6 ms·

I refuse to be miserable in an office just for someone else's building value.

CyberDildonics 3y ago
No one is asking you to come into an office just to boost their landlord's property values. That would be a money losing proposition for the company.
- jacknews 3y ago
  Indeed they're not asking ...
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    If a company wants someone to come back to the office, it isn't for their landlord's property value. If they have lots of free space they can sublease it out, it doesn't make any sense to force people in to an office just to burn money and miss out on revenue.
    - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
      That’s not true. Companies get tax breaks when opening offices and warehouses / factories from local authorities and landlords have quite the sway with the latter.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      What if the leaders of the company, or company itself, is invested in similar properties?
      - voisin 3y ago
        Do you have any data to show how prevalent this is? I suspect worker retirement plans have more exposure than leaders of companies, and it seems only the largest, most stable and slower growing companies own their own real estate.
        lotsofpulp 3y ago
        No, I was just positing a motivation.
        HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        My former employer's CEO (a small business) owned the floor of the building we were in and leased it back to the company. I've known other smaller companies that owned their own building, but it would be interesting to see how prevalent it is. I suspect it's more common than we think.
        voisin 3y ago
        In North America at least, having condo or strata units by floor of office buildings is relatively rare. I’m not saying it is ever a motivation but I just don’t think it is as big a motivation among tenants/employers as I see people on HN claim it is.
        HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        I realized that owning an office floor, condo style is unusual. My point is that I've known of several small businesses that owned their own buildings outright.
    - xg15 3y ago
      What do you think are the reasons then?
    - jacknews 3y ago
      It's quite embarrassing to be paying the lease on an empty office though. But I suspect this groupthink is not originating from individual companies.
      - mycall 3y ago
        Even for businesses that own buildings but are losing money, they can't sell their building in this market. So, they expect you to use it even though they would rather sell the building for the cash flow.
      - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
        > It's quite embarrassing to be paying the lease on an empty office though. While I agree, and I can imagine CEOs/CFOs in a hard spot over a 10-year lease with an empty office, what is better: to just pay what you had promised if downsizing is not possible, or pay and have disgruntled employees, with most of them immediately starting to look for another job and leaving as soon as they manage to find it?
    - sylens 3y ago
      sublease to who? the other companies whose workers don't want to work in an office?
  - sys_64738 3y ago
    No employer can force you to do anything. Saying No or just ignoring the demand is always an option.
- colordrops 3y ago
  This is a public discussion forum, not your living room.
  - CyberDildonics 3y ago
    I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Do you think a company is asking someone to come in to the office because they're worried about their landlord's property values?
    - simoncion 3y ago
      They're definitely being asked to come in (in many cases) because the cities in which the buildings exist are granting the companies tax breaks (and/or other monetary incentives) to "encourage" workers to work from the office in order to prop up local property values. (see the story here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36835843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36835843>) And also, yeah, I expect there are some companies that are seriously concerned about propping up the value of the building in which their office is located.
    - colordrops 3y ago
      You changed your comment from this short text: > No one is asking you. Quite dishonest to act confused.
      - CyberDildonics 3y ago
        My comment never said that, so either you misread or you are being dishonest. It said "No one is asking you to" (come into the office to boost property values). That's a lot different than "No one is asking you". I think you owe me an apology.
- tedivm 3y ago
  In some cases the companies are the landlords.
flappyeagle 3y ago
This is the weirdest conspiracy theory that HN has gotten obsessed with of late.
- bshipp 3y ago
  I don't know if it's wise to place such a challenge in front of all of us.
  - flappyeagle 3y ago
    HN seems to have avoided "microchips in vaccines" and "UFOs are alien aircraft" for the most part. But "return to office is a secret plot to prop up commercial real estate" gets almost zero pushback.
- wildrhythms 3y ago
  What's the 'conspiracy'? It's out in the open. >New Jersey and Texas are states that stand out for spelling out exactly how often employees must work from the office to qualify for tax breaks. Before the pandemic, several New Jersey tax programs required workers to show up at least 80% of the time, and one Texas program set the threshold at 50%. >Miami, which has seen an influx of new businesses throughout the pandemic, created a program in 2021 that requires companies to sign a minimum five-year lease for office space. The city of Sugar Land, Texas, outside of Houston, launched a new incentive in November that requires businesses to renew their existing leases for five to 10 years and invest a minimum of $1 million in office improvements. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t... https://archive.is/eOeIv https://archive.is/eOeIv
  - flappyeagle 3y ago
    Tax breaks for businesses are not a secret plot by the illuminati to prop up their side-investments in commercial real estate. Please read what you're actually linking to and replying to.
DrBazza 3y ago
My former employer (in London) has just instructed everyone, finally after COVID, to be in the office for 50% of the time. Many of my former colleagues starting looking for other jobs last week. It seems employers have two concerns: cost and presenteeism. The first is easily solved, downsize your office. The second, is an organisational problem. Why commute for 90 minutes each way to sit in a office with headphones on trying to avoid other distracting people to get some work done and then spend hours in Zoom meetings with those that don't come in on the same day?
- stjohnswarts 3y ago
  Humans are infinitely adaptable, I believe that most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth is purely psychological need for middle managers to lord over people in their office fiefdoms. My productivity has never been better not having to commute and listen to infinite office gossip and random phone calls while in my cube. It could be a personal failing that I'm easily distracted but it is what it is. I work better from home and will continue to seek out those opportunities over driving an hour to and from work. Consider it my contribution to the lower CO2 effort.
- thatfrenchguy 3y ago
  > It seems employers have two concerns: cost and presenteeism. There's real value in people talking to their coworkers in person and knowing them. There's an obvious cost as well, but let's not pretend there's no value there.
  - stjohnswarts 3y ago
    There is some small value but you can rectify that by working closer together over phone calls and such. It's not nearly worth what middle management says it's work to cover for their need to have everyone in the office to lord over, which is the 99% reason for it.
  - DrBazza 3y ago
    Does that require 50% of my week to be in an office? My current employer has several 'company days' in a year, and we're in an always on (camera optional) Zoom channel. I know my current set of colleagues far better than my previous group which was actually a smaller company where we were in the office 4 days a week.
tshaddox 3y ago
The argument, as always, will be that the real estate market is using all of society as human shields and thus must be bailed out or otherwise protected from financial loss.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  But actually these are two markets: commercial real estate and the residential one. While you could have some (weak IMO) arguments in favor of the latter, it is the former that is undergoing changes and I see no reasons for taxpayers to bail anybody involved.
hotpotamus 3y ago
Most of my experience of employment has been enduring misery in order to create value for someone else. It's pretty hard to escape.
- mycall 3y ago
  Creating order out of chaos. That is all a job really does.

No one is asking you to come into an office just to boost their landlord's property values. That would be a money losing proposition for the company.

jacknews 3y ago
Indeed they're not asking ...
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  If a company wants someone to come back to the office, it isn't for their landlord's property value. If they have lots of free space they can sublease it out, it doesn't make any sense to force people in to an office just to burn money and miss out on revenue.
  - PartiallyTyped 3y ago
    That’s not true. Companies get tax breaks when opening offices and warehouses / factories from local authorities and landlords have quite the sway with the latter.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    What if the leaders of the company, or company itself, is invested in similar properties?
    - voisin 3y ago
      Do you have any data to show how prevalent this is? I suspect worker retirement plans have more exposure than leaders of companies, and it seems only the largest, most stable and slower growing companies own their own real estate.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        No, I was just positing a motivation.
      - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        My former employer's CEO (a small business) owned the floor of the building we were in and leased it back to the company. I've known other smaller companies that owned their own building, but it would be interesting to see how prevalent it is. I suspect it's more common than we think.
        voisin 3y ago
        In North America at least, having condo or strata units by floor of office buildings is relatively rare. I’m not saying it is ever a motivation but I just don’t think it is as big a motivation among tenants/employers as I see people on HN claim it is.
        HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
        I realized that owning an office floor, condo style is unusual. My point is that I've known of several small businesses that owned their own buildings outright.
  - xg15 3y ago
    What do you think are the reasons then?
  - jacknews 3y ago
    It's quite embarrassing to be paying the lease on an empty office though. But I suspect this groupthink is not originating from individual companies.
    - mycall 3y ago
      Even for businesses that own buildings but are losing money, they can't sell their building in this market. So, they expect you to use it even though they would rather sell the building for the cash flow.
    - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
      > It's quite embarrassing to be paying the lease on an empty office though. While I agree, and I can imagine CEOs/CFOs in a hard spot over a 10-year lease with an empty office, what is better: to just pay what you had promised if downsizing is not possible, or pay and have disgruntled employees, with most of them immediately starting to look for another job and leaving as soon as they manage to find it?
  - sylens 3y ago
    sublease to who? the other companies whose workers don't want to work in an office?
- sys_64738 3y ago
  No employer can force you to do anything. Saying No or just ignoring the demand is always an option.
colordrops 3y ago
This is a public discussion forum, not your living room.
- CyberDildonics 3y ago
  I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Do you think a company is asking someone to come in to the office because they're worried about their landlord's property values?
  - simoncion 3y ago
    They're definitely being asked to come in (in many cases) because the cities in which the buildings exist are granting the companies tax breaks (and/or other monetary incentives) to "encourage" workers to work from the office in order to prop up local property values. (see the story here: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36835843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36835843>) And also, yeah, I expect there are some companies that are seriously concerned about propping up the value of the building in which their office is located.
  - colordrops 3y ago
    You changed your comment from this short text: > No one is asking you. Quite dishonest to act confused.
    - CyberDildonics 3y ago
      My comment never said that, so either you misread or you are being dishonest. It said "No one is asking you to" (come into the office to boost property values). That's a lot different than "No one is asking you". I think you owe me an apology.
tedivm 3y ago
In some cases the companies are the landlords.

flappyeagle 3y ago

This is the weirdest conspiracy theory that HN has gotten obsessed with of late.

bshipp 3y ago
I don't know if it's wise to place such a challenge in front of all of us.
- flappyeagle 3y ago
  HN seems to have avoided "microchips in vaccines" and "UFOs are alien aircraft" for the most part. But "return to office is a secret plot to prop up commercial real estate" gets almost zero pushback.
wildrhythms 3y ago
What's the 'conspiracy'? It's out in the open. >New Jersey and Texas are states that stand out for spelling out exactly how often employees must work from the office to qualify for tax breaks. Before the pandemic, several New Jersey tax programs required workers to show up at least 80% of the time, and one Texas program set the threshold at 50%. >Miami, which has seen an influx of new businesses throughout the pandemic, created a program in 2021 that requires companies to sign a minimum five-year lease for office space. The city of Sugar Land, Texas, outside of Houston, launched a new incentive in November that requires businesses to renew their existing leases for five to 10 years and invest a minimum of $1 million in office improvements. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t... https://archive.is/eOeIv https://archive.is/eOeIv
- flappyeagle 3y ago
  Tax breaks for businesses are not a secret plot by the illuminati to prop up their side-investments in commercial real estate. Please read what you're actually linking to and replying to.

DrBazza 3y ago

My former employer (in London) has just instructed everyone, finally after COVID, to be in the office for 50% of the time. Many of my former colleagues starting looking for other jobs last week. It seems employers have two concerns: cost and presenteeism. The first is easily solved, downsize your office. The second, is an organisational problem. Why commute for 90 minutes each way to sit in a office with headphones on trying to avoid other distracting people to get some work done and then spend hours in Zoom meetings with those that don't come in on the same day?

stjohnswarts 3y ago
Humans are infinitely adaptable, I believe that most of the wailing and gnashing of teeth is purely psychological need for middle managers to lord over people in their office fiefdoms. My productivity has never been better not having to commute and listen to infinite office gossip and random phone calls while in my cube. It could be a personal failing that I'm easily distracted but it is what it is. I work better from home and will continue to seek out those opportunities over driving an hour to and from work. Consider it my contribution to the lower CO2 effort.
thatfrenchguy 3y ago
> It seems employers have two concerns: cost and presenteeism. There's real value in people talking to their coworkers in person and knowing them. There's an obvious cost as well, but let's not pretend there's no value there.
- stjohnswarts 3y ago
  There is some small value but you can rectify that by working closer together over phone calls and such. It's not nearly worth what middle management says it's work to cover for their need to have everyone in the office to lord over, which is the 99% reason for it.
- DrBazza 3y ago
  Does that require 50% of my week to be in an office? My current employer has several 'company days' in a year, and we're in an always on (camera optional) Zoom channel. I know my current set of colleagues far better than my previous group which was actually a smaller company where we were in the office 4 days a week.

tshaddox 3y ago

The argument, as always, will be that the real estate market is using all of society as human shields and thus must be bailed out or otherwise protected from financial loss.

hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
But actually these are two markets: commercial real estate and the residential one. While you could have some (weak IMO) arguments in favor of the latter, it is the former that is undergoing changes and I see no reasons for taxpayers to bail anybody involved.

hotpotamus 3y ago

Most of my experience of employment has been enduring misery in order to create value for someone else. It's pretty hard to escape.

mycall 3y ago
Creating order out of chaos. That is all a job really does.