11 ms·

> Exactly. Pick a lane. 100% remote or 100% in office. I don't entirely agree, I think hybrid can work well. It's just that like your colleague Robert the remo

> Exactly. Pick a lane. 100% remote or 100% in office. I don't entirely agree, I think hybrid can work well. It's just that like your colleague Robert the remote workers need to realise that there is a trade-off. You might save on commute etc but the price you pay is that in-office staff might make more decisions etc without you especially if there is a critical mass of workers in-office. People who prefer the office shouldn't force their preferences on those who prefer remote but remote workers shouldn't try and force the company to be structured around them. Life is all about trade-offs and so long as people go in with eyes wide open it can work well for everyone (in that more people get to work in ways more closely aligned with their preferences).

ghaff 3y ago
The parent comment is essentially that if we have small remote contingent we'll treat them as outliers/second-class citizens and so long as everyone is fine with that we'll get along. I guess. Doesn't sound great for the remote person but as long as it works for them, OK? As you say, tradeoffs. I'll take being sort out of the workflow a lot of the time for not commuting/living in a cheaper area. I've also known teams that basically had a rule that as long as anyone was remote you worked from a work perspective as if everyone were. But it sounds as if that wasn't acceptable in this case to the majority.
- TapWaterBandit 3y ago
  If you read the parent comment as being an example of treating people as "second-class citizens" I'd suggest you need a hard look at your own biases. It is getting increasingly tiresome to have some people who prefer remote behaving as if the world revolves around them. It isn't enough that they get to work remote, they also need to have everyone and everything else change so that there own lifestyles choice doesn't lead to any downsides for them.

ghaff 3y ago

The parent comment is essentially that if we have small remote contingent we'll treat them as outliers/second-class citizens and so long as everyone is fine with that we'll get along. I guess. Doesn't sound great for the remote person but as long as it works for them, OK? As you say, tradeoffs. I'll take being sort out of the workflow a lot of the time for not commuting/living in a cheaper area. I've also known teams that basically had a rule that as long as anyone was remote you worked from a work perspective as if everyone were. But it sounds as if that wasn't acceptable in this case to the majority.

TapWaterBandit 3y ago
If you read the parent comment as being an example of treating people as "second-class citizens" I'd suggest you need a hard look at your own biases. It is getting increasingly tiresome to have some people who prefer remote behaving as if the world revolves around them. It isn't enough that they get to work remote, they also need to have everyone and everything else change so that there own lifestyles choice doesn't lead to any downsides for them.