3 ms·

I think too many people are misunderstanding what we're talking about and creates confusion. It's not about RTO. It's cool if you find it better for you and yo

by rakoo 3y ago

I think too many people are misunderstanding what we're talking about and creates confusion. It's not about RTO. It's cool if you find it better for you and your team, if your team also likes it better; as others, on some occasions I want to just work and don't want to be bothered by others every 5 min. It's about mandatory RTO. It's about forcing employees to do something, without asking them, without including them in the discussion, without explaining why the decision is taken ("it's better" is wrong; it's better for some, worse for others. It needs more explanation) We know why companies don't give explanations: it's not about productivity, it's not about employees working better, it's about real estate and the company not wanting to lose money on its properties, it's about managers who feel useless if they are not seen, it's about the direction fundamentally mistrusting employees. If it was about work then let the people who actually do it manage themselves: they're grownups engineers, surely they can work it out. But it's never about work, and employees are right to protest the decision and to demand transparency.

blub 3y ago
Are work contracts somehow deficient in the US? In the EU countries I know, each contract has an office location specified. Alternatively, it specifies that the job is remote. Anything else is an informal benefit and can be taken away at any time. If you don’t like that folks, then stop whining and unionize please.
- pjc50 3y ago
  A lot of this stuff was done outwith contract, in both places, during the pandemic. > Anything else is an informal benefit and can be taken away at any time Well, yes, and this is why people are getting mad. People should also be much more explicit about the cost of their commute; you can argue back and forth about the benefits of being in the office, but almost all commutes are deadweight loss and some are both miserable and expensive.
cauch 3y ago
> We know why companies don't give explanations: it's not about productivity, it's not about employees working better, it's about real estate and the company not wanting to lose money on its properties, it's about managers who feel useless if they are not seen, it's about the direction fundamentally mistrusting employees. Do you have any objective elements proving this? I have witnessed a dev colleague who worked from home. They were unable to document and communicate, and it screwed everyone else. They were really happy to work from home, though, thinking they were doing great, doing all the tickets and all the new tickets that appeared because of how badly designed for purpose their solutions on the previous ticket were. The mess and difficult job they were creating around them was not their problem. When asked to come back in the office, they used exactly those arguments. I'm sure bad management and bad direction exist, but HN is naturally biased towards devs and against management, and of course, everyone thinks they can manage themselves and that if it does not work, it's the others' fault. I wonder how much grain of salt I should add to these affirmations and if there are more objective analyses of the situation (for example some that acknowledge the two possibilities).
- hermanradtke 3y ago
  > I have witnessed a dev colleague who worked from home. They were unable to document and communicate, and it screwed everyone else. How did working in an office improve the documentation abilities of this employee? > doing all the tickets and all the new tickets that appeared because of how badly designed for purpose their solutions on the previous ticket were. How did working in an office improve the design decisions of this employee?
  - cauch 3y ago
    There was a clear difference in output when the dev was WFH or RTO, so even if we cannot pinpoint the exact reason, the facts are just there. But in fact, there are a bunch of elements that can explain why. For example, when remote, pressing them to answer was impossible: you ask a precise question on Slack, 15 minutes later, they answer something vague or irrelevant, you refine and refocus the question, 30 minutes later, they repeat what they've said, you ask to have a call, they complain that there is too many calls. And if you try to profit from an existing meeting to go to the bottom of that, you just ruin the meeting. In the office, you confront them, show them on the screen exactly why their answer is not helping, and they cannot really go away without answering. There is also other cases were a question is asked to them in the office, and other people chip in, with things like "wait? what? you told me that it worked the other way around ...". Again, this is not possible remote unless you systematically add everyone to all the chat (and people stops looking at them anyway because it's too much noise). As for badly designed for purpose, this is just the natural consequence of bad communication: the person thought they knew when they did not, and considered "yeah, whatever, details are not my problem". In the office, there are way more opportunities to notice that early and to correct the course, based on the same situations as given in example above. Again, it is just based on facts.
    - hermanradtke 3y ago
      It reads to me that your company lacks standards and expectations to hold employees accountable. The in office culture uses the proximity of people to work around the lack of standards and expectations. If the standards did exist then bad design doesn’t make it through design review or code review. If expectations did exist, then the employees manager is having a conversation about lack of documentation being a problem that needs to be fixed. Let us not blame remote or in-office for the problems of poor management.
tonfreed 3y ago
I think this is pretty much bang on. Our team was going into the office once a week, some of us had even started going in twice a week because it just made meetings easier. Then the RTO mandate happened and we suddenly have to be back in 50%. Three times a week is excessive (even if it is only every alternate week), and the entire team's enthusiasm to come in and work together has evaporated nearly completely. We were never given a reason why, either, they gave us a completely contrived response about "company values" when pushed.

by rakoo 3y ago

blub 3y ago

Are work contracts somehow deficient in the US? In the EU countries I know, each contract has an office location specified. Alternatively, it specifies that the job is remote. Anything else is an informal benefit and can be taken away at any time. If you don’t like that folks, then stop whining and unionize please.

pjc50 3y ago
A lot of this stuff was done outwith contract, in both places, during the pandemic. > Anything else is an informal benefit and can be taken away at any time Well, yes, and this is why people are getting mad. People should also be much more explicit about the cost of their commute; you can argue back and forth about the benefits of being in the office, but almost all commutes are deadweight loss and some are both miserable and expensive.

cauch 3y ago

> We know why companies don't give explanations: it's not about productivity, it's not about employees working better, it's about real estate and the company not wanting to lose money on its properties, it's about managers who feel useless if they are not seen, it's about the direction fundamentally mistrusting employees. Do you have any objective elements proving this? I have witnessed a dev colleague who worked from home. They were unable to document and communicate, and it screwed everyone else. They were really happy to work from home, though, thinking they were doing great, doing all the tickets and all the new tickets that appeared because of how badly designed for purpose their solutions on the previous ticket were. The mess and difficult job they were creating around them was not their problem. When asked to come back in the office, they used exactly those arguments. I'm sure bad management and bad direction exist, but HN is naturally biased towards devs and against management, and of course, everyone thinks they can manage themselves and that if it does not work, it's the others' fault. I wonder how much grain of salt I should add to these affirmations and if there are more objective analyses of the situation (for example some that acknowledge the two possibilities).

hermanradtke 3y ago
> I have witnessed a dev colleague who worked from home. They were unable to document and communicate, and it screwed everyone else. How did working in an office improve the documentation abilities of this employee? > doing all the tickets and all the new tickets that appeared because of how badly designed for purpose their solutions on the previous ticket were. How did working in an office improve the design decisions of this employee?
- cauch 3y ago
  There was a clear difference in output when the dev was WFH or RTO, so even if we cannot pinpoint the exact reason, the facts are just there. But in fact, there are a bunch of elements that can explain why. For example, when remote, pressing them to answer was impossible: you ask a precise question on Slack, 15 minutes later, they answer something vague or irrelevant, you refine and refocus the question, 30 minutes later, they repeat what they've said, you ask to have a call, they complain that there is too many calls. And if you try to profit from an existing meeting to go to the bottom of that, you just ruin the meeting. In the office, you confront them, show them on the screen exactly why their answer is not helping, and they cannot really go away without answering. There is also other cases were a question is asked to them in the office, and other people chip in, with things like "wait? what? you told me that it worked the other way around ...". Again, this is not possible remote unless you systematically add everyone to all the chat (and people stops looking at them anyway because it's too much noise). As for badly designed for purpose, this is just the natural consequence of bad communication: the person thought they knew when they did not, and considered "yeah, whatever, details are not my problem". In the office, there are way more opportunities to notice that early and to correct the course, based on the same situations as given in example above. Again, it is just based on facts.
  - hermanradtke 3y ago
    It reads to me that your company lacks standards and expectations to hold employees accountable. The in office culture uses the proximity of people to work around the lack of standards and expectations. If the standards did exist then bad design doesn’t make it through design review or code review. If expectations did exist, then the employees manager is having a conversation about lack of documentation being a problem that needs to be fixed. Let us not blame remote or in-office for the problems of poor management.

tonfreed 3y ago

I think this is pretty much bang on. Our team was going into the office once a week, some of us had even started going in twice a week because it just made meetings easier. Then the RTO mandate happened and we suddenly have to be back in 50%. Three times a week is excessive (even if it is only every alternate week), and the entire team's enthusiasm to come in and work together has evaporated nearly completely. We were never given a reason why, either, they gave us a completely contrived response about "company values" when pushed.