6 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoI'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 agoI 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 agoAs 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.
- nkozyra 4y ago> The premise was that remote workers might be first in line for layoffs, no mention of productivity Right, and followed with a fairly archaic assumption that remote workers are inherently less productive. I used to believe it too, so I get it.
- pandaman 4y agoCompanies actually track productivity. WFH had been around for a long time, treated as a perk. If it's been improving productivity it had been mandatory already. If it's been neutral - it had been encouraged (due to additional expenses on the office environment). It's pretty obvious by the push to RTO that it have been neither of the above.
- nkozyra 4y agoIt doesn't always improve productively. It doesn't work for some people. But a lot of the resistance is less about productivity and more about sunk costs and not fully understanding a relatively new world. Work was done in the office exclusively for so long that it will be hard to change the way some people think about it.
- pandaman 4y agoWork has not been done in the office exclusively, we had WFH for a long while. The only thing new now is that it's been mandatory for a while so the productivity data is rock solid.