5 ms·

The problem is taking away benefits as a way to downside ensures that the people _most able_ to secure those benefits from other companies will leave. If your

The problem is taking away benefits as a way to downside ensures that the people _most able_ to secure those benefits from other companies will leave. If your goal is to ensure that you're getting rid of your top talent, it's a fine strategy.

ikiris 3y ago
They're the ones that usually cost money so it can often be the target audience.
- wing-_-nuts 3y ago
  Companies hire and promote the best because the value they deliver massively outstrips their cost. If that wasn't the case, they'd already be pip'd out. Using RTO to increase attrition is an absolutely brain dead strategy.
ilyt 3y ago
But it's super effective, the people that cost you the most leave without severance!
tomtheelder 3y ago
> taking away benefits It’s not that simple. For folks who prefer remote, remote is a benefit. For folks who prefer an in office work style, remote being an option is an “anti” benefit since it totally kills the value of in person work. You’re going to lose top talent either way. The last org I worked at went remote and lost a bunch of high performers to places that were in office. I ended up leaving for unrelated reasons. It seems like things ended up totally stabilizing and now they are in a happy state of remote culture, but it absolutely cost them along the way.
- VirusNewbie 3y ago
  Google is experimenting with desk sharing for employees that want more WFH and permanent desks for those who want less wfh.
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    The worst of all worlds. You still have to come in so you can't move far enough away take advantage of cheaper locales but now you have to work in uncomfortable spaces bench seating if you are really unlucky designed to remind you, that you are college. Or take the permanent desk and remote into all meetings anyways.
    - Hermitian909 3y ago
      Data point: My company has this setup and it's my favorite out of all options. I actually do want to go in the office 1-4 times a month + 2 full weeks at the middle and end of the year. People being nearby means that when we think in person is important we actually get to coordinate it. I don't have "benches" or anything, there's literally a full dusk with multiple monitors and a nice chair any time I want it (more or less), the office is not meaningfully less comfy than pre-pandemic for me. I will admit that I value "cheaper locales" less because my family is here and nowhere else but this is not true for many of my current and former coworkers and many of them love the setup as well.
    - VirusNewbie 3y ago
      You misunderstood “sharing desks”. You get a normal desk, but have assigned days to the desk, and you share a monitor setup. Then everyone keeps their keyboard/mice in a locked drawer etc. if you aren’t coming in 4 days, there will be a different employee using that desk and chair the days you aren’t there.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  I don't believe this is true at all. I tend to prefer the office, but if I have the option of remote work, this is a good thing. I may never use it, but it's there if my situation changes (temporarily or permanently). It's a benefit to everyone, whether or not they use it.
  - vanviegen 3y ago
    It is not a benefit to everyone. I enjoy face-to-face interaction with colleagues, while I dislike any form of online communication, as it drains my energy.
  - jmcphers 3y ago
    I don't think this is true because of network effects. I tend to prefer the office, but my company has a remote work option. The result is that most people work remotely and eventually I had to close down the office -- no one besides me was coming in. I don't support "return to the office" mandates, but the reasoning is sound: the value of an office is not realized unless most people attend.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
      But that explains very poorly what we're seeing... If it was an expense they'd be able to ditch (soon or eventually), you'd think they'd be forcing people to do remote. Not doubling down on RTO. You don't say "if you don't return, I have no justification for this huge waste of cash"...
      - danaris 3y ago
        This assumes that RTO is a rational and economic decision. From everything I've seen, at least 80% of the time it's almost entirely about emotion, and mostly control. Managers who never learned how to actually manage in any way besides "if your butt's in the seat, I guess you're working, otherwise, you're slacking off and stealing from the company!" are desperate to get people back where they can act like they manage them. Managers who (overlapping with the first) have bought fully into the narrative that the manager/subordinate relationship is an adversarial one, and believe that every employee is constantly going to be trying to find every way they can to avoid working, cannot imagine employees being more productive at home without draconian surveillance. People at all levels who worked in offices all their lives, sacrificing so much that they could have had if remote work was an option, see others enjoying remote work now (even some just starting their careers!), and are resentful. "If I had to do it, you have to do it!" Or they just see it and genuinely don't believe it's possible to work properly anywhere but an office. People are not fully rational creatures. If you look at the decisions managers and execs make and say, "But it's so clear that this is worse for the company; why would they do that?", or, worse, "They must know something I don't know, and this is actually better" (and I've seen many people express both sentiments about the RTO push), you're making the mistake of believing that everything they do is motivated by cold hard logic and numbers.
shagie 3y ago
> ensures that the people _most able_ to secure those benefits from other companies will leave This is the start of the Dead Sea Effect as described in http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d... (posted many times) https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=brucefwebster.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=brucefwebster.com The most interesting discussion is likely https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23166786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23166786 from May 13, 2020 with 127 points and 128 comments)
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
> If your goal is to ensure that you're getting rid of your top talent, it's a fine strategy. Usually, you're not going to fire your top talent over corporate policy for the plebs. You're going to bend the rules. If the company isn't bending for you, you might not be top talent - and more like just slightly above average talent - in which case, yeah, the company doesn't really care about you. And if you really are top talent, you're not concerned if your company doesn't bend. You can go anywhere. Who cares?
- hoelle 3y ago
  > Who cares? ...anyone who isn't an ice-cold sociopath? Your job is often a big part of your identity, particularly in the games biz which is so passion driven. Leaving behind a project you grew, kickass tech you had a hand in, and friends you made is a major life trauma, even if you're doing it voluntarily to chase something new.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
    > ...anyone who isn't an ice-cold sociopath? Your job is often a big part of your identity, particularly in the games biz which is so passion driven. I'd argue this is unhealthy and a recipe for disaster. But different things work for different folks. > Leaving behind a project you grew, kickass tech you had a hand in, and friends you made is a major life trauma, even if you're doing it voluntarily to chase something new. There's kickass people at most good companies. The idea you can't make work friends & work on cool stuff unless at your current job in your current role seems limiting.
    - hoelle 3y ago
      > The idea you can't make work friends & work on cool stuff unless at your current job in your current role seems limiting. I never said that. If you work on cool stuff with great people it is healthy to reflect on the pain and loss of that chapter ending. Yes, "there are more fish in the sea." Heartbreak is still heartbreak.
  - strus 3y ago

ikiris 3y ago

They're the ones that usually cost money so it can often be the target audience.

wing-_-nuts 3y ago
Companies hire and promote the best because the value they deliver massively outstrips their cost. If that wasn't the case, they'd already be pip'd out. Using RTO to increase attrition is an absolutely brain dead strategy.

ilyt 3y ago

But it's super effective, the people that cost you the most leave without severance!

tomtheelder 3y ago

> taking away benefits It’s not that simple. For folks who prefer remote, remote is a benefit. For folks who prefer an in office work style, remote being an option is an “anti” benefit since it totally kills the value of in person work. You’re going to lose top talent either way. The last org I worked at went remote and lost a bunch of high performers to places that were in office. I ended up leaving for unrelated reasons. It seems like things ended up totally stabilizing and now they are in a happy state of remote culture, but it absolutely cost them along the way.

VirusNewbie 3y ago
Google is experimenting with desk sharing for employees that want more WFH and permanent desks for those who want less wfh.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  The worst of all worlds. You still have to come in so you can't move far enough away take advantage of cheaper locales but now you have to work in uncomfortable spaces bench seating if you are really unlucky designed to remind you, that you are college. Or take the permanent desk and remote into all meetings anyways.
  - Hermitian909 3y ago
    Data point: My company has this setup and it's my favorite out of all options. I actually do want to go in the office 1-4 times a month + 2 full weeks at the middle and end of the year. People being nearby means that when we think in person is important we actually get to coordinate it. I don't have "benches" or anything, there's literally a full dusk with multiple monitors and a nice chair any time I want it (more or less), the office is not meaningfully less comfy than pre-pandemic for me. I will admit that I value "cheaper locales" less because my family is here and nowhere else but this is not true for many of my current and former coworkers and many of them love the setup as well.
  - VirusNewbie 3y ago
    You misunderstood “sharing desks”. You get a normal desk, but have assigned days to the desk, and you share a monitor setup. Then everyone keeps their keyboard/mice in a locked drawer etc. if you aren’t coming in 4 days, there will be a different employee using that desk and chair the days you aren’t there.
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
I don't believe this is true at all. I tend to prefer the office, but if I have the option of remote work, this is a good thing. I may never use it, but it's there if my situation changes (temporarily or permanently). It's a benefit to everyone, whether or not they use it.
- vanviegen 3y ago
  It is not a benefit to everyone. I enjoy face-to-face interaction with colleagues, while I dislike any form of online communication, as it drains my energy.
- jmcphers 3y ago
  I don't think this is true because of network effects. I tend to prefer the office, but my company has a remote work option. The result is that most people work remotely and eventually I had to close down the office -- no one besides me was coming in. I don't support "return to the office" mandates, but the reasoning is sound: the value of an office is not realized unless most people attend.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
    But that explains very poorly what we're seeing... If it was an expense they'd be able to ditch (soon or eventually), you'd think they'd be forcing people to do remote. Not doubling down on RTO. You don't say "if you don't return, I have no justification for this huge waste of cash"...
    - danaris 3y ago
      This assumes that RTO is a rational and economic decision. From everything I've seen, at least 80% of the time it's almost entirely about emotion, and mostly control. Managers who never learned how to actually manage in any way besides "if your butt's in the seat, I guess you're working, otherwise, you're slacking off and stealing from the company!" are desperate to get people back where they can act like they manage them. Managers who (overlapping with the first) have bought fully into the narrative that the manager/subordinate relationship is an adversarial one, and believe that every employee is constantly going to be trying to find every way they can to avoid working, cannot imagine employees being more productive at home without draconian surveillance. People at all levels who worked in offices all their lives, sacrificing so much that they could have had if remote work was an option, see others enjoying remote work now (even some just starting their careers!), and are resentful. "If I had to do it, you have to do it!" Or they just see it and genuinely don't believe it's possible to work properly anywhere but an office. People are not fully rational creatures. If you look at the decisions managers and execs make and say, "But it's so clear that this is worse for the company; why would they do that?", or, worse, "They must know something I don't know, and this is actually better" (and I've seen many people express both sentiments about the RTO push), you're making the mistake of believing that everything they do is motivated by cold hard logic and numbers.

shagie 3y ago

> ensures that the people _most able_ to secure those benefits from other companies will leave This is the start of the Dead Sea Effect as described in http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d... (posted many times) https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=brucefwebster.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=brucefwebster.com The most interesting discussion is likely https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23166786 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23166786 from May 13, 2020 with 127 points and 128 comments)

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

> If your goal is to ensure that you're getting rid of your top talent, it's a fine strategy. Usually, you're not going to fire your top talent over corporate policy for the plebs. You're going to bend the rules. If the company isn't bending for you, you might not be top talent - and more like just slightly above average talent - in which case, yeah, the company doesn't really care about you. And if you really are top talent, you're not concerned if your company doesn't bend. You can go anywhere. Who cares?

hoelle 3y ago
> Who cares? ...anyone who isn't an ice-cold sociopath? Your job is often a big part of your identity, particularly in the games biz which is so passion driven. Leaving behind a project you grew, kickass tech you had a hand in, and friends you made is a major life trauma, even if you're doing it voluntarily to chase something new.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  > ...anyone who isn't an ice-cold sociopath? Your job is often a big part of your identity, particularly in the games biz which is so passion driven. I'd argue this is unhealthy and a recipe for disaster. But different things work for different folks. > Leaving behind a project you grew, kickass tech you had a hand in, and friends you made is a major life trauma, even if you're doing it voluntarily to chase something new. There's kickass people at most good companies. The idea you can't make work friends & work on cool stuff unless at your current job in your current role seems limiting.
  - hoelle 3y ago
    > The idea you can't make work friends & work on cool stuff unless at your current job in your current role seems limiting. I never said that. If you work on cool stuff with great people it is healthy to reflect on the pain and loss of that chapter ending. Yes, "there are more fish in the sea." Heartbreak is still heartbreak.
- strus 3y ago