6 ms·

This article is making a bad comparison. From the CNBC article (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/04/google-offers-on-campus-hotel-special-to-lure-workers-back-in.h

This article is making a bad comparison. From the CNBC article (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/04/google-offers-on-campus-hotel-special-to-lure-workers-back-in.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/08/04/google-offers-on-campus-hote...): > The Google-owned hotel is situated on a newer campus in Mountain View, California, that it opened last year. The Gizmodo article is comparing this to what Twitter did. Having a space that is actually run as a hotel is not the same as setting up bedrooms in an existing part of a building. Based on the description in the article, I am reminded of the Stanford Guest House (https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house), which is owned and run by Stanford, for the benefit of faculty, staff, students, and visitors. It is also run as a proper hotel.

wpietri 3y ago
It's not a bad comparison for their purposes, which is to look at two major tech companies who are trying to get their employees to sleep at work. I agree it's not identical, but it's valid in terms of common themes being discussed in tech, like lack of work-life balance and worker exploitation.
- wenc 3y ago
  > who are trying to get their employees to sleep at work I don't see it. It's optional. Google employees don't have to take up on the offer. The knee-jerk on this forum is always "worker exploitation" (not saying you're saying it's that, but speaking more generally to the sentiment here) but nothing about this says you can't exercise your own free will to choose your own hours. Just because you live close to the office doesn't mean you have to stay there. I currently live 15 mins from my office but I keep normal hours. Proximity to work has no bearing on anything except my own convenience. If anything, I used to live a consultant life where I gave more of my life to my employer -- it was the name of the game. I was away many weeks from Mon-Thurs. I lived in Chicago but was working in a different city every month and had to be a plane several times a month -- that's more soul sucking (I practically lived out of ORD). That I didn't have a choice over. And when I landed, I didn't always get to stay near the office -- I always needed a rental car. But this -- it sounds like a convenience. If I were a Google employee and moved away during COVID (say to San Luis Obispo) but had to RTO to Mountain View Tues-Thurs, I would appreciate having a place close to the office. Back in the old days, prior to remote work, many people used to live this kind of life. They would live in a different city but commute in 3 days a week and stay at at rented apartment (they even have a name for it -- a "pied a terre"). This way folks got to work with a company in a less preferred geography but still get to live in a city they can enjoy on weekends.
  - bluefishinit 3y ago
    The worker exploitation part is RTO. This is just another tool in their toolbox so that they can demand employees who live far from the office still return to the office because now they've offered you the "convenience" of a company owned (and presumably surveillanced) hotel room.
    - wenc 3y ago
      I'm not sure I see that as "worker exploitation" either. If you were hired remote and it's part of your employment contract, then yes, RTO is a breach of your contract. But most of us were hired for in-person, and remote was a concession that was made during COVID and some folks chose to move away. 3 day RTO makes it possible for these folks to still live far away and come in 3 days a week. This 3 day arrangement was common in many companies even pre-pandemic, as a concession to higher level managers and directors who didn't want to relocate from where they were living because their kids were already in school, and they didn't want to move the family. Not everyone had that privilege. The rest of us had to relocate.
      - bluefishinit 3y ago
        > But most of us were hired for in-person, and remote was a concession that was made during COVID and some folks chose to move away You may have been hired for that, but it's been proven that it's unnecessary and detrimental for numerous reasons: commute time, real estate markets, lack of focus due to office layout, limited talent pool... We live in a post-office world, asking to go back is exploitation because it's simply to suit management's preference at the employees expense. The time in the day you lose when going WFH to RTO is not going to be compensated.
        wenc 3y ago
        I think we have different expectations and that's ok. I see the benefits of remote work too (I did it for 2 years during COVID), but I myself prefer to be in the office at least some of the time. I was stuck on a problem for months and it only took a week of huddling in person to solve. I don't think it's wrong for employers to have an RTO policy -- as someone for whom 5 days in the office was and is the norm (and has been the norm for much of history). We actually don't live in a post-office world. We live in a hybrid world where employers can choose full RTO, part RTO or fully remote. I'm glad for it because it means my employment options open up significantly without me having to relocate from the city I want to live in. We have more options not less, even though it means changing employers. But to call full RTO/part RTO policies exploitation is sentiment I don't agree with. We can agree to disagree of course.
happytoexplain 3y ago
It's in slightly better taste, and it's even arguably beneficial as an option if any employees actually want to do this, but I think ultimately it's the exact same sin: Normalizing the idea of sleeping at work. It's insidious.
- rcme 3y ago
  What about people visiting from out of town?
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  It isn't oriented at local employees, probably. More like...hey some Googler from Seattle needs to visit Mountain View for a few days, and doesn't want to drive, where will they sleep?
  - vbezhenar 3y ago
    Mountain View does not have any hotels? Sounds weird.
    - jonny_eh 3y ago
      They're very expensive.
    - gruez 3y ago
      I'm sure Palo Alto has hotels too, but Stanford still runs their own.
      - colordrops 3y ago
        Google is not a university. Do you think Stanford could come up with something like WEI?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - erik_seaberg 3y ago
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
A lot of universities in China have or used to have hotels on their campuses. It wasn't weird at all staying at a campus hotel at Peking University 20 or so years ago. It is seen as kind of old fashioned however (like hotels at similar company towns), so it is a bit surprising to see Google doing this (disclaimer: I work for Google, but not in Mountain View).
syntaxing 3y ago
I went to a state university and we had/have a Hilton hotel on campus.
duskwuff 3y ago
> Based on the description in the article, I am reminded of the Stanford Guest House (https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house), which is owned and run by Stanford, for the benefit of faculty, staff, students, and visitors. It is also run as a proper hotel. The Guest House is also explicitly for visiting guests of the university, like a visiting professor, a student's family, or a patient of the medical center. While the FAQ doesn't explicitly say that the university's own on-site staff are forbidden from staying, it's fairly clear from context that they aren't welcome. https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house/faq#Eligibility https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house/faq#Eligibilit...
- CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
  True, but that can change depending on circumstances. For example, I believe that during the early days of Covid, a number of Hospital folks stayed at the Guest House, presumably to avoid passing an infection on to family. My point is: There is often a difference between the stated policy on a website, and what is actually being implemented.
colordrops 3y ago
Seems strange to be picky about comparing the quality of the sleeping arrangement but then be loosey-goosey by comparing Google with a university. Google is not a university and their intentions are completely different. The fact that the dorms are nicer and look like a hotel doesn't change this.

wpietri 3y ago

It's not a bad comparison for their purposes, which is to look at two major tech companies who are trying to get their employees to sleep at work. I agree it's not identical, but it's valid in terms of common themes being discussed in tech, like lack of work-life balance and worker exploitation.

wenc 3y ago
> who are trying to get their employees to sleep at work I don't see it. It's optional. Google employees don't have to take up on the offer. The knee-jerk on this forum is always "worker exploitation" (not saying you're saying it's that, but speaking more generally to the sentiment here) but nothing about this says you can't exercise your own free will to choose your own hours. Just because you live close to the office doesn't mean you have to stay there. I currently live 15 mins from my office but I keep normal hours. Proximity to work has no bearing on anything except my own convenience. If anything, I used to live a consultant life where I gave more of my life to my employer -- it was the name of the game. I was away many weeks from Mon-Thurs. I lived in Chicago but was working in a different city every month and had to be a plane several times a month -- that's more soul sucking (I practically lived out of ORD). That I didn't have a choice over. And when I landed, I didn't always get to stay near the office -- I always needed a rental car. But this -- it sounds like a convenience. If I were a Google employee and moved away during COVID (say to San Luis Obispo) but had to RTO to Mountain View Tues-Thurs, I would appreciate having a place close to the office. Back in the old days, prior to remote work, many people used to live this kind of life. They would live in a different city but commute in 3 days a week and stay at at rented apartment (they even have a name for it -- a "pied a terre"). This way folks got to work with a company in a less preferred geography but still get to live in a city they can enjoy on weekends.
- bluefishinit 3y ago
  The worker exploitation part is RTO. This is just another tool in their toolbox so that they can demand employees who live far from the office still return to the office because now they've offered you the "convenience" of a company owned (and presumably surveillanced) hotel room.
  - wenc 3y ago
    I'm not sure I see that as "worker exploitation" either. If you were hired remote and it's part of your employment contract, then yes, RTO is a breach of your contract. But most of us were hired for in-person, and remote was a concession that was made during COVID and some folks chose to move away. 3 day RTO makes it possible for these folks to still live far away and come in 3 days a week. This 3 day arrangement was common in many companies even pre-pandemic, as a concession to higher level managers and directors who didn't want to relocate from where they were living because their kids were already in school, and they didn't want to move the family. Not everyone had that privilege. The rest of us had to relocate.
    - bluefishinit 3y ago
      > But most of us were hired for in-person, and remote was a concession that was made during COVID and some folks chose to move away You may have been hired for that, but it's been proven that it's unnecessary and detrimental for numerous reasons: commute time, real estate markets, lack of focus due to office layout, limited talent pool... We live in a post-office world, asking to go back is exploitation because it's simply to suit management's preference at the employees expense. The time in the day you lose when going WFH to RTO is not going to be compensated.
      - wenc 3y ago
        I think we have different expectations and that's ok. I see the benefits of remote work too (I did it for 2 years during COVID), but I myself prefer to be in the office at least some of the time. I was stuck on a problem for months and it only took a week of huddling in person to solve. I don't think it's wrong for employers to have an RTO policy -- as someone for whom 5 days in the office was and is the norm (and has been the norm for much of history). We actually don't live in a post-office world. We live in a hybrid world where employers can choose full RTO, part RTO or fully remote. I'm glad for it because it means my employment options open up significantly without me having to relocate from the city I want to live in. We have more options not less, even though it means changing employers. But to call full RTO/part RTO policies exploitation is sentiment I don't agree with. We can agree to disagree of course.

happytoexplain 3y ago

It's in slightly better taste, and it's even arguably beneficial as an option if any employees actually want to do this, but I think ultimately it's the exact same sin: Normalizing the idea of sleeping at work. It's insidious.

rcme 3y ago
What about people visiting from out of town?
seanmcdirmid 3y ago
It isn't oriented at local employees, probably. More like...hey some Googler from Seattle needs to visit Mountain View for a few days, and doesn't want to drive, where will they sleep?
- vbezhenar 3y ago
  Mountain View does not have any hotels? Sounds weird.
  - jonny_eh 3y ago
    They're very expensive.
  - gruez 3y ago
    I'm sure Palo Alto has hotels too, but Stanford still runs their own.
    - colordrops 3y ago
      Google is not a university. Do you think Stanford could come up with something like WEI?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - erik_seaberg 3y ago

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

A lot of universities in China have or used to have hotels on their campuses. It wasn't weird at all staying at a campus hotel at Peking University 20 or so years ago. It is seen as kind of old fashioned however (like hotels at similar company towns), so it is a bit surprising to see Google doing this (disclaimer: I work for Google, but not in Mountain View).

syntaxing 3y ago

I went to a state university and we had/have a Hilton hotel on campus.

duskwuff 3y ago

> Based on the description in the article, I am reminded of the Stanford Guest House (https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house), which is owned and run by Stanford, for the benefit of faculty, staff, students, and visitors. It is also run as a proper hotel. The Guest House is also explicitly for visiting guests of the university, like a visiting professor, a student's family, or a patient of the medical center. While the FAQ doesn't explicitly say that the university's own on-site staff are forbidden from staying, it's fairly clear from context that they aren't welcome. https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house/faq#Eligibility https://rde.stanford.edu/stanford-guest-house/faq#Eligibilit...

CaliforniaKarl 3y ago
True, but that can change depending on circumstances. For example, I believe that during the early days of Covid, a number of Hospital folks stayed at the Guest House, presumably to avoid passing an infection on to family. My point is: There is often a difference between the stated policy on a website, and what is actually being implemented.

colordrops 3y ago

Seems strange to be picky about comparing the quality of the sleeping arrangement but then be loosey-goosey by comparing Google with a university. Google is not a university and their intentions are completely different. The fact that the dorms are nicer and look like a hotel doesn't change this.