4 ms·

Companies love RTO, this isn't gonna change: 1. Real Estate Loss: These companies have leased a lot of real estate. They can renege and save a lot of money lon

Companies love RTO, this isn't gonna change: 1. Real Estate Loss: These companies have leased a lot of real estate. They can renege and save a lot of money long term. But in short term, they have to pay severance price ---> Less profits ---> Shares drop ---> CEO under pressure. 2. Bosses love Office: If you have a job with corner office, job is ordering people and want to show off your new porsche (since you're richer), can't do it at home. 3. RTO triggered attrition: Market is in a bad shape, companies need to fire people. But layoffs generally signal the market that the company is no longer growing. RTO acts as a proxy for layoffs. 4. Incentive based compensation: if you put "Employee of the month" on a wall , you can get away with paying x% less to the same employee. Similar effect doesn't occur with over-the-internet recognition. 5. Locking People in: A remote employee can jump companies in a matter of few clicks. For office based companies, you have to move house/cities and deal with a new commute.

galaxyLogic 3y ago
Good points. All politics is local
- favorited 3y ago
  Random aside, but "all politics is local" was popularized by Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, the longest continuous Speaker in House history (5 terms, no interruptions!). GBH is 1/2 way through a podcast about Boston's Big Dig, which started while Tip was Speaker, and resulted in an enormous tunnel named after the man who shepherded its funding through Congress. It's a great listen, and, so far, is abundant evidence that all politics is, indeed, local. Thanks for the tip, Tip! https://www.wgbh.org/podcasts/the-big-dig https://www.wgbh.org/podcasts/the-big-dig
jemmyw 3y ago
If you lease an office and now your employees are working from home, does it actually make a difference? You leased it for X years, regardless of where people are working. If you're hiring then it is an opportunity to hire more office loving folks without needing to find more office space. Otherwise, it's just a sunk cost.
- dehrmann 3y ago
  People keep saying "real estate," but I don't buy that there isn't at least one person in the C-suite saying "it's a sunk cost, WFH is cheaper long-term."
klipklop 3y ago
Exactly. Power asymmetry. The ruling class wants to preserve their fiefdom. Pretty easy to understand.
- koonsolo 3y ago
  I'm a developer, and I have way more power than the companies I work for. I can switch companies and basically get same or higher pay. For the company that I leave, they have to invest in hiring and retrain some other developer, that won't be as productive as me in the first few months. So basically, me switching jobs costs me nothing. For the company that loses me, and the company that gains me, they both have an associated cost. Why do I have this power? Well, at least in Europe there is a huge shortage on software developers, so that puts us in a very strong position. Don't wrongly assume that an employer is always in the stronger position.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
    We are very lucky. But I pity my non-tech colleagues who need to deal with all this RTO crap.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Help them organize and unionize. Otherwise, they remain serfs.
      - koonsolo 3y ago
        No, help them start their own business or switch to a more lucrative field.
        toomuchtodo 3y ago
        This is not my koolaid flavor. It appears you’re pretty sold on those paths as most ideal from your post history, but it is disingenuous to ask people to do what you’re asking simply to have better working arrangements or conditions and better pay. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8601695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8601695
Ferret7446 3y ago
> They can renege and save a lot of money long term. It's not quite that simple (it never is). That will crash the real estate market, which will affect the value of lots of investments, like, say, the savings of all of the employees of the company (and of course the other investments of the stakeholders of the company).
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Just let it all crash. It really is that simple. It's all their fault for "investing" money in the "safe" real estate market. They shouldn't be protected from the consequences of their decisions.
almatabata 3y ago
I think they only use point 1 as an excuse. If you remove people from the office you can save a lot of ad-hoc costs immediately. You pay less for coffee. You can save on heating. You can probably also save on cleaning costs if you concentrate the remaining employees into certain floors. I have definitely seen companies cut their losses before. If you remove all these points and only keep 1, most companies would shift to remote regardless of their real estate.
- crgwbr 3y ago
  You save money on cooling for sure, but heating not so much. Each body in the office is a 6,000 btu furnace fueled mostly by individual salaries. :)
- kcplate 3y ago
  I always laugh when I see this being touted as the WFH justification as if these minor cost savings actually factor at all. Rent maybe …but coffee, energy, and custodial costs? Pittance.
kkfx 3y ago
The real reasons are probably just two: - for a general perspective remote work means we have no tangible reasons anymore to live in dense areas, where services reign, that's means braking the push toward "you'll own nothing" because people rediscover the value of owning a home, tools etc instead of live to work just to pay services; - in-office means being geographically bound, having some friends and so on, so being a bit more tied to a company than a remote worker, who is actually like an external contractors. If you work from remote switching from a company to another means no "office" or "physical" change, you just change few URLs, projects but the rest will be the same. These two are IMVHO the most tangible and generally ignored things. Did you imaging an Uber service in a vast spread are where anyone have a car and a garage, no parking problems at all? Did you imaging Just Eat in such are? Public transportation? Ready-made food? MOST of such business became meaningless. People living at home love to have a nice home, party at home, not much going to the new shopping center, going in nature (witch is so far free) instead of going spending some money downtown and so on. This economical model it's not much different than the classic Keynes joke about digging a hole now, fill it tomorrow, re-dig it tomorrow after BUT for those who profit from such business means big money.

galaxyLogic 3y ago

Good points. All politics is local

favorited 3y ago
Random aside, but "all politics is local" was popularized by Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill, the longest continuous Speaker in House history (5 terms, no interruptions!). GBH is 1/2 way through a podcast about Boston's Big Dig, which started while Tip was Speaker, and resulted in an enormous tunnel named after the man who shepherded its funding through Congress. It's a great listen, and, so far, is abundant evidence that all politics is, indeed, local. Thanks for the tip, Tip! https://www.wgbh.org/podcasts/the-big-dig https://www.wgbh.org/podcasts/the-big-dig

jemmyw 3y ago

If you lease an office and now your employees are working from home, does it actually make a difference? You leased it for X years, regardless of where people are working. If you're hiring then it is an opportunity to hire more office loving folks without needing to find more office space. Otherwise, it's just a sunk cost.

dehrmann 3y ago
People keep saying "real estate," but I don't buy that there isn't at least one person in the C-suite saying "it's a sunk cost, WFH is cheaper long-term."

klipklop 3y ago

Exactly. Power asymmetry. The ruling class wants to preserve their fiefdom. Pretty easy to understand.

koonsolo 3y ago
I'm a developer, and I have way more power than the companies I work for. I can switch companies and basically get same or higher pay. For the company that I leave, they have to invest in hiring and retrain some other developer, that won't be as productive as me in the first few months. So basically, me switching jobs costs me nothing. For the company that loses me, and the company that gains me, they both have an associated cost. Why do I have this power? Well, at least in Europe there is a huge shortage on software developers, so that puts us in a very strong position. Don't wrongly assume that an employer is always in the stronger position.
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  We are very lucky. But I pity my non-tech colleagues who need to deal with all this RTO crap.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Help them organize and unionize. Otherwise, they remain serfs.
    - koonsolo 3y ago
      No, help them start their own business or switch to a more lucrative field.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        This is not my koolaid flavor. It appears you’re pretty sold on those paths as most ideal from your post history, but it is disingenuous to ask people to do what you’re asking simply to have better working arrangements or conditions and better pay. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8601695 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8601695

Ferret7446 3y ago

> They can renege and save a lot of money long term. It's not quite that simple (it never is). That will crash the real estate market, which will affect the value of lots of investments, like, say, the savings of all of the employees of the company (and of course the other investments of the stakeholders of the company).

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Just let it all crash. It really is that simple. It's all their fault for "investing" money in the "safe" real estate market. They shouldn't be protected from the consequences of their decisions.

almatabata 3y ago

I think they only use point 1 as an excuse. If you remove people from the office you can save a lot of ad-hoc costs immediately. You pay less for coffee. You can save on heating. You can probably also save on cleaning costs if you concentrate the remaining employees into certain floors. I have definitely seen companies cut their losses before. If you remove all these points and only keep 1, most companies would shift to remote regardless of their real estate.

crgwbr 3y ago
You save money on cooling for sure, but heating not so much. Each body in the office is a 6,000 btu furnace fueled mostly by individual salaries. :)
kcplate 3y ago
I always laugh when I see this being touted as the WFH justification as if these minor cost savings actually factor at all. Rent maybe …but coffee, energy, and custodial costs? Pittance.

kkfx 3y ago

The real reasons are probably just two: - for a general perspective remote work means we have no tangible reasons anymore to live in dense areas, where services reign, that's means braking the push toward "you'll own nothing" because people rediscover the value of owning a home, tools etc instead of live to work just to pay services; - in-office means being geographically bound, having some friends and so on, so being a bit more tied to a company than a remote worker, who is actually like an external contractors. If you work from remote switching from a company to another means no "office" or "physical" change, you just change few URLs, projects but the rest will be the same. These two are IMVHO the most tangible and generally ignored things. Did you imaging an Uber service in a vast spread are where anyone have a car and a garage, no parking problems at all? Did you imaging Just Eat in such are? Public transportation? Ready-made food? MOST of such business became meaningless. People living at home love to have a nice home, party at home, not much going to the new shopping center, going in nature (witch is so far free) instead of going spending some money downtown and so on. This economical model it's not much different than the classic Keynes joke about digging a hole now, fill it tomorrow, re-dig it tomorrow after BUT for those who profit from such business means big money.