5 ms·
> That's very interesting. My experience has been the opposite, that people who are pro-remote are intense about it, that they often deny there being any benefi
by bart_spoon 3y ago
> That's very interesting. My experience has been the opposite, that people who are pro-remote are intense about it, that they often deny there being any benefits to working in an office and get angry and dismissive toward anyone who says they want to work in-person.
There is a difference between arguing that remote work is better and insisting everyone work remotely. I've seen lots of people say remote work should be an option. I have yet to see a single person, on Hacker News or elsewhere, insist that everyone be required to work remotely. On the opposite side of the argument, I've seen plenty of people argue that in-person work should be required for everyone on the other hand.
- no_wizard 3y agoAt a minimum, it should be illegal for companies to say you can work from home! and then back track. Employees that already WFH full time should at least be able to do so without RTO considerations. Honestly, I'm not one for laws about these sorts of things, but given the state of climate change, there should be legal requirements that if a job can be done in a WFH setting, it should be an option for employees to choose. By quantifying what roles don't require in person by defining eligibility, as opposed to allowing businesses to set the eligibility. I think the details could be worked out reasonably.
- marcosdumay 3y agoI have seen a few people claiming that companies shouldn't even have an office. What doesn't really change the picture. Those are a few people, with most disagreeing, and not in a position of authority. But some do exist.