18 ms·

The WFH future is destroying bosses' brains (2021)

211 points by LordNibbler 3y ago

Sevii 3y ago
I think a key point in the 'WFH bad' discourse is that while WFH is great for engineers, the experience is pretty similar for managers. Managers are still in meetings 8-10 hours a day even with WFH. A manager doesn't really see a big benefit from WFH, he is just attending the same meetings remotely.
- ghaff 3y ago
  It can be pretty similar for ICs too though. Even if everyone came into the office, there's almost no one I regularly work with who is in the office I would go into.
  - nightpool 3y ago
    > there's almost no one I regularly work with who is in the office I would go into Then you already fundamentally have a remote job. A non-remote job would organize business units / teams by location so that you're in the same office as people you're working with. And yes, this would require relocations and imply a smaller hiring pool. That's the tradeoff of not having remote work, not just spending more time in the office. You're not comparing remote to non-remote work, you're just comparing two flavors of remote work.
    - ghaff 3y ago
      At large companies, co-location seems to drift over time. My company has long been pretty remote-friendly and I expect most teams are pretty distributed at this point. ADDED: You can force co-location but, as you say, it reduces company options as well as employee options. And may not even be very practical; I work extensively with other teams both in another state and in Europe.
- djKianoosh 3y ago
  the benefit is great for managers who go between different meetings, and especially if those meetings are at different locations. much less time wasted in between meetings. they definitely also get more done
- waynesonfire 3y ago
  No..thats what managers signed up for when they took on the role. Do managers not have a daily commute? WFH benefits both.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  As a manager I love WFH for myself and based on feedback I love it more than many of the ICs at the company. No walking between meeting rooms, no taking notes on a tiny laptop screen, no forgetting someone's name (or role), no sitting in uncomfortable meeting room chairs, no ad-hoc conversations taking up my limited non-meeting time, no juggling being even more late to a meeting versus using the bathroom, etc. The real difference in my experience is that extroverts prefer WFH and those tend to more often become managers however plenty are ICs as well.
  - veltas 3y ago
    > no sitting in uncomfortable meeting room chairs Why are meeting room chairs so uncomfortable?
anoncow 3y ago
I think there are 2 core topics regarding WFH. 1. Gig jobs v/s ‘full time’ jobs: Assessment in favour of the bosses - Companies seem to be okay with people in gig jobs working multiple jobs. Assessment against the bosses - Most full-time jobs need not be full-time jobs. And thus most full time jobs can be done by people working multiple jobs. And thus most full time jobs can be done from home. Conclusion: Contract laws need to change to prevent certain types of contracts from being drawn. For example, no contracts should prevent a person seeking additional employment. 2. Culture: Bossess feel that culture development slows with WFH. A hybrid work setup can help prevent this.
cookie_monsta 3y ago
(2021)
- swalling 3y ago
  dang, can we please get a title edit on this one?
UnpossibleJim 3y ago
Why aren't people paid a full time salary for the work they're expected to do instead of the time they sit at a desk? It's a question I genuinely struggle with. If the employee is doing all that's expected of them, then the "contract for owning someone for a period of time" (not my words - and relatively creepy) should be fulfilled. It doesn't seem a period of time that is expected but a force of work delivered. I am willing to be wrong in this assumption, however, given the right argument.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > Why aren't people paid a full time salary for the work they're expected to do instead of the time they sit at a desk? If the work you are expected to do is fixed--your boss can't come to you with an ad hoc assignment that's not in some formal job description--then you're not an employee, you're an independent contractor. (And that means the corporation no longer has to worry about things like your health care and retirement benefits.) The real value proposition for having an employee vs. an independent contractor is that the work the employee is expected to do is not fixed--your boss can come to you as an employee with an ad hoc assignment that's not in any formal job description and expect you to do it. In other words, the belief the article describes, that paying someone a full time salary as an employee means the company owns their time, is actually mistaken (even though I think it is very common among corporate managers and executives). What you're actually paying them for is being able to give them ad hoc new jobs to do as the company's environment and needs change, and not have to go through the hassle of writing up a new contractor's statement of work and negotiating a new price. The only justification you need to give an employee a new ad hoc assignment is "this is going to help the company".
  - proc0 3y ago
    The real value prop of having a full time employee, is you own their full time focus five days a week. It's not about practicing a trained skillset, or providing expertise ONLY, it's also about owning part of the business, managing other employees, and deep understanding of the product and how to market and deliver it to the user. I'm not saying that's good or bad, however it is definitely not clearly stated-- not in schools, universities or in job descriptions. Society tells your for decades you're supposed to specialize and then get paid for that skill, yet most companies are expecting so much more.
throwaway22032 3y ago
Nah, I just prefer the office. I find working from home sad and depressing. My home is great. I like going outside of it. I like to meet my colleagues in person. I need the seperation. I find video calls dystopian. I am in a minority, it seems. So it goes. I moved on from professional software development two years ago now. edit, my replies are limited: Being in my home is great! But it's designed for leisure, not for fake sugar-free social interactions through a screen. I leave my work at work, and I use my home as a base to explore from, not as some sort of tortoiseshell to retreat into.
- sirwhinesalot 3y ago
  It's worth keeping in mind a lot of people (myself included) like WFH exactly because we go to the office to sit doing video calls all day. I totally understand wanting to be in the office when your whole team is there and your work lets you brainstorm with them all the time. My work environment was like that before and I totally understand preferring the office in that situation. But most places aren't like that, most places half your colleagues are in india.
- calmoo 3y ago
  I too prefer full time office. Worked from home for 4 years cumitively and I will never go back. In person human interaction is really underrated these days.
  - Devasta 3y ago
    Most people have friends or hobbies for their in person human interactions.
    - calmoo 3y ago
      Sure, this is always used as a counter argument to people who like working in the office. Both can be true. I personally would also like my 8 hours a day spent working to be with other people in person. Even meeting people after work regularly when I was working remotely wasn't enough - and I consider myself an introvert. I fully understand that some people prefer wfh, and I think it's cool that they can do it. But on the other hand, I think many people have fell into the trap of working from home all the time since the pandemic, and I think the social isolation will catch up to them.
devmor 3y ago
I'm very happy that the company I work for was recently acquired by a "full time remote" company. I started here at the beginning of the pandemic, so my only times at the office have been to pick up equipment, or for large all-hands meetings. The majority of my team does not live in state, and half do not live in the country. Yet, prior to the acquisition, management had begun to talk about transitioning back to the office. It made no sense to me. We'd been working perfectly fine as an all-remote team for nearly 3 years. I'd heard similar sentiments from other departments.
bratao 3y ago
In the article, they says that "a smart business should appreciate those who can accomplish tasks in less than 8 hours, as they can achieve more in less time, and if they're engaging in non-competitive side work, perhaps their compensation should be increased to prevent them from pursuing it full-time." However, this places employers in an impossible situation. Many companies already provide competitive salaries for software developers. Additionally, if an employee has a second job, it can be argued that their performance might suffer due to being overworked in such a cognitively demanding role.
- YetAnotherNick 3y ago
  And there is a real cost of firing someone for the company. e.g. I know Google employees morale and respect for the company is very different now it laid off employees, which a year back it didn't even bothered employees for slacking off completely.
- renewedrebecca 3y ago
  I bet the number of people working a side job like this is tiny. RTO advocates bring it up like everybody is doing it, but save for an anecdote here and there, I doubt it's happening that often. I've seen people go and "work" for decades in an office and do nothing all day. There's nothing new under the sun.
  - raverbashing 3y ago
    > I've seen people go and "work" for decades in an office and do nothing all day. Exactly. So either the 'butts in seats' are to please the managers or they're incompetent at discovering/dealing with unproductive employees, whatever that might be the reason. So which is it?
seydor 3y ago
In the end , it s a behavioral issue. Self-employed knowledge workers generally work both 'remotely' and 'at the office' everywhere, all of the time. Salaried people don't have this kind of attachment to their work so they need to be compelled to. Being present at the office is a good behavioral tool for that, forcefully isolating them from other concerns and temptations. There are many ways to replicate that in a remote working situation, but they mostly require pervasive monitoring of the employee. As the world is coming out of the trough of disillusionement from WFH, it seems that the trend will be towards new monitoring tools or other ways of proof of work. This is the compromise workers will have to make, because working remotely is a too damn good thing to miss. Edit: the other option is for everyone to become contractors and charge for results
- ericmcer 3y ago
  With knowledge workers isn't there like... an end result? I usually know who on my team will get stuff done vs who will struggle with a task for days on end. Whether the person is working 4 hours a day or 12 who cares about anything beyond the output and impact they have. I guess it feels too meritocratic? I used to work in grocery and while stocking some people could shelve 30+ boxes of product an hour while others slowly put up 10. Is it fair to pay both those people the same hourly rate when their output is so disparate? It feels bizarre to me in retrospect that being able to "own" the 8 hours of someones life is more important than them actually achieving something during that time.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - katbyte 3y ago
    It takes being an actual manager who can evaluate the work being done and progress towards a goal instead of “who’s in the office for how long” assuming that an hour in the office is an hour worked
  - seydor 3y ago
    regardless of the outcome, it is salaried work, which is a remnant of feudalism and even older slavery, and pay is presumably for time and attention. maybe people shoulkd become contractors en masse and charge for outcome
wilg 3y ago
The discussion of WFH is so politically loaded at this point I don't now what to do about it anymore. Note here the particular use of "bosses", the mocking tone, and trying to shoehorn the whole thing into a vague, unmoored, anti-capitalist rant. So exhausting. My view is that it's perfectly fine for companies to choose how they want to work, and people can choose to work at the companies that match their preference. If there is a significant business advantage to working one way or another, the problem will solve itself. Personally, I think I work about twice as well or more in the office than at home. But I also want to be able to not go into the office if I'm not feeling up for it whenever I want. So I wouldn't want to work at an office-only company. One of the big problems in this area is it's really difficult to come up with an alternate metric than "butt-in-seat" time for employees, even though that's a terrible metric for most office jobs. But I think it's fair to say, hey at our company the deal is we pay you X for Y hours of time per year. That's not the deal I'd want, I'd prefer to be more flexible on timing and be measured in some way on output, but I don't know a generalizable way to do that.
Waterluvian 3y ago
The piece of the WFH debate that I think is most interesting is the “I want X and for me to have X you all must do X too” mindset. It reminds me of my four year old, who insists his brother come play with him. People who want to WFH? Great! People who want to work in the office? Great! People who want to work in the office, but only if everyone else is there to fulfil their desired workday experience? That’s a problem. And I don’t think it’s symmetrical: WFH people don’t have a reason to insist that their colleagues WFH. There’s a very “my freedoms trump your freedoms” mindset to this.
- sim7c00 3y ago
  fully agree here. i often go to the office, then no one is there and i am sad. i used to be in that problem bucket. but its easy to solve. make good connections with colleagues and invite them for working days. ends up that sometimes more ppl are at the office, and alternatively i found people relatively close by are also happy to have me over at their house for a workday. super nice =). gotta think in solutions rather then problems!
  - delecti 3y ago
    That solution works pretty well, but also has limitations. I much prefer WFH, but am happy to head to the office every once in a while (current rate is about quarterly). But COVID made it reasonable to hire fully-remote workers, and now that the office is open (and has been for a while), our coworkers thousands of miles away can't really pop in on short notice.
    - sim7c00 3y ago
      it does have it limitsfor sure. but those limits are mainly relatable to my own shortcomings as a person (in my experience). i am alone usually, so i am happy to be around ppl at work. not everyone suffers this. i work on it, and as i get better, those limits become less of a hurdle :). i just think that if i have an issue, i cant demand things of others to come towards that. however a lot of people are actually really kind, and do come towards others in their struggles. you can always ask but not expect or demand.
throwaway9274 3y ago
This is not an issue of efficiency. Most of the software stack upon which these executives’ companies depend was written remotely by distributed teams. Over dial-up. In the 90s. Using CVS. We know how to run efficient distributed organizations. This is a problem primarily with executives who came of age in a marginally digitized world unable to navigate the new fully digital reality. It is the final form of the pointy-haired boomer boss who looks around his physical desk whenever asked to find an icon “on his desktop.”
kfk 3y ago
I think this WFH articles are generilizing too much. Remote work is challenging for companies that, and I need to say this, in the end must deliver predictable realiable value to their customers at reasonable prices. There are safety, security and trust problems to mention 3 very important things in 2023 with remote work. Just imagine what can happen if you need to fire an employee and they must give you back the work laptop with sensitive data… but they are working from a remote beach in Thailand. Best case they collaborate. Worst case they sell the laptop to hackers. This doesn’t mean remote work is doomed or bad, it just means we are dealing with a complex issue, it’s not going to be a black/white solution.
- ghaff 3y ago
  What's keeping them from selling the sensitive data to hackers in any case? Among concerns with remote work, this one seems pretty far down the list.
  - mostlysimilar 3y ago
    Very far down the list considering most companies employ remote management software that can immediately lock and wipe a machine. Not to mention the legal ramifications. If your company IP is so critical that the legal consequences are not enough, you probably have other controls in place and it isn’t just sitting on an employee’s laptop.
  - kfk 3y ago
    You will not like the answer, but it's the face to face trust and relationship you build with them over time. I know, I know, it's not a perfect logical answer, but it's been working like this well enough for longer than 100% remote options were so common. I am not saying I am right and I am not saying remote is bad, I am just saying this isn't a black and white topic yet, maybe one it will be, right now we should be OK to say "ok it might be good in some cases, but not all cases".
- jenscow 3y ago
  From an office, I could just email "sensitive data" to someone on a remote beach in Thailand.
cj 3y ago
> The issue at its core is that bosses hiring people “full-time” often do so, as dramatic as it sounds, to capture their soul. This is a bit silly. Kind of like saying Netflix imprisons our bodies on the couch for hours on end, and even charges us $20/month! The reality is we’re getting compensated in exchange (monetarily in the case of a job, and with entertainment for the Netflix example). For anyone who feels like their soul is captured or imprisoned at work, it’s time to start looking around for a new job or a new career that you’ll enjoy more than whatever you’re currently doing.
- masijo 3y ago
  >For anyone who feels like their soul is captured or imprisoned at work, it’s time to start looking around for a new job or a new career that you’ll enjoy more than whatever you’re currently doing. Sadly, some of us don't enjoy any job. I still have do it to pay the bills, though.
- the_only_law 3y ago
  > For anyone who feels like their soul is captured or imprisoned at work, it’s time to start looking around for a new job or a new career that you’ll enjoy more than whatever you’re currently doing I’ve been trying to do this for years. Was getting close, but then the pandemic happened followed by layoffs, followed by a ton of other shit and now I’m not sure it’s possible. Especially regarding a “new career”.
  - neon_electro 3y ago
    Keep at it day by day. I'm 16 months into my job search and it sucks but I'm not giving up.
- 8note 3y ago
  It tends to be that you are saddled with a contract that takes all of your creative output, and prevents you from working with competitors. It's not a one and done so some work and get paid, it is a takes-your-soul. You can compare to say shoveling snow -- when you do a job to shovel somebody's walk, they aren't going to prevent you from shoveling the next door's walk too, but if you develop biomes research for one company in the morning, you generally can't go develop biomes research for another company in the afternoon
stephc_int13 3y ago
WFH is obviously a loss for managers, less control, less power. It does not matter if the job is done or not, some people (quite a few) are not in this to be efficient, prestige is part of the pay. I am not saying that WFH is perfect, there are issues, but in most cases it is overall superior than mandatory office work.
- alex_lav 3y ago
  This post is so riddled with bias it's tough to take it seriously. > but in most cases it is overall superior than mandatory office work. This is literally just "I like it more", but worded as a data oriented insight.
  - infamouscow 3y ago
    What exactly is an office superior at other than providing: - Leaking roofs - Stinky coworkers - Shitty food - Flickering lights - Constant interruptions from people just saying "hi" - Unproductive commutes
    - mardifoufs 3y ago
      You are confirming that you are heavily biased by what seem to be extremely poor and uncommon experiences (I mean, leaky roofs?). It's normal to be biased based on personal experiences but it still does not make wfh objectively superior (or vice versa).
      - hooverd 3y ago
        They forgot black mold and dead snakes/rodents.
    - alex_lav 3y ago
      Yet another post that is pure bias. I won't bother listing the reasons you're wrong, because I feel they're fairly apparent, but instead just point out that every single one of your points is also possible when working from home.
AndrewKemendo 3y ago
It’s beyond time to reimagine the workplace Given the global nature of labor, as well as the ability to envision new ways of working the only barrier to these changes are entrenched powers The only viable and ethical pathway I see going forward is re-organizing globally as cooperatives and union workplaces. I see no other way to rebalance our economic system to prioritize the growth of everybody. However, this has always been the most existential, largest fight in human history, and that means that individuals as laborers need to actively collectivize
- satyrnein 3y ago
  I don't think relatively overpaid US developers and relatively underpaid foreign developers have aligned interests.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I believe they do they both want better working conditions and they don’t control them The fact that there’s often a large difference between them is certainly a problem and needs to be accounted for.
- throwuwu 3y ago
  You’re free to try those out for yourself just don’t go trying to force everyone else into it. There are much bigger barriers to a global workforce though like timezones and language.
  - AndrewKemendo 3y ago
    I’m sorry, but I fully disagree Haven’t capitalists forced their system, to be the default pathway for all of us via regulatory capture? I am literally forming a cooperative right now, and it is insanely hard to find legal experts, lawyers, funding, or anything that would be trivially easy in a capitalistic fashion. The legal structure of the US at least, does not understand the concept of non-stock organizations. Why? Because there is a demand for legal control that is not diffuse such that the government through private networks can control the way in which capital is allocated and work is done.
baq 3y ago
The bosses making those decisions live close to offices. Can’t see it making sense otherwise.
bravetraveler 3y ago
I've been WFH for the better part of a decade, the revisiting of this since the pandemic has been outright exhausting
newsclues 3y ago
It's not just bosses brains, imagine working in a low payed role with no WFH option, and you don't get any benefit like WFH, what is being done for those people so they don't resent the WFH class.
- newsclues 3y ago
  Would love to know why people downvoted this.
bentlegen 3y ago
IMO the simple problem here is that people are being paid for their time, not their output. Sure, the output is what is valued, but folks are paid for their time via an annual salary. In part, this is because it’s too challenging to value and measure each person’s output, especially in orgs with a lot of different roles. It’s just easier to say, “well the market for a designer is X so let’s pay some % of that”. The problem with that, often, is that folks don’t actually know how much output they might expect from a lot of roles. Is this designer performing? This PM? Unless you have a real breadth of experience in these roles (almost nobody does), you look to other metrics like “are my teams unblocked”, “did this product ship”, “do these slides seem reasonable”, etc. IMO those are also imperfect because a great team, a great project, etc. can sometimes easily mask someone’s meagre contributions. I think some employees knowingly exploit this knowledge gap. I don’t think it’s common, but it happens. We’ve seen people post their own examples of doing that here on HN. So, given they often lack experience evaluating output, some managers want to see their high-priced employees at work to even understand what they’re buying. You can call that onerous micromanaging, if you want. A less cynical take could be “managers want other signals to understand how their team members contribute.” That’s my 2 cents, at least.
- zmgsabst 3y ago
  Salary is explicitly not paying for time, but output — the performance of duties. You want my time? Pay hourly.
  - cassianoleal 3y ago
    So if you perform badly, you get paid less? Or if you perform exemplarily do you get paid more? How much do you get paid for each unit of output? Can you measure it so it's always the same, for every person, at any time? If not, you're selling your time - not your output.
    - bbor 3y ago
      This is just… false? Yes, if they cared/could, they would lower the salary of underperformers. The definition of a salary is that you’re paid to fulfill a role, not to work specific hours. That’s why hourly is called hourly. Either I’m taking crazy pills or this is a silly debate :)
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wfh_is_not_here 3y ago
Here's a perspective from a SWE (15+ YoE) from a third world country about this whole WFH thing. I have a Linkedin profile, connections to SWEs that I have previously worked with in my country and who have since moved to the US/EU. Plenty of those connections posted gushing words about our time together in the same engineering team on the recommendations section of my Linkedin profile. I have a huge Nota bene at the top of my profile telling recruiters that I'm only interested in fully remote positions and that I'm not interested in leaving my country no matter what. I work for a telecom company here and over the years I have worked with all sorts of stacks/technologies ranging from reverse engineering, embedded C, crypto.. and even more recently rewriting a (small) production tool from C++ to Rust. My salary over the last 10 years has gotten to an impressive ~ $40_000 per annum, and that's before taxes. It's a safe/stable job and I have family to take care of that I can not leave, so the prospect of landing a fully remote job writing js for a mouth watering TC of $200_000+ makes me salivate. But every advertized "fully remote" job out there comes with a huge asterisk: "it's fully remote but you have to be in a country where our company has offices, or you'll have to settle for being a contractor getting paid half that and dealing with taxes in your country and time zones that ungodly, or better yet, get paid in stable shitcoins!". So whenever I see the people with mouth watering TCs rewriting the same crappy code bases in $new_hyped_js_framework on HN/Reddit complain about hybrid work schedules or fully remote but once in 6 months you have to hop on a flight to be at the bi-annual work barbecue... I wonder when a truly full remote positions will be available, because there are a lot of us out there with incredible skills/YoE working for peanuts because we can't leave our disabled loved ones behind to be in the US/EU... or when a non-shitty-LLM will be good enough to turn english sentences into viable business logic. Now, _that_ will make me too appreciate my shitty salary instead of being envious of you guys' TCs.
theknocker 3y ago
[dead]
luckystarr 3y ago
What value do managers bring, who can't evaluate what they can reasonably expect from people, but use "ass in chair" as a proxy metric?
getmeinrn 3y ago
>In reality, a smart business should be grateful that there’s someone that can get shit done in less than 8 hours, it means that they can do more for you in less time, and if they’re doing non-competitive side work, maybe you should pay them more so they don’t go and do that full-time. In my view, the biggest crime of a manager is disconnecting my incentives from my work as an IC. If I create more value, it should be a manager's top priority to create the positive feedback loop of incentives. Because why else am I doing more, then? It should seem like common sense, but every manager I've had has not been remotely interested in creating that positive feedback loop. Instead "that salary is too far out of the band for this role and wouldn't be fair to everyone else, and you have to do X,Y,and Z to qualify for this other role, and your last self-review was too honest so I'm going to use it to negotiate against you..." I've even had a manager complain about my salary being too close to his salary, as if there was some requirement for his ego that I make less than him! Every raise or promotion I've ever had has devolved into some form of "you're giving me this or I'm going to leave", and then 9/10 times they reluctantly fork it over. There is no good faith, only power. And power is getting what you want after calling all the bluffs. Managers are adversarial, and their role is to get you to do as much as possible for as little as possible, while at the same time swallowing their pride when their bluffs are called. I hate that it is like this, because it could be a lot better. But nobody seems to know how to manage. Don't get me wrong, I get the position that managers are in. The upper management demands they get certain results, and if they don't do it, they get replaced. But it's still a failure of the manager for not communicating effectively how creating positive feedback loops with your top performers will make everybody money. Of course this depends on the upper management to actually pick valuable things to work on...
- marcinzm 3y ago
  The reason positive feedback loops don't exist is because it's very hard to properly measure impact and managers aren't trusted more than anyone else to do it. They act like they're trusted but the reason they can't set compensation at will is because they're not actually trusted. For example, Managers get to pick salaries for their reports. Every manager now says every one of their reports is a top performer and especially those who kiss their backsides. Okay, shit, rewind. Company creates a massive set of detailed metrics with which they can measure every employee and team. Metrics are incomplete, get gamed, morale decreases. Okay, shit, rewind. Etc. Etc.
freitzkriesler2 3y ago
Honestly, a lot of bosses and employees that prefer in office work quite simply hate their families and don't want to be around then. I get that, sometimes being around the wife and kids can be grating 24/7. Thankfully I'm not one of them. Then there are bosses who simply want the control. Last contract I had I was required to go into an office 3 days a week. All of my meetings were on chat and video. None were in person. They just wanted adult daycare. I wish we could just do hybrid in office days Monday through Wednesday and then remote Thursday and Friday. No one does this and it drives me nuts. The trend over the long term however are fully remote companies based in co working offices. My wife works for a fortune 500 that is pushing towards remote first because that means eliminating expensive office rent. Companies that have spent a lot of money on flashy offices or outright own their real estate will be more resistant to this simply because of sunk cost. However not having to pay rent or a mortgage speaks to shareholders. Outside of FAANG and a few select finance companies, ove the long term if companies can avoid rent they'll do so and I don't blame them.
basisword 3y ago
My experience as an employee has got worse as some employees returned to the hybrid model. I’ve started having a weekly call where about a dozen people are in a conference room using Zoom and I am on Zoom elsewhere (different countries). Trying to hear them as they talk amongst themselves and use the crappy video conf system is almost impossible. Everyone at home on individual laptops was so much easier to hear and required better etiquette (muting, taking turns etc). Unless absolutely everyone on a meeting is in the same office, multiple people on Zoom in a meeting room is a BIG downgrade.
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]
RektBoy 3y ago
Could someone provide me with good resource to compare US salary employment, vs. EU normal 40hours week employment? Because here in EU it's pretty normal to work full time and also being self-employed and do your own things. Would be crazy, that your employer can dictate what you can do with your free time. I mean, there is automatic non-compete clause by law, but in this case you usually let your employer hire you as self-employed from the start.
Sparkyte 3y ago
Different jobs require different interactivity between people. If your job requires you to socialize an in office experience is often required. If that socialization can be digitalized it doesn't require in office experience.
mawadev 3y ago
[flagged]
robg 3y ago
Please tag with [2021]
api 3y ago
It’s a massive cutting of waste: commute times, commute energy use, and middle management.
jackcosgrove 3y ago
I have a theory about RTO that is not so much about psychology, but rather is about pricing power. WFH creates another, national and in some cases international job market alongside every local job market. A lot of local job markets are captive labor pools, because of family ties, low cost of living, and inertia. It is an easier coordination problem for a small number of local employers to set wages for that market than it is to coordinate setting national wages. WFH makes it harder to have pricing power on local wages. Even if remote employers adjust wages for local cost of living, those wages are still often higher than local employers' wages, or the benefits are better, or the work is more interesting. Many local employers cannot compete for talent in a WFH environment. By breaking apart a national labor market into many local markets, the problem of managing wages becomes a more tractable problem.
- asylteltine 3y ago
  [dead]
- CBarkleyU 3y ago
  Hmm, in Germany there is a union-company agreed wage for a large chunk of jobs and we still have companies that want to ape the Americans by enforcing RTO. I have no problems with my colleagues living in Saxony, paying 70% of my rent for a bigger apartment while making as much as me. Good for them. Let the people decide; I want to live in Berlin and that's going to eat into my pay. Also, why would the company really care? They'll pay as little as possible and if there is somebody willing to work for that pay, why should they care where they live?
neilv 3y ago
I'm very pro-WFH, but I don't understand/agree with a lot of the dialogue in support of WFH, including much of this article. For example, some software developers in these discussions will say things like "What do you care, if I only work 1 hour a day, so long as I get my work done?!?!?! :emoji: :emoji:" My answer is not "There should be butts-in-seats for 40 hours a week, because that's what we pay you for!!! :emoji: :emoji:" My answer is that (for the kind of things I'd like to be working on) the kind of work we do requires creativity, thinking holistically, diligence, effort, perseverance, team focus, etc. It's not hitting metrics of number of sprint tasks you can plausibly claim you completed satisfactorily. The hiring and compensation should be guided by the idea that people are neither fungible commodities nor simple automatons. We're looking for a large chunk of some of this particular person's best work, while they're also having a non-work life. If they're outsourcing their work, phoning it in, thrashing their mental swap space with their side gig, taking on a second job that leaves them fatigued, etc.... the team isn't getting much of their best work. We will be flexible and supportive when life takes more time&energy than usual, as it sometimes will, for anyone. And there's daily ebb&flow for how available a person's best work can be. But something like a second "full-time" job is harder to accept. Also hard to accept is someone who treats software engineering like a factory job, thinking all that matters is the metric for how many fungible widgets they assemble over the course of a week. In software, that usually means: piles of half-butted unthinking new tech debt liability grunted out. Also hard to accept is this article attempting to deconstruct and critique societal structures, with the author's particular perspective and theories... when it's unclear how that informs an organization where people just want to do great work as a team, benefit financially from that, and have lives besides. Want to end WFH? Don a revolutionary beret, and gift-wrap a bunch strawperson-argument blog posts that help discredit WFH in the minds of some of those you most need to persuade. Please, for the sake of WFH, don't make ostensibly pro-WFH arguments that go full anti-corporate in ten different ways.
- 8note 3y ago
  > the kind of work we do requires creativity, thinking holistically But those are also good with WFH? I get the one task point done, then I can go for a walk in the park where I can keep thinking about the problem, then go grab a coffee or a beer and write down a bit of thoughts on the topic. People are perfectly capable of phoning it in from the office, and taking a second job that's at night. Working from home or from office are orthogonal to how much attention somebody is paying, except that WFH has a major advantage: you and your coworkers don't arrive irritated and fatigued after 2 hour commutes through traffic, and then not getting as much time to maintain their life because it's another irritating and fatiguing commute back after work
pmoriarty 3y ago
I'm shocked that in this entire thread there's nary a mention of the elephant in the WFH room: the commute. Not only is commuting a (potentially huge) waste of time, but it forces me to risk my life on the road. In the US this commuting time is uncompensated, and I've never heard of anyone being compensated for risking their life by driving/flying to work, and that risk is not even acknowledged. It's also far less stressful to roll out of bed and "be at work", as it were, than brave the commute, rush hour traffic, the belligerence of other stressed-out commuters, potential road rage, traffic tickets, stressing out even more when you're late or you're stuck in traffic, etc... All for what? I'd rather spend more time with my friends and family than my coworkers. No, now that I've tasted WFH life, I'm going to do everything in my power to avoid commuting. Maybe if they doubled or tripled my salary I might consider it, but nothing short of that is remotely worth it (pardon the pun).
lamontcg 3y ago
> Why? Because there are many CEOs (and VPs, and so on) that have got there with the joyous idea that the reason you become a CEO is to get paid for other people’s labor, which also means you don’t have to work. That’s also because the modern corporate interpretation of capitalism is inherently patriarchal - borne from the prospect that we all look up to someone, and we must learn from them and grow from them, until we eventually go and make our own children (companies). But until then, we’re under their “care” but also the rule of their law. > This is a misinterpretation of what capitalism is (for better or for worse, the most efficient extraction of money from labor - which also means getting the most from workers), and what attracts people to management roles (misinterpreting control as an efficient way of extracting value). The reason that there are so many bad managers - middle and otherwise - is that lots of people see management as delegation of work that you take credit for, mostly because that’s how many corporations function on a grand scheme. It’s framed palatably as contributing a small piece to a larger whole, but middle management’s truly noxious existence proves that people absolutely love it. The attraction to these positions isn’t what a true manager is - fostering talent, making the company better, getting more done, winning together - it’s about control and abuse. Pretty clearly laying out the corporate capitalist office environment as nothing other than a big MLM scam. Rest of it was really good as well, but I felt like highlighting that bit for the people who only read the title.
ITB 3y ago
The post argues that it’s management’s responsibility to make sure employees are adding value. This idea that managers shouldn’t care how many hours someone works as long as they get their shit done, goes counter to the idea that managers should be hands off a let engineers innovate. I think the most innovative companies let engineers prioritize much of the work. But in that case there is much less clarity about whether “shit got done”, so you’re paying for smart people allocating their creative energy into your business many hours each week. For the same reason, remote work ultimately brings a more transactional work environment and I believe less of a growth environment for individual professionals. People are so obsessed with the additional comfort that comes from working at home, that they fail to see that in fact there are real downsides.
oytis 3y ago
I think I have been too lucky with my managers, but the trope of middle managers hating WFH does not resonate with my experience. Also the famous rule of 7 +/- 2 still holds in remote environment. If you have many enough engineers there is no way you could do without middle managers.
- starbugs 3y ago
  Ever worked on an open source project? Seems to work quite well without middle management.
- whazor 3y ago
  Managers have meetings the whole day with other managers. Those managers are often in different locations. Thus, WFH often the best situation for managers.
sgt101 3y ago
A huge change for the company I work for was breaking the lease on the old office and then getting a new office that is 1/3 the size and 1/4 the cost. And we doubled in size. So... there's a bit of an economic argument. Also, I have a team that contains people in Spain and Poland (mostly Poland), my customers are in London, New York and India. So, wtf am I supposed to work?!
SergeAx 3y ago
> executives are scared of their employees “working part-time (but paid full salary)” and “even working on side hustle startups, while on a full-time salary,” I am an engineer-became-manager, and I have anecdata about it. In the last 3 years I had 4 cases of sudden productivity decline. One case was because of a family problem, three others — because of second job/own project. Overall I had about 50 direct and indirect reports during these years, so it's about 5%. I also know about at least 3 pals who has two jobs now. One of them actually had three jobs, but quickly burned out and quit one of them. Before COVID and lockdowns I had only two or three cases of one-time side gigs and zero second jobs cases in 10+ years of being an engineering manager. This is a real problem for the industry.
son_of_gloin 3y ago
I’ve worked at many places from ~5-10 employee startups or design studios to mega-corporations with thousands of employees. I’ve only had one boss that I would consider “bad”. And I think that was mostly due to the culture of the company he worked at previously- Amazon. I do think businesses of all sizes are too hierarchical. I would like to try working for a co-op or cooperative or staring my own one day.
juancn 3y ago
The only good argument for going back in my mind is that mentoring junior employees is much, much easier and effective in person. And that dynamics require a senior and a junior employee in the same room every once in a while, so the senior can speed up learning.
friend_and_foe 3y ago
These people need to understand what a salary is. If you want 40 hours, pay hourly. A salary is paying for someone's life in exchange for them to dedicate their effort to solving your problems and making you money. Sometimes that takes 60 hours, sometimes that takes 30. That's the agreement, and if you as a salary employee try to get a 40 hour cap you'll be told that that's not how it works with salary. Well that goes both ways.

211 points by LordNibbler 3y ago

I think a key point in the 'WFH bad' discourse is that while WFH is great for engineers, the experience is pretty similar for managers. Managers are still in meetings 8-10 hours a day even with WFH. A manager doesn't really see a big benefit from WFH, he is just attending the same meetings remotely.

ghaff 3y ago
It can be pretty similar for ICs too though. Even if everyone came into the office, there's almost no one I regularly work with who is in the office I would go into.
- nightpool 3y ago
  > there's almost no one I regularly work with who is in the office I would go into Then you already fundamentally have a remote job. A non-remote job would organize business units / teams by location so that you're in the same office as people you're working with. And yes, this would require relocations and imply a smaller hiring pool. That's the tradeoff of not having remote work, not just spending more time in the office. You're not comparing remote to non-remote work, you're just comparing two flavors of remote work.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    At large companies, co-location seems to drift over time. My company has long been pretty remote-friendly and I expect most teams are pretty distributed at this point. ADDED: You can force co-location but, as you say, it reduces company options as well as employee options. And may not even be very practical; I work extensively with other teams both in another state and in Europe.
djKianoosh 3y ago
the benefit is great for managers who go between different meetings, and especially if those meetings are at different locations. much less time wasted in between meetings. they definitely also get more done
waynesonfire 3y ago
No..thats what managers signed up for when they took on the role. Do managers not have a daily commute? WFH benefits both.
marcinzm 3y ago
As a manager I love WFH for myself and based on feedback I love it more than many of the ICs at the company. No walking between meeting rooms, no taking notes on a tiny laptop screen, no forgetting someone's name (or role), no sitting in uncomfortable meeting room chairs, no ad-hoc conversations taking up my limited non-meeting time, no juggling being even more late to a meeting versus using the bathroom, etc. The real difference in my experience is that extroverts prefer WFH and those tend to more often become managers however plenty are ICs as well.
- veltas 3y ago
  > no sitting in uncomfortable meeting room chairs Why are meeting room chairs so uncomfortable?

anoncow 3y ago

I think there are 2 core topics regarding WFH. 1. Gig jobs v/s ‘full time’ jobs: Assessment in favour of the bosses - Companies seem to be okay with people in gig jobs working multiple jobs. Assessment against the bosses - Most full-time jobs need not be full-time jobs. And thus most full time jobs can be done by people working multiple jobs. And thus most full time jobs can be done from home. Conclusion: Contract laws need to change to prevent certain types of contracts from being drawn. For example, no contracts should prevent a person seeking additional employment. 2. Culture: Bossess feel that culture development slows with WFH. A hybrid work setup can help prevent this.

cookie_monsta 3y ago

(2021)

swalling 3y ago
dang, can we please get a title edit on this one?

UnpossibleJim 3y ago

Why aren't people paid a full time salary for the work they're expected to do instead of the time they sit at a desk? It's a question I genuinely struggle with. If the employee is doing all that's expected of them, then the "contract for owning someone for a period of time" (not my words - and relatively creepy) should be fulfilled. It doesn't seem a period of time that is expected but a force of work delivered. I am willing to be wrong in this assumption, however, given the right argument.

pdonis 3y ago
> Why aren't people paid a full time salary for the work they're expected to do instead of the time they sit at a desk? If the work you are expected to do is fixed--your boss can't come to you with an ad hoc assignment that's not in some formal job description--then you're not an employee, you're an independent contractor. (And that means the corporation no longer has to worry about things like your health care and retirement benefits.) The real value proposition for having an employee vs. an independent contractor is that the work the employee is expected to do is not fixed--your boss can come to you as an employee with an ad hoc assignment that's not in any formal job description and expect you to do it. In other words, the belief the article describes, that paying someone a full time salary as an employee means the company owns their time, is actually mistaken (even though I think it is very common among corporate managers and executives). What you're actually paying them for is being able to give them ad hoc new jobs to do as the company's environment and needs change, and not have to go through the hassle of writing up a new contractor's statement of work and negotiating a new price. The only justification you need to give an employee a new ad hoc assignment is "this is going to help the company".
- proc0 3y ago
  The real value prop of having a full time employee, is you own their full time focus five days a week. It's not about practicing a trained skillset, or providing expertise ONLY, it's also about owning part of the business, managing other employees, and deep understanding of the product and how to market and deliver it to the user. I'm not saying that's good or bad, however it is definitely not clearly stated-- not in schools, universities or in job descriptions. Society tells your for decades you're supposed to specialize and then get paid for that skill, yet most companies are expecting so much more.

throwaway22032 3y ago

Nah, I just prefer the office. I find working from home sad and depressing. My home is great. I like going outside of it. I like to meet my colleagues in person. I need the seperation. I find video calls dystopian. I am in a minority, it seems. So it goes. I moved on from professional software development two years ago now. edit, my replies are limited: Being in my home is great! But it's designed for leisure, not for fake sugar-free social interactions through a screen. I leave my work at work, and I use my home as a base to explore from, not as some sort of tortoiseshell to retreat into.

sirwhinesalot 3y ago
It's worth keeping in mind a lot of people (myself included) like WFH exactly because we go to the office to sit doing video calls all day. I totally understand wanting to be in the office when your whole team is there and your work lets you brainstorm with them all the time. My work environment was like that before and I totally understand preferring the office in that situation. But most places aren't like that, most places half your colleagues are in india.
calmoo 3y ago
I too prefer full time office. Worked from home for 4 years cumitively and I will never go back. In person human interaction is really underrated these days.
- Devasta 3y ago
  Most people have friends or hobbies for their in person human interactions.
  - calmoo 3y ago
    Sure, this is always used as a counter argument to people who like working in the office. Both can be true. I personally would also like my 8 hours a day spent working to be with other people in person. Even meeting people after work regularly when I was working remotely wasn't enough - and I consider myself an introvert. I fully understand that some people prefer wfh, and I think it's cool that they can do it. But on the other hand, I think many people have fell into the trap of working from home all the time since the pandemic, and I think the social isolation will catch up to them.

devmor 3y ago

I'm very happy that the company I work for was recently acquired by a "full time remote" company. I started here at the beginning of the pandemic, so my only times at the office have been to pick up equipment, or for large all-hands meetings. The majority of my team does not live in state, and half do not live in the country. Yet, prior to the acquisition, management had begun to talk about transitioning back to the office. It made no sense to me. We'd been working perfectly fine as an all-remote team for nearly 3 years. I'd heard similar sentiments from other departments.

bratao 3y ago

In the article, they says that "a smart business should appreciate those who can accomplish tasks in less than 8 hours, as they can achieve more in less time, and if they're engaging in non-competitive side work, perhaps their compensation should be increased to prevent them from pursuing it full-time." However, this places employers in an impossible situation. Many companies already provide competitive salaries for software developers. Additionally, if an employee has a second job, it can be argued that their performance might suffer due to being overworked in such a cognitively demanding role.

YetAnotherNick 3y ago
And there is a real cost of firing someone for the company. e.g. I know Google employees morale and respect for the company is very different now it laid off employees, which a year back it didn't even bothered employees for slacking off completely.
renewedrebecca 3y ago
I bet the number of people working a side job like this is tiny. RTO advocates bring it up like everybody is doing it, but save for an anecdote here and there, I doubt it's happening that often. I've seen people go and "work" for decades in an office and do nothing all day. There's nothing new under the sun.
- raverbashing 3y ago
  > I've seen people go and "work" for decades in an office and do nothing all day. Exactly. So either the 'butts in seats' are to please the managers or they're incompetent at discovering/dealing with unproductive employees, whatever that might be the reason. So which is it?

seydor 3y ago

In the end , it s a behavioral issue. Self-employed knowledge workers generally work both 'remotely' and 'at the office' everywhere, all of the time. Salaried people don't have this kind of attachment to their work so they need to be compelled to. Being present at the office is a good behavioral tool for that, forcefully isolating them from other concerns and temptations. There are many ways to replicate that in a remote working situation, but they mostly require pervasive monitoring of the employee. As the world is coming out of the trough of disillusionement from WFH, it seems that the trend will be towards new monitoring tools or other ways of proof of work. This is the compromise workers will have to make, because working remotely is a too damn good thing to miss. Edit: the other option is for everyone to become contractors and charge for results

ericmcer 3y ago
With knowledge workers isn't there like... an end result? I usually know who on my team will get stuff done vs who will struggle with a task for days on end. Whether the person is working 4 hours a day or 12 who cares about anything beyond the output and impact they have. I guess it feels too meritocratic? I used to work in grocery and while stocking some people could shelve 30+ boxes of product an hour while others slowly put up 10. Is it fair to pay both those people the same hourly rate when their output is so disparate? It feels bizarre to me in retrospect that being able to "own" the 8 hours of someones life is more important than them actually achieving something during that time.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- katbyte 3y ago
  It takes being an actual manager who can evaluate the work being done and progress towards a goal instead of “who’s in the office for how long” assuming that an hour in the office is an hour worked
- seydor 3y ago
  regardless of the outcome, it is salaried work, which is a remnant of feudalism and even older slavery, and pay is presumably for time and attention. maybe people shoulkd become contractors en masse and charge for outcome

wilg 3y ago

The discussion of WFH is so politically loaded at this point I don't now what to do about it anymore. Note here the particular use of "bosses", the mocking tone, and trying to shoehorn the whole thing into a vague, unmoored, anti-capitalist rant. So exhausting. My view is that it's perfectly fine for companies to choose how they want to work, and people can choose to work at the companies that match their preference. If there is a significant business advantage to working one way or another, the problem will solve itself. Personally, I think I work about twice as well or more in the office than at home. But I also want to be able to not go into the office if I'm not feeling up for it whenever I want. So I wouldn't want to work at an office-only company. One of the big problems in this area is it's really difficult to come up with an alternate metric than "butt-in-seat" time for employees, even though that's a terrible metric for most office jobs. But I think it's fair to say, hey at our company the deal is we pay you X for Y hours of time per year. That's not the deal I'd want, I'd prefer to be more flexible on timing and be measured in some way on output, but I don't know a generalizable way to do that.

Waterluvian 3y ago

The piece of the WFH debate that I think is most interesting is the “I want X and for me to have X you all must do X too” mindset. It reminds me of my four year old, who insists his brother come play with him. People who want to WFH? Great! People who want to work in the office? Great! People who want to work in the office, but only if everyone else is there to fulfil their desired workday experience? That’s a problem. And I don’t think it’s symmetrical: WFH people don’t have a reason to insist that their colleagues WFH. There’s a very “my freedoms trump your freedoms” mindset to this.

sim7c00 3y ago
fully agree here. i often go to the office, then no one is there and i am sad. i used to be in that problem bucket. but its easy to solve. make good connections with colleagues and invite them for working days. ends up that sometimes more ppl are at the office, and alternatively i found people relatively close by are also happy to have me over at their house for a workday. super nice =). gotta think in solutions rather then problems!
- delecti 3y ago
  That solution works pretty well, but also has limitations. I much prefer WFH, but am happy to head to the office every once in a while (current rate is about quarterly). But COVID made it reasonable to hire fully-remote workers, and now that the office is open (and has been for a while), our coworkers thousands of miles away can't really pop in on short notice.
  - sim7c00 3y ago
    it does have it limitsfor sure. but those limits are mainly relatable to my own shortcomings as a person (in my experience). i am alone usually, so i am happy to be around ppl at work. not everyone suffers this. i work on it, and as i get better, those limits become less of a hurdle :). i just think that if i have an issue, i cant demand things of others to come towards that. however a lot of people are actually really kind, and do come towards others in their struggles. you can always ask but not expect or demand.

throwaway9274 3y ago

This is not an issue of efficiency. Most of the software stack upon which these executives’ companies depend was written remotely by distributed teams. Over dial-up. In the 90s. Using CVS. We know how to run efficient distributed organizations. This is a problem primarily with executives who came of age in a marginally digitized world unable to navigate the new fully digital reality. It is the final form of the pointy-haired boomer boss who looks around his physical desk whenever asked to find an icon “on his desktop.”

kfk 3y ago

I think this WFH articles are generilizing too much. Remote work is challenging for companies that, and I need to say this, in the end must deliver predictable realiable value to their customers at reasonable prices. There are safety, security and trust problems to mention 3 very important things in 2023 with remote work. Just imagine what can happen if you need to fire an employee and they must give you back the work laptop with sensitive data… but they are working from a remote beach in Thailand. Best case they collaborate. Worst case they sell the laptop to hackers. This doesn’t mean remote work is doomed or bad, it just means we are dealing with a complex issue, it’s not going to be a black/white solution.

ghaff 3y ago
What's keeping them from selling the sensitive data to hackers in any case? Among concerns with remote work, this one seems pretty far down the list.
- mostlysimilar 3y ago
  Very far down the list considering most companies employ remote management software that can immediately lock and wipe a machine. Not to mention the legal ramifications. If your company IP is so critical that the legal consequences are not enough, you probably have other controls in place and it isn’t just sitting on an employee’s laptop.
- kfk 3y ago
  You will not like the answer, but it's the face to face trust and relationship you build with them over time. I know, I know, it's not a perfect logical answer, but it's been working like this well enough for longer than 100% remote options were so common. I am not saying I am right and I am not saying remote is bad, I am just saying this isn't a black and white topic yet, maybe one it will be, right now we should be OK to say "ok it might be good in some cases, but not all cases".
jenscow 3y ago
From an office, I could just email "sensitive data" to someone on a remote beach in Thailand.

cj 3y ago

> The issue at its core is that bosses hiring people “full-time” often do so, as dramatic as it sounds, to capture their soul. This is a bit silly. Kind of like saying Netflix imprisons our bodies on the couch for hours on end, and even charges us $20/month! The reality is we’re getting compensated in exchange (monetarily in the case of a job, and with entertainment for the Netflix example). For anyone who feels like their soul is captured or imprisoned at work, it’s time to start looking around for a new job or a new career that you’ll enjoy more than whatever you’re currently doing.

masijo 3y ago
>For anyone who feels like their soul is captured or imprisoned at work, it’s time to start looking around for a new job or a new career that you’ll enjoy more than whatever you’re currently doing. Sadly, some of us don't enjoy any job. I still have do it to pay the bills, though.
the_only_law 3y ago
> For anyone who feels like their soul is captured or imprisoned at work, it’s time to start looking around for a new job or a new career that you’ll enjoy more than whatever you’re currently doing I’ve been trying to do this for years. Was getting close, but then the pandemic happened followed by layoffs, followed by a ton of other shit and now I’m not sure it’s possible. Especially regarding a “new career”.
- neon_electro 3y ago
  Keep at it day by day. I'm 16 months into my job search and it sucks but I'm not giving up.
8note 3y ago
It tends to be that you are saddled with a contract that takes all of your creative output, and prevents you from working with competitors. It's not a one and done so some work and get paid, it is a takes-your-soul. You can compare to say shoveling snow -- when you do a job to shovel somebody's walk, they aren't going to prevent you from shoveling the next door's walk too, but if you develop biomes research for one company in the morning, you generally can't go develop biomes research for another company in the afternoon

stephc_int13 3y ago

WFH is obviously a loss for managers, less control, less power. It does not matter if the job is done or not, some people (quite a few) are not in this to be efficient, prestige is part of the pay. I am not saying that WFH is perfect, there are issues, but in most cases it is overall superior than mandatory office work.

alex_lav 3y ago
This post is so riddled with bias it's tough to take it seriously. > but in most cases it is overall superior than mandatory office work. This is literally just "I like it more", but worded as a data oriented insight.
- infamouscow 3y ago
  What exactly is an office superior at other than providing: - Leaking roofs - Stinky coworkers - Shitty food - Flickering lights - Constant interruptions from people just saying "hi" - Unproductive commutes
  - mardifoufs 3y ago
    You are confirming that you are heavily biased by what seem to be extremely poor and uncommon experiences (I mean, leaky roofs?). It's normal to be biased based on personal experiences but it still does not make wfh objectively superior (or vice versa).
    - hooverd 3y ago
      They forgot black mold and dead snakes/rodents.
  - alex_lav 3y ago
    Yet another post that is pure bias. I won't bother listing the reasons you're wrong, because I feel they're fairly apparent, but instead just point out that every single one of your points is also possible when working from home.

AndrewKemendo 3y ago

It’s beyond time to reimagine the workplace Given the global nature of labor, as well as the ability to envision new ways of working the only barrier to these changes are entrenched powers The only viable and ethical pathway I see going forward is re-organizing globally as cooperatives and union workplaces. I see no other way to rebalance our economic system to prioritize the growth of everybody. However, this has always been the most existential, largest fight in human history, and that means that individuals as laborers need to actively collectivize

satyrnein 3y ago
I don't think relatively overpaid US developers and relatively underpaid foreign developers have aligned interests.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I believe they do they both want better working conditions and they don’t control them The fact that there’s often a large difference between them is certainly a problem and needs to be accounted for.
throwuwu 3y ago
You’re free to try those out for yourself just don’t go trying to force everyone else into it. There are much bigger barriers to a global workforce though like timezones and language.
- AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  I’m sorry, but I fully disagree Haven’t capitalists forced their system, to be the default pathway for all of us via regulatory capture? I am literally forming a cooperative right now, and it is insanely hard to find legal experts, lawyers, funding, or anything that would be trivially easy in a capitalistic fashion. The legal structure of the US at least, does not understand the concept of non-stock organizations. Why? Because there is a demand for legal control that is not diffuse such that the government through private networks can control the way in which capital is allocated and work is done.

baq 3y ago

The bosses making those decisions live close to offices. Can’t see it making sense otherwise.

bravetraveler 3y ago

I've been WFH for the better part of a decade, the revisiting of this since the pandemic has been outright exhausting

newsclues 3y ago

It's not just bosses brains, imagine working in a low payed role with no WFH option, and you don't get any benefit like WFH, what is being done for those people so they don't resent the WFH class.

newsclues 3y ago
Would love to know why people downvoted this.

bentlegen 3y ago

IMO the simple problem here is that people are being paid for their time, not their output. Sure, the output is what is valued, but folks are paid for their time via an annual salary. In part, this is because it’s too challenging to value and measure each person’s output, especially in orgs with a lot of different roles. It’s just easier to say, “well the market for a designer is X so let’s pay some % of that”. The problem with that, often, is that folks don’t actually know how much output they might expect from a lot of roles. Is this designer performing? This PM? Unless you have a real breadth of experience in these roles (almost nobody does), you look to other metrics like “are my teams unblocked”, “did this product ship”, “do these slides seem reasonable”, etc. IMO those are also imperfect because a great team, a great project, etc. can sometimes easily mask someone’s meagre contributions. I think some employees knowingly exploit this knowledge gap. I don’t think it’s common, but it happens. We’ve seen people post their own examples of doing that here on HN. So, given they often lack experience evaluating output, some managers want to see their high-priced employees at work to even understand what they’re buying. You can call that onerous micromanaging, if you want. A less cynical take could be “managers want other signals to understand how their team members contribute.” That’s my 2 cents, at least.

zmgsabst 3y ago
Salary is explicitly not paying for time, but output — the performance of duties. You want my time? Pay hourly.
- cassianoleal 3y ago
  So if you perform badly, you get paid less? Or if you perform exemplarily do you get paid more? How much do you get paid for each unit of output? Can you measure it so it's always the same, for every person, at any time? If not, you're selling your time - not your output.
  - bbor 3y ago
    This is just… false? Yes, if they cared/could, they would lower the salary of underperformers. The definition of a salary is that you’re paid to fulfill a role, not to work specific hours. That’s why hourly is called hourly. Either I’m taking crazy pills or this is a silly debate :)

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wfh_is_not_here 3y ago

Here's a perspective from a SWE (15+ YoE) from a third world country about this whole WFH thing. I have a Linkedin profile, connections to SWEs that I have previously worked with in my country and who have since moved to the US/EU. Plenty of those connections posted gushing words about our time together in the same engineering team on the recommendations section of my Linkedin profile. I have a huge Nota bene at the top of my profile telling recruiters that I'm only interested in fully remote positions and that I'm not interested in leaving my country no matter what. I work for a telecom company here and over the years I have worked with all sorts of stacks/technologies ranging from reverse engineering, embedded C, crypto.. and even more recently rewriting a (small) production tool from C++ to Rust. My salary over the last 10 years has gotten to an impressive ~ $40_000 per annum, and that's before taxes. It's a safe/stable job and I have family to take care of that I can not leave, so the prospect of landing a fully remote job writing js for a mouth watering TC of $200_000+ makes me salivate. But every advertized "fully remote" job out there comes with a huge asterisk: "it's fully remote but you have to be in a country where our company has offices, or you'll have to settle for being a contractor getting paid half that and dealing with taxes in your country and time zones that ungodly, or better yet, get paid in stable shitcoins!". So whenever I see the people with mouth watering TCs rewriting the same crappy code bases in $new_hyped_js_framework on HN/Reddit complain about hybrid work schedules or fully remote but once in 6 months you have to hop on a flight to be at the bi-annual work barbecue... I wonder when a truly full remote positions will be available, because there are a lot of us out there with incredible skills/YoE working for peanuts because we can't leave our disabled loved ones behind to be in the US/EU... or when a non-shitty-LLM will be good enough to turn english sentences into viable business logic. Now, _that_ will make me too appreciate my shitty salary instead of being envious of you guys' TCs.

theknocker 3y ago

[dead]

luckystarr 3y ago

What value do managers bring, who can't evaluate what they can reasonably expect from people, but use "ass in chair" as a proxy metric?

getmeinrn 3y ago

>In reality, a smart business should be grateful that there’s someone that can get shit done in less than 8 hours, it means that they can do more for you in less time, and if they’re doing non-competitive side work, maybe you should pay them more so they don’t go and do that full-time. In my view, the biggest crime of a manager is disconnecting my incentives from my work as an IC. If I create more value, it should be a manager's top priority to create the positive feedback loop of incentives. Because why else am I doing more, then? It should seem like common sense, but every manager I've had has not been remotely interested in creating that positive feedback loop. Instead "that salary is too far out of the band for this role and wouldn't be fair to everyone else, and you have to do X,Y,and Z to qualify for this other role, and your last self-review was too honest so I'm going to use it to negotiate against you..." I've even had a manager complain about my salary being too close to his salary, as if there was some requirement for his ego that I make less than him! Every raise or promotion I've ever had has devolved into some form of "you're giving me this or I'm going to leave", and then 9/10 times they reluctantly fork it over. There is no good faith, only power. And power is getting what you want after calling all the bluffs. Managers are adversarial, and their role is to get you to do as much as possible for as little as possible, while at the same time swallowing their pride when their bluffs are called. I hate that it is like this, because it could be a lot better. But nobody seems to know how to manage. Don't get me wrong, I get the position that managers are in. The upper management demands they get certain results, and if they don't do it, they get replaced. But it's still a failure of the manager for not communicating effectively how creating positive feedback loops with your top performers will make everybody money. Of course this depends on the upper management to actually pick valuable things to work on...

marcinzm 3y ago
The reason positive feedback loops don't exist is because it's very hard to properly measure impact and managers aren't trusted more than anyone else to do it. They act like they're trusted but the reason they can't set compensation at will is because they're not actually trusted. For example, Managers get to pick salaries for their reports. Every manager now says every one of their reports is a top performer and especially those who kiss their backsides. Okay, shit, rewind. Company creates a massive set of detailed metrics with which they can measure every employee and team. Metrics are incomplete, get gamed, morale decreases. Okay, shit, rewind. Etc. Etc.

freitzkriesler2 3y ago

Honestly, a lot of bosses and employees that prefer in office work quite simply hate their families and don't want to be around then. I get that, sometimes being around the wife and kids can be grating 24/7. Thankfully I'm not one of them. Then there are bosses who simply want the control. Last contract I had I was required to go into an office 3 days a week. All of my meetings were on chat and video. None were in person. They just wanted adult daycare. I wish we could just do hybrid in office days Monday through Wednesday and then remote Thursday and Friday. No one does this and it drives me nuts. The trend over the long term however are fully remote companies based in co working offices. My wife works for a fortune 500 that is pushing towards remote first because that means eliminating expensive office rent. Companies that have spent a lot of money on flashy offices or outright own their real estate will be more resistant to this simply because of sunk cost. However not having to pay rent or a mortgage speaks to shareholders. Outside of FAANG and a few select finance companies, ove the long term if companies can avoid rent they'll do so and I don't blame them.

basisword 3y ago

My experience as an employee has got worse as some employees returned to the hybrid model. I’ve started having a weekly call where about a dozen people are in a conference room using Zoom and I am on Zoom elsewhere (different countries). Trying to hear them as they talk amongst themselves and use the crappy video conf system is almost impossible. Everyone at home on individual laptops was so much easier to hear and required better etiquette (muting, taking turns etc). Unless absolutely everyone on a meeting is in the same office, multiple people on Zoom in a meeting room is a BIG downgrade.

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]

RektBoy 3y ago

Could someone provide me with good resource to compare US salary employment, vs. EU normal 40hours week employment? Because here in EU it's pretty normal to work full time and also being self-employed and do your own things. Would be crazy, that your employer can dictate what you can do with your free time. I mean, there is automatic non-compete clause by law, but in this case you usually let your employer hire you as self-employed from the start.

Sparkyte 3y ago

Different jobs require different interactivity between people. If your job requires you to socialize an in office experience is often required. If that socialization can be digitalized it doesn't require in office experience.

mawadev 3y ago

[flagged]

robg 3y ago

Please tag with [2021]

api 3y ago

It’s a massive cutting of waste: commute times, commute energy use, and middle management.

jackcosgrove 3y ago

I have a theory about RTO that is not so much about psychology, but rather is about pricing power. WFH creates another, national and in some cases international job market alongside every local job market. A lot of local job markets are captive labor pools, because of family ties, low cost of living, and inertia. It is an easier coordination problem for a small number of local employers to set wages for that market than it is to coordinate setting national wages. WFH makes it harder to have pricing power on local wages. Even if remote employers adjust wages for local cost of living, those wages are still often higher than local employers' wages, or the benefits are better, or the work is more interesting. Many local employers cannot compete for talent in a WFH environment. By breaking apart a national labor market into many local markets, the problem of managing wages becomes a more tractable problem.

asylteltine 3y ago
[dead]
CBarkleyU 3y ago
Hmm, in Germany there is a union-company agreed wage for a large chunk of jobs and we still have companies that want to ape the Americans by enforcing RTO. I have no problems with my colleagues living in Saxony, paying 70% of my rent for a bigger apartment while making as much as me. Good for them. Let the people decide; I want to live in Berlin and that's going to eat into my pay. Also, why would the company really care? They'll pay as little as possible and if there is somebody willing to work for that pay, why should they care where they live?

neilv 3y ago

I'm very pro-WFH, but I don't understand/agree with a lot of the dialogue in support of WFH, including much of this article. For example, some software developers in these discussions will say things like "What do you care, if I only work 1 hour a day, so long as I get my work done?!?!?! :emoji: :emoji:" My answer is not "There should be butts-in-seats for 40 hours a week, because that's what we pay you for!!! :emoji: :emoji:" My answer is that (for the kind of things I'd like to be working on) the kind of work we do requires creativity, thinking holistically, diligence, effort, perseverance, team focus, etc. It's not hitting metrics of number of sprint tasks you can plausibly claim you completed satisfactorily. The hiring and compensation should be guided by the idea that people are neither fungible commodities nor simple automatons. We're looking for a large chunk of some of this particular person's best work, while they're also having a non-work life. If they're outsourcing their work, phoning it in, thrashing their mental swap space with their side gig, taking on a second job that leaves them fatigued, etc.... the team isn't getting much of their best work. We will be flexible and supportive when life takes more time&energy than usual, as it sometimes will, for anyone. And there's daily ebb&flow for how available a person's best work can be. But something like a second "full-time" job is harder to accept. Also hard to accept is someone who treats software engineering like a factory job, thinking all that matters is the metric for how many fungible widgets they assemble over the course of a week. In software, that usually means: piles of half-butted unthinking new tech debt liability grunted out. Also hard to accept is this article attempting to deconstruct and critique societal structures, with the author's particular perspective and theories... when it's unclear how that informs an organization where people just want to do great work as a team, benefit financially from that, and have lives besides. Want to end WFH? Don a revolutionary beret, and gift-wrap a bunch strawperson-argument blog posts that help discredit WFH in the minds of some of those you most need to persuade. Please, for the sake of WFH, don't make ostensibly pro-WFH arguments that go full anti-corporate in ten different ways.

8note 3y ago
> the kind of work we do requires creativity, thinking holistically But those are also good with WFH? I get the one task point done, then I can go for a walk in the park where I can keep thinking about the problem, then go grab a coffee or a beer and write down a bit of thoughts on the topic. People are perfectly capable of phoning it in from the office, and taking a second job that's at night. Working from home or from office are orthogonal to how much attention somebody is paying, except that WFH has a major advantage: you and your coworkers don't arrive irritated and fatigued after 2 hour commutes through traffic, and then not getting as much time to maintain their life because it's another irritating and fatiguing commute back after work

pmoriarty 3y ago

I'm shocked that in this entire thread there's nary a mention of the elephant in the WFH room: the commute. Not only is commuting a (potentially huge) waste of time, but it forces me to risk my life on the road. In the US this commuting time is uncompensated, and I've never heard of anyone being compensated for risking their life by driving/flying to work, and that risk is not even acknowledged. It's also far less stressful to roll out of bed and "be at work", as it were, than brave the commute, rush hour traffic, the belligerence of other stressed-out commuters, potential road rage, traffic tickets, stressing out even more when you're late or you're stuck in traffic, etc... All for what? I'd rather spend more time with my friends and family than my coworkers. No, now that I've tasted WFH life, I'm going to do everything in my power to avoid commuting. Maybe if they doubled or tripled my salary I might consider it, but nothing short of that is remotely worth it (pardon the pun).

lamontcg 3y ago

> Why? Because there are many CEOs (and VPs, and so on) that have got there with the joyous idea that the reason you become a CEO is to get paid for other people’s labor, which also means you don’t have to work. That’s also because the modern corporate interpretation of capitalism is inherently patriarchal - borne from the prospect that we all look up to someone, and we must learn from them and grow from them, until we eventually go and make our own children (companies). But until then, we’re under their “care” but also the rule of their law. > This is a misinterpretation of what capitalism is (for better or for worse, the most efficient extraction of money from labor - which also means getting the most from workers), and what attracts people to management roles (misinterpreting control as an efficient way of extracting value). The reason that there are so many bad managers - middle and otherwise - is that lots of people see management as delegation of work that you take credit for, mostly because that’s how many corporations function on a grand scheme. It’s framed palatably as contributing a small piece to a larger whole, but middle management’s truly noxious existence proves that people absolutely love it. The attraction to these positions isn’t what a true manager is - fostering talent, making the company better, getting more done, winning together - it’s about control and abuse. Pretty clearly laying out the corporate capitalist office environment as nothing other than a big MLM scam. Rest of it was really good as well, but I felt like highlighting that bit for the people who only read the title.

ITB 3y ago

The post argues that it’s management’s responsibility to make sure employees are adding value. This idea that managers shouldn’t care how many hours someone works as long as they get their shit done, goes counter to the idea that managers should be hands off a let engineers innovate. I think the most innovative companies let engineers prioritize much of the work. But in that case there is much less clarity about whether “shit got done”, so you’re paying for smart people allocating their creative energy into your business many hours each week. For the same reason, remote work ultimately brings a more transactional work environment and I believe less of a growth environment for individual professionals. People are so obsessed with the additional comfort that comes from working at home, that they fail to see that in fact there are real downsides.

oytis 3y ago

I think I have been too lucky with my managers, but the trope of middle managers hating WFH does not resonate with my experience. Also the famous rule of 7 +/- 2 still holds in remote environment. If you have many enough engineers there is no way you could do without middle managers.

starbugs 3y ago
Ever worked on an open source project? Seems to work quite well without middle management.
whazor 3y ago
Managers have meetings the whole day with other managers. Those managers are often in different locations. Thus, WFH often the best situation for managers.

sgt101 3y ago

A huge change for the company I work for was breaking the lease on the old office and then getting a new office that is 1/3 the size and 1/4 the cost. And we doubled in size. So... there's a bit of an economic argument. Also, I have a team that contains people in Spain and Poland (mostly Poland), my customers are in London, New York and India. So, wtf am I supposed to work?!

SergeAx 3y ago

> executives are scared of their employees “working part-time (but paid full salary)” and “even working on side hustle startups, while on a full-time salary,” I am an engineer-became-manager, and I have anecdata about it. In the last 3 years I had 4 cases of sudden productivity decline. One case was because of a family problem, three others — because of second job/own project. Overall I had about 50 direct and indirect reports during these years, so it's about 5%. I also know about at least 3 pals who has two jobs now. One of them actually had three jobs, but quickly burned out and quit one of them. Before COVID and lockdowns I had only two or three cases of one-time side gigs and zero second jobs cases in 10+ years of being an engineering manager. This is a real problem for the industry.

son_of_gloin 3y ago

I’ve worked at many places from ~5-10 employee startups or design studios to mega-corporations with thousands of employees. I’ve only had one boss that I would consider “bad”. And I think that was mostly due to the culture of the company he worked at previously- Amazon. I do think businesses of all sizes are too hierarchical. I would like to try working for a co-op or cooperative or staring my own one day.

juancn 3y ago

The only good argument for going back in my mind is that mentoring junior employees is much, much easier and effective in person. And that dynamics require a senior and a junior employee in the same room every once in a while, so the senior can speed up learning.

friend_and_foe 3y ago

These people need to understand what a salary is. If you want 40 hours, pay hourly. A salary is paying for someone's life in exchange for them to dedicate their effort to solving your problems and making you money. Sometimes that takes 60 hours, sometimes that takes 30. That's the agreement, and if you as a salary employee try to get a 40 hour cap you'll be told that that's not how it works with salary. Well that goes both ways.