5 ms·

FAANG is starting to take a strong position against remote work and distributed teams. This doesn’t seem to be a popular decision with workers, but employers ho

FAANG is starting to take a strong position against remote work and distributed teams. This doesn’t seem to be a popular decision with workers, but employers hold all the cards right now given the slow pace of hiring across the industry. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/08/google-to-crack-down-on-hybrid-work-asks-remote-workers-to-reconsider.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/06/08/google-to-crack-down-on-hybr... [2] https://fortune.com/2023/06/08/google-remote-work-office-attendance-performance-review/ https://fortune.com/2023/06/08/google-remote-work-office-att...

rs999gti 3y ago
To end remote work, just grandfather the existing people and roles with remote work and no longer offer remote work in future roles. Then as the Bob's say it just works itself out. The employers hold the cards because they pay the money and workers who need money and are willing to work in an office are basically the scabs of the remote work union. Remote workers have no power until they can get everyone to agree not to work in an office
- givemeethekeys 3y ago
  Fortunately, there are other employers who do want remote workers and will be happy to take them from employers who don't want them. When bad decisions are made, the best people leave first.
  - rs999gti 3y ago
    > When bad decisions are made, the best people leave first. We don't know if it is a bad decision yet. It has not played out long enough to affect other parts of the economy or other businesses. So far all we know is some people benefit from remote work and commerical real estate and local business within are being affected
    - givemeethekeys 3y ago
      > We don't know if it is a bad decision yet I agree that in the bigger picture things are still playing out, but if the best performing engineers are working remotely, then mandating that they come back onsite is a bad decision from their point of view. It might be good for the company, but the conflict of interest will result in them leaving.
  - MrScruff 3y ago
    The problem with this is that in my organisation at least I see a reasonable anti-correlation between perceived value of team member and resistance to using the office. YMMV of course, but the point is it ain’t as simple as ‘the people the business values will leave without fully remote’.
    - gumballindie 3y ago
      Depends on how performance is measured. If performance is measured by talk and politics then those on site may be perceived as more valuable.
- mathgeek 3y ago
  This ignores that employers compete with other employers. It’s not as simple as employers vs employees. There are also plenty of companies in smaller regions enjoying being able to hire remotely over being limited to their local pool of candidates.
- gumballindie 3y ago
  Workers hold significant moat. Google, and facebook already enjoy a noticeable drop in product quality. By spooking experienced engineers their products will further regress.
xixixao 3y ago
People are not getting as much done, low performers are harder to manage (hide easier), most importantly people don’t build the same quality relationships they used to. This is uber important at a big tech company where ppl collaborate with more ppl on average. All of these were known benefits of WFO prepandemic, but then WFH was forced, and worked for a bit as people worked off of relationships established in the past. Then wishful thinking set in, and now reality is kicking in. That is not to say that there aren’t people who thrive in WFH (this might be you). But a big company needs a system that works across the variety of ppl and teams it employs. My ideal was and is to form Remote teams, made out of ppl who really are good at WFH. Mixed teams of remote and onsite ppl suck for everyone.
- kyrra 3y ago
  For sure! Mixing in person and remote seems to me a recipe for inefficiency. I'd say the same to distributed teams (where an immediate team is split across locations). This seems to drastically impact performance of the team.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Except that people being spread around offices and even countries/continents (and traveling) is pretty much the reality at most large companies. Immediate teams may be co-located but the norm for a lot of people is spending a lot of the time on the phone or, now, video calls.
    - kyrra 3y ago
      Sorry I wasn't clear. Agree with you here. I'm on a team where my immediate team is is distributed, which I feel is a waste of time for our team to coordinate. A larger team can have the subteams distributed, but immediate teams should be colocated or fully remote.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  > People are not getting as much done, low performers are harder to manage (hide easier), most importantly people don’t build the same quality relationships they used to. None of these problems were ever dealt with in all the WFO settings I was ever in, so this seems like little more than scapegoating WFH for all the sicknesses that afflict large organizations. I’m currently working on a remote team that’s a collaboration across a few different orgs, one of whom is primarily WFO, and we have the highest rate of execution across all our parent organizations. The reality of every place I’ve ever worked is that product and project management are really bad across the board, far worse than your so called low-performers. But the top of the hierarchy rarely disciplines itself when it can just let shit roll down hill, which is why we end up with the fairy tales about how the lack of water-cooler chat is preventing the otherwise guaranteed success.
silverquiet 3y ago
If I was a sadist and a FAANG manager (and I am neither), I think I'd just say something to the effect of "in-office attendance is not mandatory, but it is a potential factor in determining promotions" and watch what ensues.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  Regardless of what a manager says, the evidence is pretty clear that remote workers are less likely to be promoted (just google "remote workers are less likely to be promoted" for a bunch of studies and articles), and I think most workers are aware of that.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    …at companies demanding WFO. I just got a promotion at my all remote company. We have two offices that people are free to work from, but people only do occasionally or when they need to meet clients etc who are in town.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      Sure, if your company is all remote, it would seem self evident that you're not at a disadvantage (in your company in any case) compared to in-office workers, because there aren't any in-office workers.
- iaseiadit 3y ago
  That’s exactly what they’ve come out and said: attendance will factor into annual ratings, and remote workers will be ineligible for stepping into management roles going forward
- underlipton 3y ago
  Well... Do workers WANT to be promoted? If you're not dealing with an "up or out" situation, and you're making enough to sustain a lifestyle in Not The Bay Area, do you care? How many stories are there of people who took management positions that they hate because it was the only promotion available, only to find that the extra income didn't make up for the increased stress?
totallywrong 3y ago
That's actually great for the rest of us who have no interest in FAANG jobs. Most other companies will continue offering remote work as a perk FAANG doesn't give you in order to compete for talent.
- iaseiadit 3y ago
  It’s great for you, except that FAANG policies have often set the standards for the rest of the industry for many years now. It would be great if other companies took a different tack, but I’m skeptical. What’s more, many tech companies are beholden to their Silicon Valley VCs, who have been among the strongest critics of remote work so far. Most have a financial interest to get workers back to SF/Silicon Valley.
  - totallywrong 3y ago
    > FAANG policies have often set the standards for the rest of the industry They have indeed, precisely for offering really good perks that everyone wanted. If they start doing the opposite, others will see opportunity. > many tech companies are beholden to their Silicon Valley VCs The tech landscape is much, much bigger than SV. At least if you're not targeting 300k+ salaries.
refurb 3y ago
That’s the thing. As soon as the economy stumbles and just having a job means you’re lucky, remote work will be scaled back to a large degree.
- iaseiadit 3y ago
  Yes, and it’s already happening.
gumballindie 3y ago
They are shooting themselves in the foot. By rejecting wfh they limit their talent pool to leetcode solvers or junior devs. Naturally some experienced devs will prefer onsite, and thats fine, but by and large experienced engineers prefer renote.

rs999gti 3y ago

To end remote work, just grandfather the existing people and roles with remote work and no longer offer remote work in future roles. Then as the Bob's say it just works itself out. The employers hold the cards because they pay the money and workers who need money and are willing to work in an office are basically the scabs of the remote work union. Remote workers have no power until they can get everyone to agree not to work in an office

givemeethekeys 3y ago
Fortunately, there are other employers who do want remote workers and will be happy to take them from employers who don't want them. When bad decisions are made, the best people leave first.
- rs999gti 3y ago
  > When bad decisions are made, the best people leave first. We don't know if it is a bad decision yet. It has not played out long enough to affect other parts of the economy or other businesses. So far all we know is some people benefit from remote work and commerical real estate and local business within are being affected
  - givemeethekeys 3y ago
    > We don't know if it is a bad decision yet I agree that in the bigger picture things are still playing out, but if the best performing engineers are working remotely, then mandating that they come back onsite is a bad decision from their point of view. It might be good for the company, but the conflict of interest will result in them leaving.
- MrScruff 3y ago
  The problem with this is that in my organisation at least I see a reasonable anti-correlation between perceived value of team member and resistance to using the office. YMMV of course, but the point is it ain’t as simple as ‘the people the business values will leave without fully remote’.
  - gumballindie 3y ago
    Depends on how performance is measured. If performance is measured by talk and politics then those on site may be perceived as more valuable.
mathgeek 3y ago
This ignores that employers compete with other employers. It’s not as simple as employers vs employees. There are also plenty of companies in smaller regions enjoying being able to hire remotely over being limited to their local pool of candidates.
gumballindie 3y ago
Workers hold significant moat. Google, and facebook already enjoy a noticeable drop in product quality. By spooking experienced engineers their products will further regress.

xixixao 3y ago

People are not getting as much done, low performers are harder to manage (hide easier), most importantly people don’t build the same quality relationships they used to. This is uber important at a big tech company where ppl collaborate with more ppl on average. All of these were known benefits of WFO prepandemic, but then WFH was forced, and worked for a bit as people worked off of relationships established in the past. Then wishful thinking set in, and now reality is kicking in. That is not to say that there aren’t people who thrive in WFH (this might be you). But a big company needs a system that works across the variety of ppl and teams it employs. My ideal was and is to form Remote teams, made out of ppl who really are good at WFH. Mixed teams of remote and onsite ppl suck for everyone.

kyrra 3y ago
For sure! Mixing in person and remote seems to me a recipe for inefficiency. I'd say the same to distributed teams (where an immediate team is split across locations). This seems to drastically impact performance of the team.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Except that people being spread around offices and even countries/continents (and traveling) is pretty much the reality at most large companies. Immediate teams may be co-located but the norm for a lot of people is spending a lot of the time on the phone or, now, video calls.
  - kyrra 3y ago
    Sorry I wasn't clear. Agree with you here. I'm on a team where my immediate team is is distributed, which I feel is a waste of time for our team to coordinate. A larger team can have the subteams distributed, but immediate teams should be colocated or fully remote.
bugglebeetle 3y ago
> People are not getting as much done, low performers are harder to manage (hide easier), most importantly people don’t build the same quality relationships they used to. None of these problems were ever dealt with in all the WFO settings I was ever in, so this seems like little more than scapegoating WFH for all the sicknesses that afflict large organizations. I’m currently working on a remote team that’s a collaboration across a few different orgs, one of whom is primarily WFO, and we have the highest rate of execution across all our parent organizations. The reality of every place I’ve ever worked is that product and project management are really bad across the board, far worse than your so called low-performers. But the top of the hierarchy rarely disciplines itself when it can just let shit roll down hill, which is why we end up with the fairy tales about how the lack of water-cooler chat is preventing the otherwise guaranteed success.

silverquiet 3y ago

If I was a sadist and a FAANG manager (and I am neither), I think I'd just say something to the effect of "in-office attendance is not mandatory, but it is a potential factor in determining promotions" and watch what ensues.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
Regardless of what a manager says, the evidence is pretty clear that remote workers are less likely to be promoted (just google "remote workers are less likely to be promoted" for a bunch of studies and articles), and I think most workers are aware of that.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  …at companies demanding WFO. I just got a promotion at my all remote company. We have two offices that people are free to work from, but people only do occasionally or when they need to meet clients etc who are in town.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    Sure, if your company is all remote, it would seem self evident that you're not at a disadvantage (in your company in any case) compared to in-office workers, because there aren't any in-office workers.
iaseiadit 3y ago
That’s exactly what they’ve come out and said: attendance will factor into annual ratings, and remote workers will be ineligible for stepping into management roles going forward
underlipton 3y ago
Well... Do workers WANT to be promoted? If you're not dealing with an "up or out" situation, and you're making enough to sustain a lifestyle in Not The Bay Area, do you care? How many stories are there of people who took management positions that they hate because it was the only promotion available, only to find that the extra income didn't make up for the increased stress?

totallywrong 3y ago

That's actually great for the rest of us who have no interest in FAANG jobs. Most other companies will continue offering remote work as a perk FAANG doesn't give you in order to compete for talent.

iaseiadit 3y ago
It’s great for you, except that FAANG policies have often set the standards for the rest of the industry for many years now. It would be great if other companies took a different tack, but I’m skeptical. What’s more, many tech companies are beholden to their Silicon Valley VCs, who have been among the strongest critics of remote work so far. Most have a financial interest to get workers back to SF/Silicon Valley.
- totallywrong 3y ago
  > FAANG policies have often set the standards for the rest of the industry They have indeed, precisely for offering really good perks that everyone wanted. If they start doing the opposite, others will see opportunity. > many tech companies are beholden to their Silicon Valley VCs The tech landscape is much, much bigger than SV. At least if you're not targeting 300k+ salaries.

refurb 3y ago

That’s the thing. As soon as the economy stumbles and just having a job means you’re lucky, remote work will be scaled back to a large degree.

iaseiadit 3y ago
Yes, and it’s already happening.

gumballindie 3y ago

They are shooting themselves in the foot. By rejecting wfh they limit their talent pool to leetcode solvers or junior devs. Naturally some experienced devs will prefer onsite, and thats fine, but by and large experienced engineers prefer renote.