4 ms·

Why does Person A get to show up whenever they want and Person B has to be in 3 days a week. All the people in Person B's position will be annoyed that they don

by HWR_14 3y ago

Why does Person A get to show up whenever they want and Person B has to be in 3 days a week. All the people in Person B's position will be annoyed that they don't have the same freedom, which will cause issues. Meanwhile, why does the manager have to go through the added work of managing a remote worker who is there most of the time just so they can do their 1/month a year of work from a beach at their discretion?

n4r9 3y ago
I agree that Person B's situation feels unfair compared to Person A's. However: a) It's just one of many ways that employees can negotiate more favourable contract terms. They can also negotiate more annual leave, fewer hours, smaller notice periods etc... and with proper management it shouldn't cause issues. b) People who work regularly in the office have perks like their own permanent desk and PC. c) The cause of this unfavourable situation is the 3 day / week policy put in place by senior management in the first place. Imagine cutting the carpark in half to save costs, and then removing the bike racks as well so that the car drivers don't feel as hard done by. It comes across as spiteful. As for the "added work of managing", I'm not sure I follow. I previously managed a couple of people, one of whom came in 2-3x per week and the other was almost completely remote but came in occasionally. Once things are set up so that meetings or calls can be done remotely or in-person on the fly, this isn't much of an obstacle. Perhaps it becomes more of an obstacle with larger teams, but that isn't something I hear from other managers in my company. It is tricky to run meetings with half the people in the room and half remote - but this isn't solved by forcing remote workers to stay remote (if anything it makes it worse).
- rhaway84773 3y ago
  > It's just one of many ways that employees can negotiate more favourable contract terms. And this is probably why Meta is instituting this policy. They are changing the default back to what it was (working in office which they can easily defend was the expectation when most employees outside of remote workers were hired), so instead of an employee being able to negotiate a benefit in return for coming to the office, the employee needs to give up benefits in a negotiation to work remotely.
zeroonetwothree 3y ago
At Meta it’s the managers that are predominantly remote anyway

by HWR_14 3y ago

n4r9 3y ago

I agree that Person B's situation feels unfair compared to Person A's. However: a) It's just one of many ways that employees can negotiate more favourable contract terms. They can also negotiate more annual leave, fewer hours, smaller notice periods etc... and with proper management it shouldn't cause issues. b) People who work regularly in the office have perks like their own permanent desk and PC. c) The cause of this unfavourable situation is the 3 day / week policy put in place by senior management in the first place. Imagine cutting the carpark in half to save costs, and then removing the bike racks as well so that the car drivers don't feel as hard done by. It comes across as spiteful. As for the "added work of managing", I'm not sure I follow. I previously managed a couple of people, one of whom came in 2-3x per week and the other was almost completely remote but came in occasionally. Once things are set up so that meetings or calls can be done remotely or in-person on the fly, this isn't much of an obstacle. Perhaps it becomes more of an obstacle with larger teams, but that isn't something I hear from other managers in my company. It is tricky to run meetings with half the people in the room and half remote - but this isn't solved by forcing remote workers to stay remote (if anything it makes it worse).

rhaway84773 3y ago
> It's just one of many ways that employees can negotiate more favourable contract terms. And this is probably why Meta is instituting this policy. They are changing the default back to what it was (working in office which they can easily defend was the expectation when most employees outside of remote workers were hired), so instead of an employee being able to negotiate a benefit in return for coming to the office, the employee needs to give up benefits in a negotiation to work remotely.

zeroonetwothree 3y ago

At Meta it’s the managers that are predominantly remote anyway