7 ms·

I wouldnt change my job even with 30% increase if they werent offering remote. If you do not offer remote, then you better be... idk NASA, Microsoft, Apple, Ja

I wouldnt change my job even with 30% increase if they werent offering remote. If you do not offer remote, then you better be... idk NASA, Microsoft, Apple, Jane Street or some fancy shit or paying way, way more If a company does not realize that 0% fully remote workforce is significant talent pool disadvantage then Im shocked. >They’re working with a more complex kind of product. It means a lot more coordination from a lot of different points of view, where previously these workers were permitted to work in silos,” Harrigan said. Yea, I do wonder how those complex, cross-geo products get built! Teams across US, EU, Asia - how do they do it??

dekervin 3y ago
The standard argument from now on should be... think of the planet and the massive savings in transportation induced greenhouse gases.
- snarfy 3y ago
  Yep. If you are forcing work-from-office but it's not actually required, I think you should be forced to pay for the carbon footprint.
  - dekervin 3y ago
    I tought that idea had legs. Just looked at the price of carbon credits. It's around $ 15.0/tCO2e [0]. And on average a commuting employee emits around 4.96kg of C02. The price is so low it's clear the market is underpricing the externalities massively. I have to admit, the market is the wrong instrument for this problem. [0] https://carboncredits.com/how-to-calculate-carbon-credits/ https://carboncredits.com/how-to-calculate-carbon-credits/ [1] https://www.climatepartner.com/en/news/how-sustainable-commuting-can-improve-a-company-carbon-footprint#:~:text=Due%20to%20its%20significant%20impact,per%20commuting%20employee%20per%20day https://www.climatepartner.com/en/news/how-sustainable-commu....
- basisword 3y ago
  Companies have anticipated this argument. I’m not sure I believe them but apparently working in the office is more environmentally friendly in a lot of cases.
  - dekervin 3y ago
    I would love to have that argument with higher-ups. In fact I would love to have them state their facts on public record. Just so historians have a paper trail to follow when they will try to answer the question , "what were they thining?" .
    - Lio 3y ago
      In practice you can't get away with that. It's like trying to argue that it would be a good idea to keep skills in house or objecting to some of the weird HR fads that go around like personality "tests"; you can't win. They may be acting irrationally but they don't want about it. The best thing, and probably the only thing, you can do is move to a job that treats you better. Remember though, the old company probably won't miss you because they're not interested in how retention affects performance. It's best to be dispassionate about it. We're all just "resource" and jobs are just "work". Disclaimer: I have worked fully remotely since 2016 and wouldn't go back to an office I couldn't cycle to in 30 minutes.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    >apparently working in the office is more environmentally friendly in a lot of cases. I would think you'd need very specific conditions. The office has to be climate-controlled in any case so any extra AC or heat used at home is incremental. (Other utilities etc. at home are probably pretty minor.) But to be a net negative, you probably have to assume you're not driving or you're only driving a short distance.
Lolaccount 3y ago
10000000% this .... vote me down CEO's! King Kong is out of the bag and you're not getting it back in again.
JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago
Teams around the world but also outsourcing. They had absolutely no issue working with people that didn't belong to the company, were less accountable, and couldn't be easily tested before being hired. But now it's a big issue if I want to avoid traffic jam and work more in a peaceful environment. I'm in the process of switching jobs, and when I'm offered less than 3 days of WFH, I increase my price but the recruiters still don't understand why. It's like COVID never happened and no one managed to adapt to this "old new thing" (because WFH is as old as the internet).
- tsunamifury 3y ago
  It’s not about productivity. This is entirely about the effects office space utilization will have on their balance sheet and the macro economy at large. You are being told to bail out CRE holdings. That is it.
  - RestlessMind 3y ago
    > You are being told to bail out CRE holdings. That is it. This is such a ridiculous claim that it's hard to believe without any citation.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Do you and everyone else who keeps repeating this really believe that no one in corporate management has ever heard of sunk costs. Plenty of companies are working to downsize their real estate footprint.
    - ljm 3y ago
      Like it or not, for some it’s also just their preference and they happen to have decision making power over it. Not everything is a conspiracy and some people do actually prefer working from the office. The problem is being offered that flexibility and then having it taken away, and people are well within their rights to protest that by walking out or putting themselves back on the market. These same companies were eager to cut pay for people choosing remote work so it follows that they should be prepared to increase pay for bringing people back into the office.
spacemadness 3y ago
This is the same group of people who overhired so much they needed layoffs immediately after. There is no long-term vision here. There is corporate real estate and executive hubris and control. They live in entirely different worlds than most of us.
- black_13 3y ago
  [dead]
- malfist 3y ago
  I think if anything, this shows that CEOs aren't any better at predicting the future than you or I. Dead reckoning seems to be all they do. Things are great? Let's hire like there's no tomorrow that won't be even better. Things are bad? Let's layoff and cut costs like there's no tomorrow that won't be worse.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Nobody possesses a working crystal ball. Especially not those who think they do.
- onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  They don't care about corporate R/E at all. It's 95% self-preservation by management. Maybe 5% thinking about tax incentives. Time will tell if shareholders reward or punish companies that force RTO. So far they don't seem to care. But this will play a role in whether this trend continues or reverses.
  - RhysU 3y ago
    Are there ETFs that allow easily taking either side of the remote-or-not bet on better, long-term shareholder value?
  - mjr00 3y ago
    > They don't care about corporate R/E at all. Yeah, the meme about an evil conspiracy of corporate CEOs also owning commercial real estate is really, really dumb. Maybe you could theorize that when Andy Jassy and Tim Cook were the only people pushing for RTO, but now more and more companies are doing it, and I assure you that the CEO of (insert random 100-person tech company here) doesn't have deep investments in commercial real estate. Occam's razor: the simple fact is management thinks that people are more productive when in the office. They may be wrong about that, of course. But if the question is "why is management pushing for RTO," it's simply because they believe their teams will produce more and better output while in the office.
user432678 3y ago
The company I work for is currently evaluating return to the office five days a week. First thing I did is filed a request for two 4k monitors, “fancy” ergonomic keyboard and mouse (around £400), and an expensive ergonomic chair. Just in case they push back I also got the doctor’s prescription, that I need all that because of health issues, so they won’t be able to force me to work. My negotiation tactic is going to be “I have all that at home already”.
- hbosch 3y ago
  In my experience, “I have all that at home already” has not been a good spot to negotiate from.
  - justsomehnguy 3y ago
    Quite the opposite, it's a perfect negotiating spot - you would see if the company gives a fuck fast. Surely, you should be in a position to fire the company, but it's not limited to 4k monitors.
  - user432678 3y ago
    Well, that’s the only spot I have, the other one would be to just start looking for a new job.
- basisword 3y ago
  This is one of the big problems I’ve noticed as our company has went hybrid. The office environment in terms of equipment is generally much worse than what people had at home. Lots of requests for new monitors, better chairs etc. I think what makes this even worse is that quite a few companies I know transitioned from a private office to a “private” WeWork while they evaluate how many people are going to come in. It’s a significant downgrade in all cases. And you can’t even bring in your own gear because desks are booked and you’re not allowed to leave anything behind at the end of the day. Madness.
avgDev 3y ago
I work for unsexy manufacturing company. I haven't been to the office and we agreed I'm remote first. If recruiter messages me about "Hot company but onsite", I just ignore it. I honestly don't care about the company. At this point I care about 1-Remote 2-Money.
- ChuckNorris89 3y ago
  >I work for unsexy manufacturing company. In which country? I had an interview for a SW dev position at a Austrian (Europe, not kangaroos) company that manufactures some high tech shit and they said it's 100% in office because if production workers need to be on the factory floor, then it's only fair that so does everyone else, no exceptions, including the SW devs. I'm struggling to find companies that offer 100% WFH here. Every single company mandates you in the office at least a few days a week here and why I ask them I get the answer "because Covid is over so we're back to normal now and we're more productive when everyone is in the office".
  - odiroot 3y ago
    > if production workers need to be on the factory floor, then it's only fair that so does everyone else, no exceptions, including the SW devs. That's a common culture in Germanic companies. Hey at least everyone is equally miserable.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > they said it's 100% in office because if production workers need to be on the factory floor, then it's only fair that so does everyone else, no exceptions, including the SW devs. Did you ask them if everyone gets paid the same too, including the owners, and if not, how is that fair?
  - skinnymuch 3y ago
    Classic capitalist bourgeoisie tactic blaming exploited workers against one another.
  - avgDev 3y ago
    I'm in US. Remote is considered a part of the package for me. Why should I care a factory worker or manager needs to be there? I did variety of jobs that required me to be onsite all the time, hence why I switched to computers/programming. I might be switching to a hybrid model, where I go in for meetings as I will be taking a more of a leadership role. However, if I'm programming office is just not a good place to be, as it is harder for me to focus.
ssnistfajen 3y ago
Open source projects are essentially all built in async, fully remote environments. Many of which have become essential backbones of the industry. So the argument that fully remote work promotes silos or is weak on coordination don't really hold up. Besides, corporate silos are not a remote work problem. It has existed for as long as corporations themselves. Most big corps are not really building "complex" products but merely reinventing CRUD apps in-house.
UncleMeat 3y ago
I moved out of the bay area in 2020 for family reasons. Before Covid, I was expecting to take something resembling a 75% pay cut because of the move. Covid and increased availability of remote work meant that I got to keep my job with only a 15% pay cut. That was great. But I'm never going back. No matter what. That 75% pay cut remains a good deal if it is the only available option. Just don't tell my employer I'm willing to take so little.

dekervin 3y ago

The standard argument from now on should be... think of the planet and the massive savings in transportation induced greenhouse gases.

snarfy 3y ago
Yep. If you are forcing work-from-office but it's not actually required, I think you should be forced to pay for the carbon footprint.
- dekervin 3y ago
  I tought that idea had legs. Just looked at the price of carbon credits. It's around $ 15.0/tCO2e [0]. And on average a commuting employee emits around 4.96kg of C02. The price is so low it's clear the market is underpricing the externalities massively. I have to admit, the market is the wrong instrument for this problem. [0] https://carboncredits.com/how-to-calculate-carbon-credits/ https://carboncredits.com/how-to-calculate-carbon-credits/ [1] https://www.climatepartner.com/en/news/how-sustainable-commuting-can-improve-a-company-carbon-footprint#:~:text=Due%20to%20its%20significant%20impact,per%20commuting%20employee%20per%20day https://www.climatepartner.com/en/news/how-sustainable-commu....
basisword 3y ago
Companies have anticipated this argument. I’m not sure I believe them but apparently working in the office is more environmentally friendly in a lot of cases.
- dekervin 3y ago
  I would love to have that argument with higher-ups. In fact I would love to have them state their facts on public record. Just so historians have a paper trail to follow when they will try to answer the question , "what were they thining?" .
  - Lio 3y ago
    In practice you can't get away with that. It's like trying to argue that it would be a good idea to keep skills in house or objecting to some of the weird HR fads that go around like personality "tests"; you can't win. They may be acting irrationally but they don't want about it. The best thing, and probably the only thing, you can do is move to a job that treats you better. Remember though, the old company probably won't miss you because they're not interested in how retention affects performance. It's best to be dispassionate about it. We're all just "resource" and jobs are just "work". Disclaimer: I have worked fully remotely since 2016 and wouldn't go back to an office I couldn't cycle to in 30 minutes.
- ghaff 3y ago
  >apparently working in the office is more environmentally friendly in a lot of cases. I would think you'd need very specific conditions. The office has to be climate-controlled in any case so any extra AC or heat used at home is incremental. (Other utilities etc. at home are probably pretty minor.) But to be a net negative, you probably have to assume you're not driving or you're only driving a short distance.

Lolaccount 3y ago

10000000% this .... vote me down CEO's! King Kong is out of the bag and you're not getting it back in again.

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B 3y ago

Teams around the world but also outsourcing. They had absolutely no issue working with people that didn't belong to the company, were less accountable, and couldn't be easily tested before being hired. But now it's a big issue if I want to avoid traffic jam and work more in a peaceful environment. I'm in the process of switching jobs, and when I'm offered less than 3 days of WFH, I increase my price but the recruiters still don't understand why. It's like COVID never happened and no one managed to adapt to this "old new thing" (because WFH is as old as the internet).

tsunamifury 3y ago
It’s not about productivity. This is entirely about the effects office space utilization will have on their balance sheet and the macro economy at large. You are being told to bail out CRE holdings. That is it.
- RestlessMind 3y ago
  > You are being told to bail out CRE holdings. That is it. This is such a ridiculous claim that it's hard to believe without any citation.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Do you and everyone else who keeps repeating this really believe that no one in corporate management has ever heard of sunk costs. Plenty of companies are working to downsize their real estate footprint.
  - ljm 3y ago
    Like it or not, for some it’s also just their preference and they happen to have decision making power over it. Not everything is a conspiracy and some people do actually prefer working from the office. The problem is being offered that flexibility and then having it taken away, and people are well within their rights to protest that by walking out or putting themselves back on the market. These same companies were eager to cut pay for people choosing remote work so it follows that they should be prepared to increase pay for bringing people back into the office.

spacemadness 3y ago

This is the same group of people who overhired so much they needed layoffs immediately after. There is no long-term vision here. There is corporate real estate and executive hubris and control. They live in entirely different worlds than most of us.

black_13 3y ago
[dead]
malfist 3y ago
I think if anything, this shows that CEOs aren't any better at predicting the future than you or I. Dead reckoning seems to be all they do. Things are great? Let's hire like there's no tomorrow that won't be even better. Things are bad? Let's layoff and cut costs like there's no tomorrow that won't be worse.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  Nobody possesses a working crystal ball. Especially not those who think they do.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
They don't care about corporate R/E at all. It's 95% self-preservation by management. Maybe 5% thinking about tax incentives. Time will tell if shareholders reward or punish companies that force RTO. So far they don't seem to care. But this will play a role in whether this trend continues or reverses.
- RhysU 3y ago
  Are there ETFs that allow easily taking either side of the remote-or-not bet on better, long-term shareholder value?
- mjr00 3y ago
  > They don't care about corporate R/E at all. Yeah, the meme about an evil conspiracy of corporate CEOs also owning commercial real estate is really, really dumb. Maybe you could theorize that when Andy Jassy and Tim Cook were the only people pushing for RTO, but now more and more companies are doing it, and I assure you that the CEO of (insert random 100-person tech company here) doesn't have deep investments in commercial real estate. Occam's razor: the simple fact is management thinks that people are more productive when in the office. They may be wrong about that, of course. But if the question is "why is management pushing for RTO," it's simply because they believe their teams will produce more and better output while in the office.

user432678 3y ago

The company I work for is currently evaluating return to the office five days a week. First thing I did is filed a request for two 4k monitors, “fancy” ergonomic keyboard and mouse (around £400), and an expensive ergonomic chair. Just in case they push back I also got the doctor’s prescription, that I need all that because of health issues, so they won’t be able to force me to work. My negotiation tactic is going to be “I have all that at home already”.

hbosch 3y ago
In my experience, “I have all that at home already” has not been a good spot to negotiate from.
- justsomehnguy 3y ago
  Quite the opposite, it's a perfect negotiating spot - you would see if the company gives a fuck fast. Surely, you should be in a position to fire the company, but it's not limited to 4k monitors.
- user432678 3y ago
  Well, that’s the only spot I have, the other one would be to just start looking for a new job.
basisword 3y ago
This is one of the big problems I’ve noticed as our company has went hybrid. The office environment in terms of equipment is generally much worse than what people had at home. Lots of requests for new monitors, better chairs etc. I think what makes this even worse is that quite a few companies I know transitioned from a private office to a “private” WeWork while they evaluate how many people are going to come in. It’s a significant downgrade in all cases. And you can’t even bring in your own gear because desks are booked and you’re not allowed to leave anything behind at the end of the day. Madness.

avgDev 3y ago

I work for unsexy manufacturing company. I haven't been to the office and we agreed I'm remote first. If recruiter messages me about "Hot company but onsite", I just ignore it. I honestly don't care about the company. At this point I care about 1-Remote 2-Money.

ChuckNorris89 3y ago
>I work for unsexy manufacturing company. In which country? I had an interview for a SW dev position at a Austrian (Europe, not kangaroos) company that manufactures some high tech shit and they said it's 100% in office because if production workers need to be on the factory floor, then it's only fair that so does everyone else, no exceptions, including the SW devs. I'm struggling to find companies that offer 100% WFH here. Every single company mandates you in the office at least a few days a week here and why I ask them I get the answer "because Covid is over so we're back to normal now and we're more productive when everyone is in the office".
- odiroot 3y ago
  > if production workers need to be on the factory floor, then it's only fair that so does everyone else, no exceptions, including the SW devs. That's a common culture in Germanic companies. Hey at least everyone is equally miserable.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > they said it's 100% in office because if production workers need to be on the factory floor, then it's only fair that so does everyone else, no exceptions, including the SW devs. Did you ask them if everyone gets paid the same too, including the owners, and if not, how is that fair?
- skinnymuch 3y ago
  Classic capitalist bourgeoisie tactic blaming exploited workers against one another.
- avgDev 3y ago
  I'm in US. Remote is considered a part of the package for me. Why should I care a factory worker or manager needs to be there? I did variety of jobs that required me to be onsite all the time, hence why I switched to computers/programming. I might be switching to a hybrid model, where I go in for meetings as I will be taking a more of a leadership role. However, if I'm programming office is just not a good place to be, as it is harder for me to focus.

ssnistfajen 3y ago

Open source projects are essentially all built in async, fully remote environments. Many of which have become essential backbones of the industry. So the argument that fully remote work promotes silos or is weak on coordination don't really hold up. Besides, corporate silos are not a remote work problem. It has existed for as long as corporations themselves. Most big corps are not really building "complex" products but merely reinventing CRUD apps in-house.

UncleMeat 3y ago

I moved out of the bay area in 2020 for family reasons. Before Covid, I was expecting to take something resembling a 75% pay cut because of the move. Covid and increased availability of remote work meant that I got to keep my job with only a 15% pay cut. That was great. But I'm never going back. No matter what. That 75% pay cut remains a good deal if it is the only available option. Just don't tell my employer I'm willing to take so little.