4 ms·

> 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

> 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.