3 ms·

This is an extreme view in my opinion, as also the previous poster showed. You can have 10 people with 5 wanting to work from the office, 5 who don't want. Or 1

by mk89 3y ago

This is an extreme view in my opinion, as also the previous poster showed. You can have 10 people with 5 wanting to work from the office, 5 who don't want. Or 10 that all want a hybrid model. Etc. It's not all black or white. Pushing for only one way of working or the other is telling people how to live. It has been like this for many years because there was little or no alternative. Now "thanks to" the covid an alternative came. But hey, now let's all go back to the traditional way things have always been done. If a company is fully remote (no offices at all) before you apply you know what you're getting into. Same for a company only working from the office full time. The issue is the companies slowly going back in a forceful manner, taking away the alternative, and all the people feeling "lonely" or having their "way things should be" being fine with that and actually enforcing this. All surveys show people want flexibility, yet we're doing a lot to go to the pre 2019 model.

paulcole 3y ago
I don't get why everyone is so defensive over this? When a company says, "This is how we work," that is them telling you to conform your life to how they work if you want to work there. That's for any value of "this" from remote, in-office, hybrid, whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. It just happens that the people who are strongly in favor of remote work don't seem to acknowledge the fact that committing to remote work alienates some workers the same way that in-office work alienates some workers. "Oh but they can go into the empty office" doesn't solve the problem the way so many pro-WFH people seem to think it does. You can dislike tradition the same as someone dislikes the nontraditional. They're just preferences not unequivocally right or wrong choices. Everybody just wants their employer to commit to the preference that they prefer.
- mk89 3y ago
  "Going to an empty office": why in the first place? If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced? I really believe given the conversations I had with some colleagues (and others in general) that people who miss the office want an office full or at least 70-80% full because of the way it has always been before covid - it doesn't matter if there is 20% of people, it's just not enough. This is what I personally don't understand, and this is why I say people are now forcing everyone else to go back to the office. Which is not as those who WFH. Full remote (no offices etc) is a different beast - I am not talking about that.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    > "Going to an empty office": why in the first place? I don't understand what you're asking here. My point is that a remote worker saying, "You work in the office while I work at home" is dissatisfying to many people who like the idea of working with people in person and who dislike collaborating with others who are working remote. > If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced? Some people don't miss the office and need to be forced to go to the office – if the company decides they want employees in the office. I don't get what you don't understand? If a company wants all its employees in the office then allowing some to WFH isn't going to happen. If a company wants all its employees to WFH then working in office isn't going to happen. If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office.
    - mk89 3y ago
      Many companies I know don't reason so black or white. You can always find compromises, by making it attractive for employees to gather once or twice a week (e.g., free breakfast on wed), for example. That's good enough for many. > If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office. Right, but why should we care? Extremes are specific situations that must be addressed differently: I want full remote, does my company allow it or not? If yes, ok, if not, either I leave, or I find another way. Same applies for people wanting everyone at the office: things have changed over the years, why do we want or need that? It's a decision that forces 80% or more of the workforce to behave in a certain way, just because some people have a very specific need. If someone wants everybody at the office, it's his/her own problem to deal with, as the person who wants full remote, yet forced to meet with colleagues from time to time. Extremes have huge impact over each other. You can't make everyone happy, but it also means you should not take away a huge benefit for many. This is why I like how some companies are doing, and yet it surprises me to read that some companies are just back to precovid like WFH never existed. It doesn't make any sense.
      - 3y ago

by mk89 3y ago

paulcole 3y ago

I don't get why everyone is so defensive over this? When a company says, "This is how we work," that is them telling you to conform your life to how they work if you want to work there. That's for any value of "this" from remote, in-office, hybrid, whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. It just happens that the people who are strongly in favor of remote work don't seem to acknowledge the fact that committing to remote work alienates some workers the same way that in-office work alienates some workers. "Oh but they can go into the empty office" doesn't solve the problem the way so many pro-WFH people seem to think it does. You can dislike tradition the same as someone dislikes the nontraditional. They're just preferences not unequivocally right or wrong choices. Everybody just wants their employer to commit to the preference that they prefer.

mk89 3y ago
"Going to an empty office": why in the first place? If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced? I really believe given the conversations I had with some colleagues (and others in general) that people who miss the office want an office full or at least 70-80% full because of the way it has always been before covid - it doesn't matter if there is 20% of people, it's just not enough. This is what I personally don't understand, and this is why I say people are now forcing everyone else to go back to the office. Which is not as those who WFH. Full remote (no offices etc) is a different beast - I am not talking about that.
- paulcole 3y ago
  > "Going to an empty office": why in the first place? I don't understand what you're asking here. My point is that a remote worker saying, "You work in the office while I work at home" is dissatisfying to many people who like the idea of working with people in person and who dislike collaborating with others who are working remote. > If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced? Some people don't miss the office and need to be forced to go to the office – if the company decides they want employees in the office. I don't get what you don't understand? If a company wants all its employees in the office then allowing some to WFH isn't going to happen. If a company wants all its employees to WFH then working in office isn't going to happen. If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office.
  - mk89 3y ago
    Many companies I know don't reason so black or white. You can always find compromises, by making it attractive for employees to gather once or twice a week (e.g., free breakfast on wed), for example. That's good enough for many. > If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office. Right, but why should we care? Extremes are specific situations that must be addressed differently: I want full remote, does my company allow it or not? If yes, ok, if not, either I leave, or I find another way. Same applies for people wanting everyone at the office: things have changed over the years, why do we want or need that? It's a decision that forces 80% or more of the workforce to behave in a certain way, just because some people have a very specific need. If someone wants everybody at the office, it's his/her own problem to deal with, as the person who wants full remote, yet forced to meet with colleagues from time to time. Extremes have huge impact over each other. You can't make everyone happy, but it also means you should not take away a huge benefit for many. This is why I like how some companies are doing, and yet it surprises me to read that some companies are just back to precovid like WFH never existed. It doesn't make any sense.
    - 3y ago