4 ms·

> well qualified candidates are leaping from the curmudgeony competition right to them. When I asked "well qualified candidates" what they prefer, there was a

> well qualified candidates are leaping from the curmudgeony competition right to them. When I asked "well qualified candidates" what they prefer, there was a split between hybrid, remote and in-office with hybrid winning a plurality. People like hybrid because that allows them in-person brainstorming. Much easier to tackle complex design over a whiteboard than trying to do so over zoom. In-person beats video when it comes to transferring thoughts.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
echelon 4y ago
> People like hybrid because that allows them in-person brainstorming. Hands down. But I'd like to see approaches like "two weeks a month" rather than "three days a week". Start the month off with planning, brainstorming, collaboration, integration, then end it with heads-down focus.
- asdff 4y ago
  I wonder what the breakdown would look like flying an employee in on a $250 airline ticket and renting a conference room for a day vs paying for an office that sits unused half the month? I think it would also be interesting to see what ends up happening when cal hsr is finished. Now you can live in merced and could end up in sac, la, sf, san diego, anaheim, population and job centers all over the state really for a lot less hassle and cost of flying. Trains are generally more spacious and comfortable for getting some work done on the laptop as well, maybe you can bake the train commute into your working hours since you'd essentially be in an office that moves at 220mph around the state.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    It costs a lot more than that. Airline tickets are routinely 500-700$ (eg. SF-NY or SF-Miami). Then you need a couple of nights of hotels on top. Add 2-3 meals per day. And suddenly you are looking at 1000-1500$ per person. For a team of 40-50, that's ~50K budget for 1 day of productive work. Now compare that to an office lease where you can get. At an avg density of 200 sqft/person[1], you'd need 10,000 sqft. You can get that for ~500K$/yr[2]. You use that for 10 times in a given year and you are breaking even. [1] https://aquilacommercial.com/learning-center/how-much-office-space-need-calculator-per-person/ https://aquilacommercial.com/learning-center/how-much-office... [2] https://www.loopnet.com/search/commercial-real-estate/san-francisco-ca/for-lease/ https://www.loopnet.com/search/commercial-real-estate/san-fr...
- alper 4y ago
  No go because they need to "manage" this. Everything needs to be synchronized, people need to be aligned. All the busy work needs to go somewhere.
oblio 4y ago
Don't bother. This is a religious topic. People who are pro WFH will defend it to the death, those pro RTO the same and God[1] forbid you want a hybrid regime. [1] God of offices, of course.
- olliej 4y ago
  The difference is that pro-RTO people want to force RTO on everyone, whereas pro-WFH are not.
  - RestlessMind 4y ago
    Pro-WFH people absolutely want companies to embrace fully remote. I haven't yet had a discussion where, after traversal of enough rabbit-holes, everyone agrees that only viable options are (A) fully-remote, (B) fully-office, (C) hybrid where everyone is in office on the same days. Just to give one specific example - if half the team is in office huddled around a conference room table and the rest half is dialing in via Zoom, the ones in the common room will have far better connection and the remote members will feel neglected.
    - olliej 4y ago
      > Pro-WFH people absolutely want companies to embrace fully remote. I haven't yet had a discussion where, after traversal of enough rabbit-holes, everyone agrees that only viable options are (A) fully-remote, (B) fully-office, (C) hybrid where everyone is in office on the same days. I have not had a discussion at all with anyone, that says "people should be banned from the office". I have not met a single WFH person who has said anything other than "people should not have to go to the office if working in they are more productive at home". I don't know where this "the only options are A, B, or C come from" when quite clearly "people who don't need to be in the office don't need to come into the office" is what every WFH person (I guess outside of nonsense "thought" pieces from random people trying to get press coverage, rather than actual employees effected by these choices) has wanted. "Hybrid" plans are entirely about trying to mitigate the unrelenting harm caused by mandatory RTO. We even get that some times it would be useful to be in the office - but again, non-mandatory RTO folk are not banning offices, whereas RTO folk are banning WFH. > Just to give one specific example - if half the team is in office huddled around a conference room table and the rest half is dialing in via Zoom, the ones in the common room will have far better connection and the remote members will feel neglected. If this is how your company operates continuously that sounds like a horrific work environment. Also, people who are working from home are not feeling "neglected". Again, if someone is unable to handle online communication they can go to an office - for larger companies they clearly aren't going to be alone - but you can't project their feelings of neglect on to others. I want to be clear here, "Mandatory office work because I need X, therefore those WFH people must need X as well, and the only solution is to force them to come in to the office" is projecting your personal feelings on to other people, it is not "caring" about those people, and framing it as such is dishonest. Here is what my "hybrid" work week looks like: * I get paid for 40 hours of work * I am now required to spend 12 hours driving to and from the office each week. * I am not paid for that time, nor are my deliverables reduces. * I am spending ~25-30% more hours on work, but am not getting paid any more. Hence I've taken a 20-25% cut to hourly income. On the plus side there are some huge benefits: * People can knock on my office door to interrupt me * I contribute to the economy by having to pay for a dog walker, having to buy an additional car, etc * I get the comfort of working with a mask on for four hours. It's only four hours, because if I head to or from the office earlier or later my commute would increase by an hour or more each office day. Seriously, I understand that for some people the opportunity to socialize in person in the office is necessary, and they can do that. But for people who don't need to do that, mandatory return to office is horrifically expensive in numerous metrics, and has literally no benefit.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> When I asked "well qualified candidates" what they prefer Not sure if I'm "well qualified" to you, but I assume I am... When I was searching for a job, I basically told the recruiter/manager what they wanted to hear (after research them). I can work wherever, and since I'm located in a city, a commute is easy. There's a benefit to telling someone what they want to hear so you seem like a "culture fit". Realistically, I like hybrid but not the 3/2 per week breakdown we see a lot. I want to WFH for 2 weeks doing my work in peace, then go to office for a few days of busy planning and socializing. This is especially helpful around holidays, vacations, etc where my schedule is disrupted and I don't want to be forced to commute. Being told in-office only would be the worst option, because the flexibility of being remote for package delivery, family events, travel, etc is too important. I understand the value people profess of in-person work, but its one of those things that benefits the company more than the individual.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  Based on your nuanced reply, you already seem "well qualified" :-) > I want to WFH for 2 weeks doing my work in peace, then go to office for a few days of busy planning and socializing. That's a reasonable take. > its one of those things that benefits the company more than the individual. I disagree on that one. In-person connections are very valuable to climb the ladder faster, particularly in the early stages of one's career. They are also helpful to forge bonds with senior leadership once you are at a higher position. That typically happens with casual hallway or watercooler conversations, occasional coffees or just while waiting in line at cafes for lunch. I have seen people liking other people more once they have spent some time in person.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

echelon 4y ago

> People like hybrid because that allows them in-person brainstorming. Hands down. But I'd like to see approaches like "two weeks a month" rather than "three days a week". Start the month off with planning, brainstorming, collaboration, integration, then end it with heads-down focus.

asdff 4y ago
I wonder what the breakdown would look like flying an employee in on a $250 airline ticket and renting a conference room for a day vs paying for an office that sits unused half the month? I think it would also be interesting to see what ends up happening when cal hsr is finished. Now you can live in merced and could end up in sac, la, sf, san diego, anaheim, population and job centers all over the state really for a lot less hassle and cost of flying. Trains are generally more spacious and comfortable for getting some work done on the laptop as well, maybe you can bake the train commute into your working hours since you'd essentially be in an office that moves at 220mph around the state.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  It costs a lot more than that. Airline tickets are routinely 500-700$ (eg. SF-NY or SF-Miami). Then you need a couple of nights of hotels on top. Add 2-3 meals per day. And suddenly you are looking at 1000-1500$ per person. For a team of 40-50, that's ~50K budget for 1 day of productive work. Now compare that to an office lease where you can get. At an avg density of 200 sqft/person[1], you'd need 10,000 sqft. You can get that for ~500K$/yr[2]. You use that for 10 times in a given year and you are breaking even. [1] https://aquilacommercial.com/learning-center/how-much-office-space-need-calculator-per-person/ https://aquilacommercial.com/learning-center/how-much-office... [2] https://www.loopnet.com/search/commercial-real-estate/san-francisco-ca/for-lease/ https://www.loopnet.com/search/commercial-real-estate/san-fr...
alper 4y ago
No go because they need to "manage" this. Everything needs to be synchronized, people need to be aligned. All the busy work needs to go somewhere.

oblio 4y ago

Don't bother. This is a religious topic. People who are pro WFH will defend it to the death, those pro RTO the same and God[1] forbid you want a hybrid regime. [1] God of offices, of course.

olliej 4y ago
The difference is that pro-RTO people want to force RTO on everyone, whereas pro-WFH are not.
- RestlessMind 4y ago
  Pro-WFH people absolutely want companies to embrace fully remote. I haven't yet had a discussion where, after traversal of enough rabbit-holes, everyone agrees that only viable options are (A) fully-remote, (B) fully-office, (C) hybrid where everyone is in office on the same days. Just to give one specific example - if half the team is in office huddled around a conference room table and the rest half is dialing in via Zoom, the ones in the common room will have far better connection and the remote members will feel neglected.
  - olliej 4y ago
    > Pro-WFH people absolutely want companies to embrace fully remote. I haven't yet had a discussion where, after traversal of enough rabbit-holes, everyone agrees that only viable options are (A) fully-remote, (B) fully-office, (C) hybrid where everyone is in office on the same days. I have not had a discussion at all with anyone, that says "people should be banned from the office". I have not met a single WFH person who has said anything other than "people should not have to go to the office if working in they are more productive at home". I don't know where this "the only options are A, B, or C come from" when quite clearly "people who don't need to be in the office don't need to come into the office" is what every WFH person (I guess outside of nonsense "thought" pieces from random people trying to get press coverage, rather than actual employees effected by these choices) has wanted. "Hybrid" plans are entirely about trying to mitigate the unrelenting harm caused by mandatory RTO. We even get that some times it would be useful to be in the office - but again, non-mandatory RTO folk are not banning offices, whereas RTO folk are banning WFH. > Just to give one specific example - if half the team is in office huddled around a conference room table and the rest half is dialing in via Zoom, the ones in the common room will have far better connection and the remote members will feel neglected. If this is how your company operates continuously that sounds like a horrific work environment. Also, people who are working from home are not feeling "neglected". Again, if someone is unable to handle online communication they can go to an office - for larger companies they clearly aren't going to be alone - but you can't project their feelings of neglect on to others. I want to be clear here, "Mandatory office work because I need X, therefore those WFH people must need X as well, and the only solution is to force them to come in to the office" is projecting your personal feelings on to other people, it is not "caring" about those people, and framing it as such is dishonest. Here is what my "hybrid" work week looks like: * I get paid for 40 hours of work * I am now required to spend 12 hours driving to and from the office each week. * I am not paid for that time, nor are my deliverables reduces. * I am spending ~25-30% more hours on work, but am not getting paid any more. Hence I've taken a 20-25% cut to hourly income. On the plus side there are some huge benefits: * People can knock on my office door to interrupt me * I contribute to the economy by having to pay for a dog walker, having to buy an additional car, etc * I get the comfort of working with a mask on for four hours. It's only four hours, because if I head to or from the office earlier or later my commute would increase by an hour or more each office day. Seriously, I understand that for some people the opportunity to socialize in person in the office is necessary, and they can do that. But for people who don't need to do that, mandatory return to office is horrifically expensive in numerous metrics, and has literally no benefit.

vineyardmike 4y ago

> When I asked "well qualified candidates" what they prefer Not sure if I'm "well qualified" to you, but I assume I am... When I was searching for a job, I basically told the recruiter/manager what they wanted to hear (after research them). I can work wherever, and since I'm located in a city, a commute is easy. There's a benefit to telling someone what they want to hear so you seem like a "culture fit". Realistically, I like hybrid but not the 3/2 per week breakdown we see a lot. I want to WFH for 2 weeks doing my work in peace, then go to office for a few days of busy planning and socializing. This is especially helpful around holidays, vacations, etc where my schedule is disrupted and I don't want to be forced to commute. Being told in-office only would be the worst option, because the flexibility of being remote for package delivery, family events, travel, etc is too important. I understand the value people profess of in-person work, but its one of those things that benefits the company more than the individual.

RestlessMind 4y ago
Based on your nuanced reply, you already seem "well qualified" :-) > I want to WFH for 2 weeks doing my work in peace, then go to office for a few days of busy planning and socializing. That's a reasonable take. > its one of those things that benefits the company more than the individual. I disagree on that one. In-person connections are very valuable to climb the ladder faster, particularly in the early stages of one's career. They are also helpful to forge bonds with senior leadership once you are at a higher position. That typically happens with casual hallway or watercooler conversations, occasional coffees or just while waiting in line at cafes for lunch. I have seen people liking other people more once they have spent some time in person.