12 ms·

Remote work has pros and cons--both at an organization level and at an individual level. I think that "both sides" have argued the pros and cons enough that I d

• cosmiccatnap 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • A4ET8a8uTh0 3y ago
    It is more along the lines of: we are not all the same. We are all wired in different ways. Different things make us tick. I don't particularly enjoy social interactions. Frankly, I am drained by them, but to others those same draining experiences are a source of energy. I assume there is some sort of solution, but right now it remains a tug of war mixed in with a weird game of chicken. In other words, there should be a way to accommodate everyone. In fact, there is one. We just seem to want to do it.
  • underdeserver 3y ago
    There are good people on both sides. The only bad people here are those who sign you up on remote work and then start calling people back to the office.
• fullshark 3y ago
  My selfish POV is that there should be companies that are remote, and companies that are in person, and employees should have options in terms of the type of work experience they'd like to choose. This may even lower compensation so it will be a win for the employers, because employees will choose to work for you for reasons beyond compensation. Seems like the way to go, but instead these companies are all copying each other.
  • returningfory2 3y ago
    I think this POV is the _opposite_ of selfish! It's advocating for a system in which everyone gets to individually decide for themselves what working environment they want. Instead of the pro-remote or pro-office crowd trying to impose their preferred working environment on the whole industry.
  • theonlybutlet 3y ago
    I think it should be employee based not company based. If you're in the office you don't have a real good reason to discriminate against someone working remotely. If you need the person you'll arrange a meeting or call them regardless, how does it work with clients? If they're working remote, do you just decline their business? If you're discriminating against a colleague on that basis, you're actively chosing to do so. If you're subconsciously doing it, you're probably doing it for other factors, which you should be consciously considering and mitigating.
    • sokoloff 3y ago
      If a company decides to have an in-office culture and policies, that only works if they can decide it per-company not per-employee. If that means you and I don't want to work there as a result, so be it, but IMO we shouldn't be able to decide to work there and to be remote.
  • biztos 3y ago
    Isn't this sort-of happening, just with the differentiation not being among Big Tech but between them and everyone else? Big Tech is forcing people to put butts in seats; smaller companies that can't afford to pay that much are embracing remote work as a competitive advantage in the labor market. At least that's what I'd expect, and it fits with how a lot of my friends are working. OTOH I have seen a lot of companies advertising for in-office or close-to-office (keeping their RTO powder dry) despite obviously having no chance of competing on compensation. I want to blame that on the recent mass layoffs, hirer's market and all that, but I'm not sure -- maybe they're filtering out employees with high self-regard on purpose? If I were hiring I'd probably look for "insists on remote" as a positive signal at least for devs. Values things other than cash, willing to have work output measured, can take late-night meetings sometimes, won't be poached by FAANG -- what's not to like for a manager?
• dcow 3y ago
  100%. We don't need to rehash each side. Obviously there are two strong camps, each with merit, for how to optimize productivity. I think that information is also known to people making decisions and is why we’re seeing hybrid policies which essentially codify the pre-covid behavior of taking a WFH day. Pre-covid, having two or three company sanctioned WFH days was the dream. Let’s not forget. So what really annoys me at this point are the holdouts still arguing for 100% fully remote positions for every employee or the employer is essentially abusing them and just wants to creep on people working in desks and watch them type. I mean come on… fully remote just doesn't work for every employee, sorry. For every “I’m more productive at home” there’s an “I need face to face interaction with other humans to effectively collaborate”. That’s life. IMO, hybrid work policies are an incredibly positive and generous outcome of the pandemic. If you don't like even that then either become a fully remote employee after a discussion with your manager. Or go work for a place where it’s explicitly part of the policy/job/contract up front. Mostly sick of hearing whinny parroting of the same arguments ad nauseam.
  • judge2020 3y ago
    The issue is that the employees that do love hybrid/on-site also have to force everyone else to become hybrid - otherwise, their hybrid days become "video meetings but in a different building".
    • mym1990 3y ago
      No one but management is forcing anyone to do anything. If I do well in person, then as a colleague I need to respect that other people might do well remote, and vice versa.
      • dcow 3y ago
        That’s why hybrid policies represent a compromise. If you’re more than 2 years old you understand the meaning of compromise. Nobody get’s exactly what they want, but the outcome aims to please both sides by offering affordances in both directions.
• breakingrules 3y ago
  [dead]
• balaji1 3y ago
  But can the big big companies afford to lose a few good employees to apply a hybrid/in-office culture? For whatever are the trade offs. Their bulk of hiring will be younger folks. Those people generally move closer to work and show up everyday at office. Smaller companies will be pragmatic in a different way. They will try to retain good employees. They realize the benefits of remote workers.
  • RestlessMind 3y ago
    > They will try to retain good employees. They realize the benefits of remote workers. You have two wrong assumptions here - one is that all the good employees want remote. That's not true. Good people also like offices with some flexibility to work remotely whenever they choose. Second assumption is that companies big and small won't make exceptions for their superstars. That's not true neither. A lot of companies are forcing their policies on their cogs while bending over backwards for their superstars.
    • balaji1 3y ago
      I did not mean all good employees want remote work. Why would I say that… I just meant relatively, compared to big companies; smaller companies will make more exceptions to retain folks. And smaller companies realize and value the pros of remote workers more, like savings in office space expenses.
    • spacemadness 3y ago
      I didn’t read it this way at all. Where are you getting these assumptions from the OPs “a few good employees?”
      • RestlessMind 3y ago
        I specifically cited "to retain good employees". "a few good employees" has a different meaning than what I cited.
• furyg3 3y ago
  I think for me it's more that the pros/cons need to be stated clearly and evaluated honestly, which I sometimes feel they aren't. Recently a company I work with (but not for) announced a similar policy: everybody is required to be back in the office. Through informal conversations with two senior managers I know that this is effectively just a fishing expedition to reduce the amount of people that will be involuntarily laid off in the next round (here in Europe it's much less costly if they walk away on their own). Aside from the fact that this is a terrible way to make a selection (you will lose good employees), I find it also immoral to use a list of bullet points to justify the move when there is a totally different reason behind it. During COVID I also saw a lot of middle managers nervously squeaking through the pandemic ('maybe all of those meetings COULD have been and email' syndrome), and now that it's possible to bring people back to the office there is lots of rationalization about why it's good and/or necessary to do so. When in reality their job depends on it, not the company's success. I think if commute time was even partially employer-paid we would see a much more honest evaluation of the pros and cons of remote vs office-based work.
  • romwell 3y ago
    > I find it also immoral to use a list of bullet points to justify the move when there is a totally different reason behind it. Well, if the actual intent is to be left with a smaller number of more obedient people who'd bend over for the company and do things without asking questions, putting a bogus reason out is an effective way to accomplish the goal.
  • groestl 3y ago
    > you will lose good employees Another poster here said recently: the unspoken truth in the industry is that good employees will still be allowed to work from home.
    • basicallybones 3y ago
      That is my experience.
    • dmitrygr 3y ago
• dogman144 3y ago
  Yup, this is where the hypocrisy of the return to office is loud and clear. There is one side that is unambiguously pro-family, pro-environment, pro-church involvement, pro-bowling league, pro-parents in kids lives, pro-marriage, pro-divorced child raising. As in something for each and every side’s loud and clear broadcasted preferences. The other is pro-people in seats, pro-commercial real estate, pro-commuting, pro-certain type of manager, pro-one type of extrovert who can’t find friends outside of work. There are clear lines here on where the wfh benefits are how it aligns with many, many stated needs for the country from each party and various stakeholders. Edit - going to use my soapbox since this got some traction: I’ve led individuals in-person, and fully understand how different and sometimes less-than it is to do it fully online. I’m an engineer currently, but I speak MBA and fluent in leadership. Especially for inculcating interns/new hires into an org, in person is great. But: the above seems to be adequately accounted for via learning org culture via Slack and quarterly off sites. And the remaining negative benefits of WFH + periodic flights + learning new leadership patterns via Zoom/Slack + gentrification of the rust belt and other cheap areas seem to, far and away, no doubt about it, pale in comparison to the extensive issues of how our country is coming apart at the seams due to do family finances, environmental issues, rust belt multi decade decay, labor issues, and general personhood. WFH’s benefits seem to significantly help solve all of these problems. There’s some delusion that a reversion to the old ways is all it’ll take to fix what’s happening. But maybe spending more times in our communities, our families, our churches, our local lunch places in town vs Chipotle, is what is needed. Or just help commercial real estate and chad the manager instead.
  • tiffanyg 3y ago
    Hear, hear! Personally, I favor WFH for scores of reasons. That said, I am aware of the pluses (and the minuses that often cannot be clearly delineated) of having people together in locations. A fair amount of the benefits are subtle, and fairly unquantifiable. These factors balance off against often similarly subtle drawbacks. Most of this comes out of human psychology and social traits / elements of social cohesion. To provide at least a little specificity, some examples that spring to mind: On the plus side, you have little bits of useful information, quick answers / responses, knowing who knows something like 'where to find X', ... even being able to SEE how people look day-to-day - that colleagues seem healthy and well, and to ask them in person how they are... lots of little cues, small semi-random interactions of these types. Of course, these can also be minuses to some / to some degree. I.e., the interruptions that come with semi-random interactions, digressions in conversations (of overly substantial length) about current events &/ recreational activities etc., the "talking behind the backs of others" gossip, ... It's a very mixed bag. Now, as always, people are constantly changing too. Generations replace generations. And, those who have grown up with text messages and all sorts of other channels for keeping in touch, ... well, it's another factor in how useful / important "physical presence" may or may not be. Ultimately, though, for me, WFH has been substantially more efficient and productive most of the time. I didn't even have a long commute or some of the other hassles of many, but, cutting out the commute, transitioning between environments time, random interactions and potential for distractions (ADHD being a factor), etc., has been beneficial to all parties. I agree with your points to a very large degree ... the objective advantages to (substantially) reduced "company office presence" are generally quite clear, and are mostly to be contrasted with more subtle human / social factors including the needs of some "managers" to feel like they are "in control" and are "the employers". The "MBAs" may have won the "round" starting in the 70s and 80s of decimating unions, but, the environment has changed yet again - including in terms of demographics in as basic a way as sheer quantity of workers available (vs. roles to be filled). I look forward to more power returning to labor, so-to-speak, even as someone who is involved in running several businesses and operations.
• rcpt 3y ago
  Yeah. I work for Google, I'm remote. I much prefer being in person with my team in Mountain View but the Bay Area is such a fucking nightmare for families that it's simply not worth it.
• snarf21 3y ago
  I'm glad to see more discussion around remote/in-office work being a preference. I hate wfh and feeling stuck in the house all the time. However, I don't expect that everyone else must match me. I think it is good that some companies are landing on both sides of the fence and people will weigh their office preference as another part of their comp package. Companies will have to decide how they want to compete. They will have to decide on what exceptions they are willing to make to attract talent and that seems good for everyone.
• Eji1700 3y ago
  This all feels like screaming because companies are bad at adapting. I don't think 100% full time remote is going to work for all cases/all positions, but I am pretty sure that the companies that are going to be above the curve the coming years will figure out the best way to handle a hybrid environment. "Everyone in/Everyone out" is so cludgy when we've got the tools to customize better, and the ones that do will probably attract more talent. Obviously there are issues when places like FAANG are resistant because they can pay the most and set the tone, but there's enough advantages to getting this right it'll filter in eventually.
  • hirvi74 3y ago
    I have always thought most resistance from FAANG companies was more about preventing leaks of their property than actual issues with productivity. Am I mistaken?
    • Gigachad 3y ago
      I remember a big tech worker telling me something along the lines of "If you pulled out a camera here in the office, you would be quickly removed by security". Something of that level of locked down would be impossible to enforce with remote work.
• babypuncher 3y ago
  My only real problem with RTO is that many of these companies want to shove us in bull-pen style offices. I won't return to that. Give me a damn cubicle.
• IMTDb 3y ago
  > I think that "both sides" have argued the pros and cons enough that I don't need to repeat them here. Then proceeds to repeat the arguments of one side. Everyone understands easily how remote is more comfortable for individuals; all the benefits have been repeat times and times providing examples of thousands of individual situation in which being home is better than being in an office. This is example 15768984. The question that execs are trying to answer is "are we stronger with an in-office team", knowing they will cut themselves from the "ragneses" in the talent market, but looking more attractive to the people who prefer in-office work; or "are we stronger with a distributed team of ragneses", and having other people who prefer presential offices flock to other companies. It looks like the GAFAs (and many other) are choosing the first option and are fine not having access to some remote-only talents. Others are sticking to their remote-first (or remote-only) culture. Many of the bigger companies seem to go on the same direction; maybe that decision is based on internal data they have gathered showing that office-first teams are more efficient and performant. Or maybe it's based of sheer traditional management backwards reactionary push. If that's the case; we should soon see fully remote companies starting to take the lead in terms of growth, IPO, successful exits etc since they have been able to identify a better collaboration model that yields better results for less costs.
• endtime 3y ago
  Your bottom line is true for me in a different way. I am about to move from NY to TX. My employer only has offices on the west coast. I like my job, and AFAICT they're quite happy with me...but I'm definitely not moving my family to the Bay Area.
• pkulak 3y ago
  A 40-minute drive to work sounds absolutely miserable. Is there a high anti-office sentiment in areas with decent density where most people can get to "the office" with a quick ride on a train? Sometimes I think "anti-office" is a lot more "anti-soul-crushing-commute".
  • spacemadness 3y ago
    A quick ride on the train means you’re spending a hell of a lot more to live near the train in American tech hub cities.
• xxEightyxx 3y ago
  I am also selfish with regards to remote work. I don't have any kids, but to me remote work just simply works and makes sense. Having said that, there is an argument for in-person collaboration to an extent. But as a software engineer, I loathe going back to the office and refuse to under almost any circumstance. If an employer wants me to return to the office, I'm very direct in communicating the additional cost to them and salary bump for me. My go-to response to any request to return to office is "I require a 40% salary increase or no bueno" and thus far they have backed down. Back when I was working in the office, I had co-workers who liked to lounge around my desk making small talk, asking questions, and generally trying to be friendly and social, which I understand why they would, but it interrupts my "flow state" and leaves me more disgruntled than anything. Work is work to me, and I don't care to socialize nor is it critical in my current job. Not hating on others who feel anything to the contrary, it's simply not my cup o' tea. The benefits of WFH greatly surpass any conceivable benefit of having to return to the office, for me. And with my current employers, I cannot see any benefit of it for them. Corporatism needs a wakeup call and it's finally receiving just a taste of it. Considering salaries are repressed and have been for more than 20 years, it's the very least of what we, as workers/minions/peasants, deserve (at least in the U.S.)
• gofreddygo 3y ago
  I don't understand the push against remote work from employers.