5 ms·

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 inv

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.
- WorldMaker 3y ago
  > 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, ... I keep thinking about the many recent theories that these "minuses" of office work were essential to the systems to maintaining an illusion of a scarcity in labor and maintaining a controlling grip on employee time inside and outside of work. As things got more automated companies knew that they didn't have 8 hours of work each day for the average employee, so they built fortifications of busy work and moats of "social life". It provided defense structures against labor asking for more time off, longer weekends, shorter work days. (In US at least, the 5-day, 40-hour workweek was never the compromise, the preferred request of Unions at the time that was established was 4-days, 20-hours which more closely resembled useful productive hours and provided better family time/family planning. The hoped-for compromise was 5-days/30-hours or 5-days/35-hours and the hard won 5-days/40-hours was the bare minimum they asked for. 5-days/40-hours is the bar line for "human exhaustion".) Of course, in no economy would any company admit that they were concerned about being "Too Productive" nor would any MBA program overtly have courses like "How to Sabotage Productivity and Get Away With It". But there's so many little things built up in the systems and norms and practices and rituals of "office culture" that seem to only exist to waste time, to give the appearance of work without the productive essence of it. These seem like "bugs" in the system, but they are so ubiquitous it is hard not to wonder if these didn't become accidental "features" somewhere along the line (even if we can't ascribe intent or malice to them) and why they became so ubiquitous. Especially in a time like this when so many companies seem so desperate to return to that old known to be buggy status quo. Especially in a time when many of those same companies seem adamant that the impossible and weird choice is between "layoffs" or "return to office work" or "iteratively both until 'morale improves'".
time_to_smile 3y ago
Not to mention the added hypocrisy that at nearly every company I've worked at, big and small, C-levels are almost never physically in the main office building. Sometimes they're traveling the globe to work on making deals, but sometimes they just want to be at home with their family, or take a semi-vacation. If you can run a company on the go or at home, certainly I am capable of shipping quality code at home.
- misnome 3y ago
  We had a “Company webinar” where they explained that it was impossible to do work when out of the office, so forcing everybody in was the only choice. Of the five directors on the call, one was in the office. Three were at home. The CEO division of support employees were also exempt from the requirement.
  - poo-yie 3y ago
    Ah, the old 'do as I say, not as I do' routine! Leading by example!
    - phone8675309 3y ago
      If you lead from the rear then you can't be surprised when the front line breaks ranks as a cannonball comes in.
      - misnome 3y ago
        Which is exactly what is happening. This is public science, so pretty safe for them, but from the company survey 40% of employees are planning to leave in the next two years (one of the Directors said they had probably just misunderstood the question), many have left already, they actively withdraw jobs where the candidates say they want to work remotely, but still manage to find highly paid remote-only positions for their friends. We’re asking for half a billion from the government, I wonder how closely they will look.
  - blululu 3y ago
PKop 3y ago
And pro- "not jamming everyone into unaffordable cities" which makes real estate costs for the employee untenable....while increases in remote-work enable growth or at least maintenance of current population in smaller towns and regions. If one wishes to see their own small town non-major-metro area thrive and not continue to lose population, work from home is a clear win for that goal.
- spacemadness 3y ago
  Speaking of real estate costs, what really gets me about all these corporate lies about community being the goal is that these directives are more likely about corporate real estate investment.
  - vanviegen 3y ago
    How so? Those are sunk costs.
    - PKop 3y ago
      The circle is squared by realizing what isn't sunk yet, but will be, is the tax revenues from corporate real estate and commerce lost if the city centers lack people. Work from home decimates some of these areas if people simply aren't there any more and all the 2nd order effects of other businesses going away as well. So I think it's wrong to assume all of the pressure comes only from the corporations themselves and not also the local governments putting pressure on the corporations to to change work from home policy because otherwise their budgets are busted. Now, this is one of those "you problems" for the local governments; workers themselves should care about their own interests and lives and none of that changes just because some city you don't want to live in is harmed by the trends. But this dynamic should be understood when discussing the issue.
      - dogman144 3y ago
        I completely agree but I think there’s more to it. Cities are concerned bc New York of the 1970’s is staring them all down bc tax revenues take a dive and the equivalent of structural unemployment is hitting city revenue models. That said, anyone who’s lived in the main cities can likely attest to the following. These places are corporatized shells of what they once were, and what they once were is why NYC is considered cool in the first place - live music, local bars, “scenes,” that unique city approach to local community. Sometime in the 2000s, while they lost the gnarly crime, they also started to lose all that for 7/11, Chase banks, and mom and pops owned by PE. Essentially rich person playgrounds. Nyc of 2013 was a lot of fun but also more an amusement park for wealthy millennials or NYU kids cosplaying as one. Same with SF and techies. So these cities simultaneously bemoan the loss of that character and exponential cost of living increases, but also want back all the conditions that caused both. If Manhattan gets it’s actual artists and culture people back from outer Brooklyn or Ohio, and it takes a dive in tax revenues and a grungy NYC for a bit, that seems a good thing. NYC of the 7/11-Chase Bank height really sucked.
wyldfire 3y ago
> 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. I think it's great if everyone can work where they prefer. I miss the days when I could see my colleagues in person in the office. But on days when I work from home, I can totally see why they prefer it. I do think that newer employees can benefit from being in an office with experienced team members. However, if this is the new way of things, then I suppose they will need to adjust.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
They're trying to get as many people to quit as possible so they don't need to do more layoffs. I think layoffs would be way better than trying to force out one group of people, but the people at the top don't care about what's good for the company - they care about themselves. C'est la vie.
- bequanna 3y ago
  The objectives have changed. Previously, large tech companies were interested in hoarding employees to slow competition. Now, that is no longer a necessary strategy as the environment has changed and smaller startups have many other headwinds (difficult to raise $, etc). So as the previous strategy is unwound there will be more pressure on employees and attrition is definitely part of the plan. A side benefit for the companies is less upward pressure of salaries and operational savings.
- archagon 3y ago
  They never "needed" to do layoffs in the first place.
  - theGnuMe 3y ago
    With AI having more employees no longer matters (unless they can train AI systems).
reureu 3y ago
woah, I was with you until you brought chipotle into this. Hopefully we can agree that it's valuable to support your local chipotle over the financial district's chipotle, since it's also keeping people employed in their communities.
- InitialBP 3y ago
  I think most people would agree that you should support the local version of a business over the financial district version because you want to keep people employed in your community, but at the same time I personally would rather support locally owned and operated restaurants over chains and franchises. Businesses fail and are replaced with other businesses all the time, it's part of the normal flow of capitalism. Within a specific community, as businesses come and go, as long as the old one is replaced with a new one then employment opportunities are still around. Eventually something will open up that is a home run and then that store will flourish in the community, which will likely create even MORE employment opportunities and if it's a local store then a lot of that money will stay local in the hands of employees, owners, local government (taxes).

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.

WorldMaker 3y ago
> 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, ... I keep thinking about the many recent theories that these "minuses" of office work were essential to the systems to maintaining an illusion of a scarcity in labor and maintaining a controlling grip on employee time inside and outside of work. As things got more automated companies knew that they didn't have 8 hours of work each day for the average employee, so they built fortifications of busy work and moats of "social life". It provided defense structures against labor asking for more time off, longer weekends, shorter work days. (In US at least, the 5-day, 40-hour workweek was never the compromise, the preferred request of Unions at the time that was established was 4-days, 20-hours which more closely resembled useful productive hours and provided better family time/family planning. The hoped-for compromise was 5-days/30-hours or 5-days/35-hours and the hard won 5-days/40-hours was the bare minimum they asked for. 5-days/40-hours is the bar line for "human exhaustion".) Of course, in no economy would any company admit that they were concerned about being "Too Productive" nor would any MBA program overtly have courses like "How to Sabotage Productivity and Get Away With It". But there's so many little things built up in the systems and norms and practices and rituals of "office culture" that seem to only exist to waste time, to give the appearance of work without the productive essence of it. These seem like "bugs" in the system, but they are so ubiquitous it is hard not to wonder if these didn't become accidental "features" somewhere along the line (even if we can't ascribe intent or malice to them) and why they became so ubiquitous. Especially in a time like this when so many companies seem so desperate to return to that old known to be buggy status quo. Especially in a time when many of those same companies seem adamant that the impossible and weird choice is between "layoffs" or "return to office work" or "iteratively both until 'morale improves'".

time_to_smile 3y ago

Not to mention the added hypocrisy that at nearly every company I've worked at, big and small, C-levels are almost never physically in the main office building. Sometimes they're traveling the globe to work on making deals, but sometimes they just want to be at home with their family, or take a semi-vacation. If you can run a company on the go or at home, certainly I am capable of shipping quality code at home.

misnome 3y ago
We had a “Company webinar” where they explained that it was impossible to do work when out of the office, so forcing everybody in was the only choice. Of the five directors on the call, one was in the office. Three were at home. The CEO division of support employees were also exempt from the requirement.
- poo-yie 3y ago
  Ah, the old 'do as I say, not as I do' routine! Leading by example!
  - phone8675309 3y ago
    If you lead from the rear then you can't be surprised when the front line breaks ranks as a cannonball comes in.
    - misnome 3y ago
      Which is exactly what is happening. This is public science, so pretty safe for them, but from the company survey 40% of employees are planning to leave in the next two years (one of the Directors said they had probably just misunderstood the question), many have left already, they actively withdraw jobs where the candidates say they want to work remotely, but still manage to find highly paid remote-only positions for their friends. We’re asking for half a billion from the government, I wonder how closely they will look.
- blululu 3y ago

PKop 3y ago

And pro- "not jamming everyone into unaffordable cities" which makes real estate costs for the employee untenable....while increases in remote-work enable growth or at least maintenance of current population in smaller towns and regions. If one wishes to see their own small town non-major-metro area thrive and not continue to lose population, work from home is a clear win for that goal.

spacemadness 3y ago
Speaking of real estate costs, what really gets me about all these corporate lies about community being the goal is that these directives are more likely about corporate real estate investment.
- vanviegen 3y ago
  How so? Those are sunk costs.
  - PKop 3y ago
    The circle is squared by realizing what isn't sunk yet, but will be, is the tax revenues from corporate real estate and commerce lost if the city centers lack people. Work from home decimates some of these areas if people simply aren't there any more and all the 2nd order effects of other businesses going away as well. So I think it's wrong to assume all of the pressure comes only from the corporations themselves and not also the local governments putting pressure on the corporations to to change work from home policy because otherwise their budgets are busted. Now, this is one of those "you problems" for the local governments; workers themselves should care about their own interests and lives and none of that changes just because some city you don't want to live in is harmed by the trends. But this dynamic should be understood when discussing the issue.
    - dogman144 3y ago
      I completely agree but I think there’s more to it. Cities are concerned bc New York of the 1970’s is staring them all down bc tax revenues take a dive and the equivalent of structural unemployment is hitting city revenue models. That said, anyone who’s lived in the main cities can likely attest to the following. These places are corporatized shells of what they once were, and what they once were is why NYC is considered cool in the first place - live music, local bars, “scenes,” that unique city approach to local community. Sometime in the 2000s, while they lost the gnarly crime, they also started to lose all that for 7/11, Chase banks, and mom and pops owned by PE. Essentially rich person playgrounds. Nyc of 2013 was a lot of fun but also more an amusement park for wealthy millennials or NYU kids cosplaying as one. Same with SF and techies. So these cities simultaneously bemoan the loss of that character and exponential cost of living increases, but also want back all the conditions that caused both. If Manhattan gets it’s actual artists and culture people back from outer Brooklyn or Ohio, and it takes a dive in tax revenues and a grungy NYC for a bit, that seems a good thing. NYC of the 7/11-Chase Bank height really sucked.

wyldfire 3y ago

> 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. I think it's great if everyone can work where they prefer. I miss the days when I could see my colleagues in person in the office. But on days when I work from home, I can totally see why they prefer it. I do think that newer employees can benefit from being in an office with experienced team members. However, if this is the new way of things, then I suppose they will need to adjust.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

They're trying to get as many people to quit as possible so they don't need to do more layoffs. I think layoffs would be way better than trying to force out one group of people, but the people at the top don't care about what's good for the company - they care about themselves. C'est la vie.

bequanna 3y ago
The objectives have changed. Previously, large tech companies were interested in hoarding employees to slow competition. Now, that is no longer a necessary strategy as the environment has changed and smaller startups have many other headwinds (difficult to raise $, etc). So as the previous strategy is unwound there will be more pressure on employees and attrition is definitely part of the plan. A side benefit for the companies is less upward pressure of salaries and operational savings.
archagon 3y ago
They never "needed" to do layoffs in the first place.
- theGnuMe 3y ago
  With AI having more employees no longer matters (unless they can train AI systems).

reureu 3y ago

woah, I was with you until you brought chipotle into this. Hopefully we can agree that it's valuable to support your local chipotle over the financial district's chipotle, since it's also keeping people employed in their communities.

InitialBP 3y ago
I think most people would agree that you should support the local version of a business over the financial district version because you want to keep people employed in your community, but at the same time I personally would rather support locally owned and operated restaurants over chains and franchises. Businesses fail and are replaced with other businesses all the time, it's part of the normal flow of capitalism. Within a specific community, as businesses come and go, as long as the old one is replaced with a new one then employment opportunities are still around. Eventually something will open up that is a home run and then that store will flourish in the community, which will likely create even MORE employment opportunities and if it's a local store then a lot of that money will stay local in the hands of employees, owners, local government (taxes).