4 ms·

I always see people complain in these threads about how much more productive they are doing wfh, but I doubt a company would force people back in if it wasn't t

I always see people complain in these threads about how much more productive they are doing wfh, but I doubt a company would force people back in if it wasn't to their benefit. At this point it's clear to me that wfh is a zero sum game between employer and employee.

rybosworld 3y ago
> I doubt a company would force people back in if it wasn't to their benefit Don't assume that companies act 100% rationally. Personal agendas emerge and triumph all the time - some for better and some for worse.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  I don't disagree. But when the most competitive and data driven companies go in one direction, I would be surprised if the evidence wasn't pointing in one direction. Don't assume that hacker news / reddit anecdots are 100% honest, generalizable, and not self serving delusions.
  - surgical_fire 3y ago
    > Don't assume that hacker news / reddit anecdots are 100% honest, generalizable, and not self serving delusions Especially those praising in-office work
    - zeroCalories 3y ago
      Good thing I'm not offering anecdots ;)
itronitron 3y ago
>> I doubt a company would force people back in if it wasn't to their benefit. "We Will Watch Your Career With Great Interest" (every HR director everywhere)
alemanek 3y ago
It’s about control not productivity. WFH means an employee can easily interview elsewhere. It is harder to manipulate them into working an unhealthy amount. It is less likely their entire social circle will be at the job which hurts employee retention. Also you have to manage people based on outcomes which raised the bar for managers. Most managers really aren’t capable and have been mostly coasting on looking busy and watching attendance. That doesn’t work for a remote team. I have been working remote for almost 7 years now though. I am never working from an office again but hey that’s what works for me.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  So we're in agreement that wfh isn't a benefit to the employer, right? Best hope you have enough leverage to negotiate wfh.
  - alemanek 3y ago
    The benefit to the employer is that they get to recruit in as many localities as they are willing to do the taxes for. Also they have an easier time recruiting and retaining people if they aren’t toxic. I have had enough leverage to be 100% remote for the last 7 years. I don’t expect to ever have to go into an office again. But, I also have no desire to work at a FAANG company or startup these days. My priorities center much more around having a healthy work life balance.
    - zeroCalories 3y ago
      There are obviously benefits, and there are also downsides. But is it worth it? The most competitive companiese don't seem to think so, and I'm tired of people pretending that they know better.
faeriechangling 3y ago
You might doubt it, but companies are doing it, and they're facing the consequences. Uncompetitiveness. Companies are led by irrational people who learned how to manage in the 90s and care more about keeping things the same than actually making their place of work succeed.
- zeroCalories 3y ago
  It's not obvious that companiese are actually facing consequences. Nothing in the article suggests that office companies are doing poorly, just that there is a correlation between increasing head count and openness to wfh. Dunno if you've been paying attention, but every well established company has been very conservative in hiring the past year. These numbers are not particularly meaningful.
conscion 3y ago
You have to remember where you are. Hacker News is going to have some selection bias on people who _enjoy_ their job. By trying to stay up-to-date on the latest software news, they're probably career driven people. Imagine how many people who are fully WFH who don't have this attitude. Do you think they're also more "productive" than if they were in an environment that forced them to do their work?

rybosworld 3y ago

> I doubt a company would force people back in if it wasn't to their benefit Don't assume that companies act 100% rationally. Personal agendas emerge and triumph all the time - some for better and some for worse.

zeroCalories 3y ago
I don't disagree. But when the most competitive and data driven companies go in one direction, I would be surprised if the evidence wasn't pointing in one direction. Don't assume that hacker news / reddit anecdots are 100% honest, generalizable, and not self serving delusions.
- surgical_fire 3y ago
  > Don't assume that hacker news / reddit anecdots are 100% honest, generalizable, and not self serving delusions Especially those praising in-office work
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    Good thing I'm not offering anecdots ;)

itronitron 3y ago

>> I doubt a company would force people back in if it wasn't to their benefit. "We Will Watch Your Career With Great Interest" (every HR director everywhere)

alemanek 3y ago

It’s about control not productivity. WFH means an employee can easily interview elsewhere. It is harder to manipulate them into working an unhealthy amount. It is less likely their entire social circle will be at the job which hurts employee retention. Also you have to manage people based on outcomes which raised the bar for managers. Most managers really aren’t capable and have been mostly coasting on looking busy and watching attendance. That doesn’t work for a remote team. I have been working remote for almost 7 years now though. I am never working from an office again but hey that’s what works for me.

zeroCalories 3y ago
So we're in agreement that wfh isn't a benefit to the employer, right? Best hope you have enough leverage to negotiate wfh.
- alemanek 3y ago
  The benefit to the employer is that they get to recruit in as many localities as they are willing to do the taxes for. Also they have an easier time recruiting and retaining people if they aren’t toxic. I have had enough leverage to be 100% remote for the last 7 years. I don’t expect to ever have to go into an office again. But, I also have no desire to work at a FAANG company or startup these days. My priorities center much more around having a healthy work life balance.
  - zeroCalories 3y ago
    There are obviously benefits, and there are also downsides. But is it worth it? The most competitive companiese don't seem to think so, and I'm tired of people pretending that they know better.

faeriechangling 3y ago

You might doubt it, but companies are doing it, and they're facing the consequences. Uncompetitiveness. Companies are led by irrational people who learned how to manage in the 90s and care more about keeping things the same than actually making their place of work succeed.

zeroCalories 3y ago
It's not obvious that companiese are actually facing consequences. Nothing in the article suggests that office companies are doing poorly, just that there is a correlation between increasing head count and openness to wfh. Dunno if you've been paying attention, but every well established company has been very conservative in hiring the past year. These numbers are not particularly meaningful.

conscion 3y ago

You have to remember where you are. Hacker News is going to have some selection bias on people who _enjoy_ their job. By trying to stay up-to-date on the latest software news, they're probably career driven people. Imagine how many people who are fully WFH who don't have this attitude. Do you think they're also more "productive" than if they were in an environment that forced them to do their work?