3 ms·

>Offices are terrible for productivity Well that statement is difficult to back up because you have 3 short years of data with 1/2 of it polluted by a pandemic

>Offices are terrible for productivity Well that statement is difficult to back up because you have 3 short years of data with 1/2 of it polluted by a pandemic and 1/2 polluted by economic downturn because of the pandemic against more than a century of data where offices managed to get along and make money creating products and services just fine with employees showing up at the office. I love my WFH situation and I don’t want it to change, but I cannot prove with hard facts to my employer why it’s better for them for me to work from home. I would bet solid money here on HN that almost every WFH advocate who claims it’s better and more productive can really only point to their own overall personal productivity with anecdotes and can provide no hard data on how that translates into real improved productivity to the organization.

autoexec 3y ago
It's not as if we don't have solid data supporting benefits to companies. We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity. We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office. We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment. Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed, but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate. The problem we have now is that companies want to return to "business as usual" when we know that "business as usual" was stupid. We knew it was stupid before the pandemic, but before an alternative wasn't tested at any real scale. Remote work isn't perfect, but it's worked very well for many companies and employees and solves a lot of problems. Now that we have an available alternative that works, even if we can't quantify how much it improves things using more than a couple years of research, if companies want to force their workers back into offices it's reasonable for employees to demand changes that solve the many known problems offices have. For now, I suspect that many employees will simply look for employment where they can get what works best for them and that means companies who refuse to solve the problems of the office will lose talent to companies who are more accommodating.
- kcplate 3y ago
  >It's not as if we don't have solid data supporting benefits to companies. Please show us some of this data. My point was that people cannot show the hard data and you have responded alluding to data, but not showing any. >We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity. Again, please show us some of this data. >We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office. Everybody thinks this is expensive, but unless you are a FAANG doing all sorts of over the top fancy benefits that most companies do not provide, this is actually not dramatically expensive. So please show us some of this data. >We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment. Say huh? This is really a strange reasoning IMO. Is this honestly a viable threat where you live that people actually give this a worry? If you are going to use safety as part of your argument, cite automobile accidents their injuries/death associated with primary commuting hours. Much more likely to get any sort of number that might convince an organization to opt for WFH over in office. >Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed… No, we don’t know that. You have an opinion about it, but like I said above, you have not pointed to any hard data that could convince a organization to opt for WFH over in office. >but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate Here you go, finally something I can agree with. However, this works specifically against your case.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    > Please show us some of this data. My point was that people cannot show the hard data and you have responded alluding to data, but not showing any. Feel free to start here, but google will give you a lot more: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916502034003001 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916502034003001 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020988869 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020988869 https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/265307 https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/265307 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494413000340 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02724... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2255877/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2255877/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1443885/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1443885/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404804/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404804/ > Everybody thinks this is expensive, but unless you are a FAANG doing all sorts of over the top fancy benefits that most companies do not provide, this is actually not dramatically expensive. So please show us some of this data. I don't think there is any research into questions like "do companies save money when they don't pay as much in rent and utilities" because the conclusion is self-evident. You can argue that companies don't mind the costs, or that the costs are small compared to the profits successful companies make, but if a company doesn't have to pay someone to stock vending machines, doesn't have to pay for vast amounts of floor space in commercial buildings, doesn't have to buy and replace office supplies, doesn't need to replenish toiletries, etc then they will clearly be saving money and it's just a question of how large those savings will be. > Say huh? This is really a strange reasoning IMO. Is this honestly a viable threat where you live that people actually give this a worry? In America? Yes, sadly, this is a real threat. One company I worked for gave hundreds of employees 5 days off with pay just because they feared a disgruntled employee would come in and shoot up the place. They just said "We'll pay you, you don't have to work, just don't come here!". Every place I've worked for in the last 10 years or so has had active shooter training sessions (at some expense!) and paid for security services (both onsite and on call). No doubt that traffic accidents take more employee lives though! I suspect the difference to a company is that their name doesn't make the headlines when an employee gets in a car accident on the way to work and they don't want the bad press.

autoexec 3y ago

It's not as if we don't have solid data supporting benefits to companies. We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity. We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office. We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment. Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed, but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate. The problem we have now is that companies want to return to "business as usual" when we know that "business as usual" was stupid. We knew it was stupid before the pandemic, but before an alternative wasn't tested at any real scale. Remote work isn't perfect, but it's worked very well for many companies and employees and solves a lot of problems. Now that we have an available alternative that works, even if we can't quantify how much it improves things using more than a couple years of research, if companies want to force their workers back into offices it's reasonable for employees to demand changes that solve the many known problems offices have. For now, I suspect that many employees will simply look for employment where they can get what works best for them and that means companies who refuse to solve the problems of the office will lose talent to companies who are more accommodating.

kcplate 3y ago
>It's not as if we don't have solid data supporting benefits to companies. Please show us some of this data. My point was that people cannot show the hard data and you have responded alluding to data, but not showing any. >We can point to research that has been going on for decades showing that open floor plans and cube farms hurt productivity. Again, please show us some of this data. >We can point to the savings companies can reap by not having to house all those employees and provide for their needs while in the office. Everybody thinks this is expensive, but unless you are a FAANG doing all sorts of over the top fancy benefits that most companies do not provide, this is actually not dramatically expensive. So please show us some of this data. >We can show that people who work remotely don't have to worry as much about mass shootings and other types of office violence/harassment. Say huh? This is really a strange reasoning IMO. Is this honestly a viable threat where you live that people actually give this a worry? If you are going to use safety as part of your argument, cite automobile accidents their injuries/death associated with primary commuting hours. Much more likely to get any sort of number that might convince an organization to opt for WFH over in office. >Basically, we know that offices are terrible, and that alternatives are needed… No, we don’t know that. You have an opinion about it, but like I said above, you have not pointed to any hard data that could convince a organization to opt for WFH over in office. >but what we lack is years of research into the advantages and disadvantages of remote work as an alternate Here you go, finally something I can agree with. However, this works specifically against your case.
- autoexec 3y ago
  > Please show us some of this data. My point was that people cannot show the hard data and you have responded alluding to data, but not showing any. Feel free to start here, but google will give you a lot more: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916502034003001 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013916502034003001 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239 https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2017.0239 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020988869 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244020988869 https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/265307 https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/265307 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494413000340 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02724... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2255877/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2255877/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1443885/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1443885/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404804/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1404804/ > Everybody thinks this is expensive, but unless you are a FAANG doing all sorts of over the top fancy benefits that most companies do not provide, this is actually not dramatically expensive. So please show us some of this data. I don't think there is any research into questions like "do companies save money when they don't pay as much in rent and utilities" because the conclusion is self-evident. You can argue that companies don't mind the costs, or that the costs are small compared to the profits successful companies make, but if a company doesn't have to pay someone to stock vending machines, doesn't have to pay for vast amounts of floor space in commercial buildings, doesn't have to buy and replace office supplies, doesn't need to replenish toiletries, etc then they will clearly be saving money and it's just a question of how large those savings will be. > Say huh? This is really a strange reasoning IMO. Is this honestly a viable threat where you live that people actually give this a worry? In America? Yes, sadly, this is a real threat. One company I worked for gave hundreds of employees 5 days off with pay just because they feared a disgruntled employee would come in and shoot up the place. They just said "We'll pay you, you don't have to work, just don't come here!". Every place I've worked for in the last 10 years or so has had active shooter training sessions (at some expense!) and paid for security services (both onsite and on call). No doubt that traffic accidents take more employee lives though! I suspect the difference to a company is that their name doesn't make the headlines when an employee gets in a car accident on the way to work and they don't want the bad press.