3 ms·
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 anyw
by 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 agoThat’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 agoUmm... why? It should be a conversation between you and your company. Employment is a two way street.
- coldtea 3y agoYeah, 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 agoHow 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 agoIs 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!
- dcow 3y agoHow would the law distinguish what jobs can and can't be done remotely? It's not objective. You've got to be kidding me if you think the law can tell a business whether an employee can perform their duties remotely or not... LOL I'm trying to even imagine the wording... please provide some example prose. Anyway... you're deeply gravely missing the entire nuance: management/leadership at Google is arguing that "the job" of a general employee expected to be a collaborative team member can't be done completely remotely to a quality level or at a velocity that is acceptable for their business. Sure there are exceptions that the business decides are okay, like that ops guy working 3rd shift from Seychelles who isn't building product and closes all his incidents in an acceptable time window that meets SLAs, he's allowed. But they are exceptions, not the rule.