaining talent

Johnny555 4y ago

What if it becomes clear that remote workers are the last to go since they have less overhead in office space and other office amenities that companies offer to entice them to come to the office (on site gym, snacks, lunch, etc). Amazon just got rid of a 29 acre property that they paid $123m for, why wouldn’t other companies recognize savings from remote workers?

timr 4y ago
> What if it becomes clear that remote workers are the last to go since they have less overhead in office space and other office amenities that companies offer to entice them to come to the office (on site gym, snacks, lunch, etc). The lavish amenities of big tech were put there for a reason -- to get people to work more. Maybe secondarily for retention. If you think that companies are going to look at declining productivity and think "hm, that's an acceptable tradeoff, since I'm paying less for office space!", then I'll take that bet.
- nkozyra 4y ago
  > declining productivity Isn't this begging the question? I've never been as productive in an office as WFH. I know that's not everyone but I also know I'm not the only one.
  - timr 4y ago
    I'm not begging the question -- it's the core assumption of the entire thread. I am agnostic on the "who is more productive" question. I find it less interesting to speculate than to observe what is actually happening. Parent is asserting that even in a world where companies want employees in the office (i.e. the current world), they're going to cave on the matter because of the money they're saving on office stuff.
    - Johnny555 4y ago
      I made no such assumption, you read that into my comment. I made the same statement about productivity as the post I replied to… none. I guess I missed the decision that an in-office workforce is more productive than fully remote (I personally think that hybrid is bad for productivity, and companies should pick one or the other). There is certainly a lot of evidence and debate on both sides but no real proof one way or another. And of course I am talking about knowledge workers, not surgeons or assembly line workers.
      - timr 4y ago
        As I said, it's the core assumption of the entire thread. GP set things off with: > What if it becomes clear across the industry that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs? Beyond reduced pay and benefit scenarios, I'm curious if reduced job security will be a price workers are willing to pay for WFH. I grant you that it's not explicitly stated, but it's reasonable to assume that companies aren't just laying off productive workers out of sheer pettiness. Replying to GP with the premise reversed (as you did) implies that the cost/benefit equation is reversed as well.
        Johnny555 4y ago
        >I grant you that it's not explicitly stated, but it's reasonable to assume that companies aren't just laying off productive workers out of sheer pettiness. The premise was that remote workers might be first in line for layoffs, no mention of productivity, and as you said, companies wouldn’t lay off more productive workers out of pettiness. So it’s fair to assume that the list of workers that are candidates to be laid off are already at the same level of productivity. My comment was asking what if the opposite was true and if when it came time for layoffs, workers in the office were first in line because laying off office workers saves money in office space. At no point did I say or imply that productivity would be ignored.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  The secret is that economists have no idea how to measure productivity.
  - timr 4y ago
    Yours is probably the best rebuttal on the subthread. Measuring productivity is hard. I do think this is something that is identified in aggregate, however. Maybe you can't attribute the loss in productivity to individual employees, but you definitely notice if projects start taking a lot longer than they used to.
- gibolt 4y ago
  They are paying less for all those amenities, too. Food and all the other things provided per employee really add up. When in a rough economy, cutting those things and keeping your 'best' employees regardless of WFH status is the best of both worlds for an MBA

unshavedyak 4y ago

Depends on how it's viewed. When you're looking to save money, WFH workers have less financial overhead than Office workers. They often take the burden of office, electricity, etc costs. After all, we're in a thread about Amazon selling an Office to save money.

simplotek 4y ago

> What if it becomes clear across the industry that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs? From the article: "The Bay Area’s office market has been hit hard over the past two years, as companies pivoted to remote work and gave up real estate to cut costs." It looks like remote work is not being singled out. In fact, it's pointed out as a cost saver. What makes you believe that remote workers are first in line for convenience layoffs?