5 ms·

I love this idea generally. How, though, do you account for different people with the same job description living at different distances? As a thought experime

by Arubis 4y ago

I love this idea generally. How, though, do you account for different people with the same job description living at different distances? As a thought experiment, Alice and Bob are both security and network engineers that work in the server cage. Alice lives with three roommates next door to the office; Bob has a spouse, three children, and a dog, and the only place he can afford to live imposes a four-hour commute each way. Alice is thus able to spend eight hours each day on her defined job duties, while Bob expends his entire workday driving. Come time for performance reviews, Alice will (presumably) appear to have had much greater efficacy than Bob, despite Bob having expended the same amount of time on the job. How does Bob avoid being fired for living somewhere more affordable? (That Bob’s life is a road-bound living hell is not intended to be in scope for this argument.)

voisin 4y ago
Your argument is exactly why WFH will fail. Bob and Alice share the same manager, Carl. When Carl needs Bob, he has to send a slack message and arrange a time for a call. When Carl needs Alice, he turns his head and calls across the aisle to her desk. How is Bob expected to ever be top of mind or as relevant to Carl as Alice? Fast forward and anyone with ambition to get ahead will recognize this dynamic and opt to be in the office, and anyone else will WFH and be high on the list to cull when the economy turns. Easier to fire the talking head on your screen than the real person you see every day.
- EMM_386 4y ago
  I have worked remotely in IT in multiple positions for over a decade, far pre-dating the pandemic WFH transition. I have never had a problem with communication or feeling noticed. Everything I do is tracked, and I am at my desk during work hours, the same as if I was in an office. When someone Slacks me, I generally will get back to them either instantaneously or within a few minutes, the same as if I was in an office. I'm not sitting around watching Netflix or going for an hour walk at 10 AM. I'm expected during certain hours to be doing my job, no matter where it is. I don't see this as a reason that "WFh will fail', it's been working fine for me.
- kkfx 4y ago
  With the note that I'm from EU, so some social habits my differ, if someone, not just a manager have to reach me I have a VoIP phone and there is NOTHING to schedule up front. Someone call, I answer. The "scheduling" part is NOT about WFH vs in office but working without defined timeframes LIKE in the office. If you state: you should be available at your desktop from your home between HH:MM and HH2:MM2 these days per week anything will be the same.
- WWLink 4y ago
  > Bob and Alice share the same manager, Carl. When Carl needs Bob, he has to send a slack message and arrange a time for a call. When Carl needs Alice, he turns his head and calls across the aisle to her desk. How is Bob expected to ever be top of mind or as relevant to Carl as Alice? Who said you need to arrange a time for a call? Especially if I'm right fucking there. The availability should be the same. If I am WFH and not at my desk, I'll miss the call. Same thing will happen if I'm in the office and not at my desk.
- lightbendover 4y ago
  > How is Bob expected to ever be top of mind or as relevant to Carl as Alice? Because Bob is a badass who carried an SVP goal by himself and Alice is a typically valueless Amazonian who should now obviously be applauded for being in the office because of reasons.
jkukul 4y ago
Additionally, who would verify where does Bob actually live? Maybe he also lives next door to the office but told the employer he lives 4 hours away? Very interesting idea but impractical. I think that the remote vs onsite aspect eventually will be implicitly factored into the salary by the market. Onsite jobs will need to pay more to have people come to the office and trade their free time for commuting. Fully remote jobs will be able to pay less because people would see that as an added bonus.
- michaelmrose 4y ago
  Wouldn't you have a maximum you are willing to pay for commuting expressed as a percentage of your compensation, rely on background/credit check to flag accounts for probable fraud for HR to look into, and fire people you found defrauding your company? Also anyone willing to commit a crime to pad their paycheck is probably doing other nefarious things so they want to dig a little deeper besides? This would be so trivial to uncover in most cases I can't imagine this would be a big deal.
coreyp_1 4y ago
I know. That's why I assume that it won't work. But let's take your scenario and run with it. :) I assume for this thought exercise that that both Alice and Bob have WFH-compatible jobs. Alice could move further away. Will that change her hours worked (under this scheme)? No. Performance reviews, then, would need to be mandated to only consider actual work time. The problem with mandating complex systems will always come down to the edge cases. Companies will optimize location when searching for employees. Should you make it illegal to ask about location during the hiring process? What happens if an employee moves? Does it matter if they move one week after being hired as opposed to three years? In short, legislating this type of thing would lead to undesirable emergent behavior caused by the rules of that complex system. It's a good approach if everyone plays fair and works together for mutual benefit, but since when does a company or employee truly care about each other these days?
- kkfx 4y ago
  I have a far simpler solution, the same happen with great success in the past, united people. Witch means: - a company can perfectly ask for work in the office, even if that job is eligible to be done from remote; - if there are peoples accepting that, good for them. If not they'll have no choice. That's a classic and big social issue: people do not know anymore to be social. So you see a certain "unionization push" but at a bureaucratic level, not at mere human level. If enough IT pro, especially those with a bit of skills, not necessarily genius, gurus etc, decide that ALL WFH-eligible jobs will be accepted only from remote there is no need for a law.
dangwhy 4y ago
> How does Bob avoid being fired for living somewhere more affordable? Don't people with kids live in good school districts vs affordability. I know lot of people move out chicago to the burbs for school districts.

by Arubis 4y ago

voisin 4y ago

Your argument is exactly why WFH will fail. Bob and Alice share the same manager, Carl. When Carl needs Bob, he has to send a slack message and arrange a time for a call. When Carl needs Alice, he turns his head and calls across the aisle to her desk. How is Bob expected to ever be top of mind or as relevant to Carl as Alice? Fast forward and anyone with ambition to get ahead will recognize this dynamic and opt to be in the office, and anyone else will WFH and be high on the list to cull when the economy turns. Easier to fire the talking head on your screen than the real person you see every day.

EMM_386 4y ago
I have worked remotely in IT in multiple positions for over a decade, far pre-dating the pandemic WFH transition. I have never had a problem with communication or feeling noticed. Everything I do is tracked, and I am at my desk during work hours, the same as if I was in an office. When someone Slacks me, I generally will get back to them either instantaneously or within a few minutes, the same as if I was in an office. I'm not sitting around watching Netflix or going for an hour walk at 10 AM. I'm expected during certain hours to be doing my job, no matter where it is. I don't see this as a reason that "WFh will fail', it's been working fine for me.
kkfx 4y ago
With the note that I'm from EU, so some social habits my differ, if someone, not just a manager have to reach me I have a VoIP phone and there is NOTHING to schedule up front. Someone call, I answer. The "scheduling" part is NOT about WFH vs in office but working without defined timeframes LIKE in the office. If you state: you should be available at your desktop from your home between HH:MM and HH2:MM2 these days per week anything will be the same.
WWLink 4y ago
> Bob and Alice share the same manager, Carl. When Carl needs Bob, he has to send a slack message and arrange a time for a call. When Carl needs Alice, he turns his head and calls across the aisle to her desk. How is Bob expected to ever be top of mind or as relevant to Carl as Alice? Who said you need to arrange a time for a call? Especially if I'm right fucking there. The availability should be the same. If I am WFH and not at my desk, I'll miss the call. Same thing will happen if I'm in the office and not at my desk.
lightbendover 4y ago
> How is Bob expected to ever be top of mind or as relevant to Carl as Alice? Because Bob is a badass who carried an SVP goal by himself and Alice is a typically valueless Amazonian who should now obviously be applauded for being in the office because of reasons.

jkukul 4y ago

Additionally, who would verify where does Bob actually live? Maybe he also lives next door to the office but told the employer he lives 4 hours away? Very interesting idea but impractical. I think that the remote vs onsite aspect eventually will be implicitly factored into the salary by the market. Onsite jobs will need to pay more to have people come to the office and trade their free time for commuting. Fully remote jobs will be able to pay less because people would see that as an added bonus.

michaelmrose 4y ago
Wouldn't you have a maximum you are willing to pay for commuting expressed as a percentage of your compensation, rely on background/credit check to flag accounts for probable fraud for HR to look into, and fire people you found defrauding your company? Also anyone willing to commit a crime to pad their paycheck is probably doing other nefarious things so they want to dig a little deeper besides? This would be so trivial to uncover in most cases I can't imagine this would be a big deal.

coreyp_1 4y ago

I know. That's why I assume that it won't work. But let's take your scenario and run with it. :) I assume for this thought exercise that that both Alice and Bob have WFH-compatible jobs. Alice could move further away. Will that change her hours worked (under this scheme)? No. Performance reviews, then, would need to be mandated to only consider actual work time. The problem with mandating complex systems will always come down to the edge cases. Companies will optimize location when searching for employees. Should you make it illegal to ask about location during the hiring process? What happens if an employee moves? Does it matter if they move one week after being hired as opposed to three years? In short, legislating this type of thing would lead to undesirable emergent behavior caused by the rules of that complex system. It's a good approach if everyone plays fair and works together for mutual benefit, but since when does a company or employee truly care about each other these days?

kkfx 4y ago
I have a far simpler solution, the same happen with great success in the past, united people. Witch means: - a company can perfectly ask for work in the office, even if that job is eligible to be done from remote; - if there are peoples accepting that, good for them. If not they'll have no choice. That's a classic and big social issue: people do not know anymore to be social. So you see a certain "unionization push" but at a bureaucratic level, not at mere human level. If enough IT pro, especially those with a bit of skills, not necessarily genius, gurus etc, decide that ALL WFH-eligible jobs will be accepted only from remote there is no need for a law.

dangwhy 4y ago

> How does Bob avoid being fired for living somewhere more affordable? Don't people with kids live in good school districts vs affordability. I know lot of people move out chicago to the burbs for school districts.