4 ms·

It’s not hybrid vs remote. It’s fully onsite vs fully remote. Hybrid policies are a compromise that aim to give both sides ground, while acknowledging that it’s

• Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  Hybrid, even one day a week, is a compromise that enables the vast majority of what the RTO people want and almost nothing the WFH people want. Dress it up anyway you want, but there's a reason why so many recruiters hide hybrid behind the remote label until very late in the hiring process. Hybrid is simply unable to attract people who want WFH but is a favorite "we gave you 1% and we get 99%" compromise of the forced faux friends camp. No matter how many bottles of pretty sprinkles you put on a turd, it's still a turd.
  • dcow 3y ago
    That’s hyperbolic bullshit. Here I was thinking that WFH people didn't want to commute unnecessarily into the office, be able to work undistracted at home in their flow state, be home to meet the handyman in the afternoon if needed or do an errand that has to happen during business hours, eat lunch with their kids, etc. How does 1 day a week in the office kill all that, exactly? The only thing 1 day a week RTO kills is the “work from Bozeman” camp, which affords zero to people who want to collab in person.
    • coldtea 3y ago
      >How does 1 day a week in the office kill all that, exactly? You missed the "to live wherever the fuck I want" part that it absolutely kills...
      • dcow 3y ago
        > The only thing 1 day a week RTO kills is the “work from Bozeman” camp, which affords zero to people who want to collab in person. No I didn't. That's called a remote job not WFH. If work from wherever the fuck I want is important to you then go work for a remote company or convince the one you work at that your roll can be performed remote, from wherever the fuck you want. Nobody is arguing against that.
        • coldtea 3y ago
          >then go work for a remote company That's the thing, it shouldn't be left up to the companies to be remote or not.
          • dcow 3y ago
            Umm... why? It should be a conversation between you and your company. Employment is a two way street.
            • coldtea 3y ago
              Yeah, it shouldn't be a conversation anymore than paid leave or medical coverage should be matters of conversation. It should be an available option enforced by law.
              • dcow 3y ago
                How does that work when I need to employ you to come weld two pieces of metal together in the factory I own, or take care of the sick patient in a bed in my hospital? You clearly haven't given a fraction of a second’s thought to this topic you’re just blurting out pro-100%-remote-work quips.
                • coldtea 3y ago
                  Is this a joke response? The law, as it does now for other cases, would differentiate work that can be done remotely and work that can be done on site. Did you think my suggestion meant that e.g. waiters and sailors would also work from home? >You clearly haven't given a fraction of a second’s thought to this topic Oh, the irony!
• judge2020 3y ago
  Hybrid, even 1 day a week, is still a huge blow to any WFH people who want to WFH for the benefit of living wherever they want. With hybrid, you still need to live within an hour of your office, and living anything more than 1.5 hours out is untenable for most people (which usually puts you living in the middle of nowhere anyways, which isn't the WFH goal), not to mention how most cities' suburbs continue to have 10% YoY housing cost increases.
  • dcow 3y ago
    You should 100% present the economics of the situation to your manager and advocate for your needs. Then it's a conversation between you and the company whether or not you can perform your role in a fully remote capacity, and whether or not they want to compensate you differently to have you in the office. Money tends cut out BS pretty quick.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]