3 ms·

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

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.

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.