4 ms·

The only point in the article that matters is the only point that will decide the debate as passions cool: "What makes companies money tends to stick," he said

The only point in the article that matters is the only point that will decide the debate as passions cool: "What makes companies money tends to stick," he said. RTO is dead because it’s economically inefficient. Over time the emotional “but I like my employees to sit where I can see them” will be less and less compelling to boards and shareholders. After time has passed, say 5 years, the next recession will kill the corporate sponsored office and will usher in the “Bring Your Own Office” age. BYOD saved millions. BYOO will save hundreds of millions.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
Question for the HN crowd: How much of a pay cut would you accept to WFH? You should at least accept less by the amount of your commuting costs, because you're not paying that any more. But you're also getting the commuting time back, which might be worth some money too. You're essentially working fewer hours. (Yeah, they're not working hours. Still, it's hours that you can use for what you want instead of for something related to work.) Anyone care to put a number on it? Or do people only like it at the same salary?
- JambalayaJim 3y ago
  I would require a pay increase to WFH. This is because I'd need to rent my own office in a co-working space.
- dave78 3y ago
  > But you're also getting the commuting time back, which might be worth some money too. Not necessarily - a lot of people (myself included) essentially give that time to their employer. I drop my kids off at school and start work when I get home at 8am and work until 5pm when I pick them up. When I go in, my commute necessarily occurs between those two events. In my company at least, I don't think this is rare. On the rare days I go into the office, it's easy to notice that people don't show up until well after 9 and everyone is gone by 3:30-4. I think many people have shifted to taking their commute time from what used to be considered the employer's time rather than personal time.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  I would argue the savings in corporate real estate occupancy cost and associated expenses are enough savings for the company, and I’m bearing the cost of maintained an office. As a sibling points out I also work more overall by not commuting or hanging out at a water cooler. At prior megacorps I was a senior person at and was in these discussions in key markets occupancy costs can be $15,000/person. That’s not chump change. However I would take 10% less to stop having the debate.
- theandrewbailey 3y ago
  I won't accept a pay cut to WFH. Almost none of the expenses incurred by commuting are going back to your employer. (Why would they care how much you spend getting to/from the office? It doesn't factor into their budgets.) In fact, your employer also sees massive savings by not having you in the office, mostly in the form of not having to rent/own/maintain so much overvalued office space.
- gotaran 3y ago
  I’d expect a pay raise if I had to accept WFH. I live a 5 minute walk from my office and I get catered lunches.
  - francisofascii 3y ago
    Sure, that is really nice now, but what if you want to switch companies. At some point you will want to have a permanent home and not have to either move or accept a long commute to get a new job.
- Kon5ole 3y ago
  >You should at least accept less by the amount of your commuting costs, If that's the case then we should also demand more by the same amount that the employer pays in office leases, right? If the employer gets money that I save, then I get money that the employer saves too, or is this a one-way thing? I'm thinking it'll be a substantial salary increase, but I expect some opprobrium if I pitch the idea ;-) More seriously, I have no doubt that any honest knowledge worker with a decent WFH setup delivers more value to their employer from home than they did from the office. This increased productivity is increased value that the employers get for free. A good thing! Before the pandemic it was almost universally accepted that open offices were detrimental to knowledge work, but it was defended by the financials. You could fit more people in smaller offices, which saved money. Now that the offices can be eliminated almost entirely, suddenly it's no longer about the money. The real reason is of course that managers often can't measure productivity from office workers and use butts-in-seats as a substitute. I think it is a very poor substitute.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    It’s absolutely a one way thing. Welcome to capitalism
thebigspacefuck 3y ago
I was watching an interview with Gabe Newell where this question came up and he said at Valve they measured a 25% decrease in productivity due to remote work. In this article it says that WFH is worth 8% increase in pay. So if that holds true for every company, it seems fair to pay 15% more to have workers return to the office. Say for every day an employee works from the office, give them a bonus at the end of the year for an extra 3%. People bemoan their hour long commutes but if they can do the math and see they’re getting paid an extra $100 or whatever for sitting in traffic and listening to audiobooks, it becomes justifiable.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago

Question for the HN crowd: How much of a pay cut would you accept to WFH? You should at least accept less by the amount of your commuting costs, because you're not paying that any more. But you're also getting the commuting time back, which might be worth some money too. You're essentially working fewer hours. (Yeah, they're not working hours. Still, it's hours that you can use for what you want instead of for something related to work.) Anyone care to put a number on it? Or do people only like it at the same salary?

JambalayaJim 3y ago
I would require a pay increase to WFH. This is because I'd need to rent my own office in a co-working space.
dave78 3y ago
> But you're also getting the commuting time back, which might be worth some money too. Not necessarily - a lot of people (myself included) essentially give that time to their employer. I drop my kids off at school and start work when I get home at 8am and work until 5pm when I pick them up. When I go in, my commute necessarily occurs between those two events. In my company at least, I don't think this is rare. On the rare days I go into the office, it's easy to notice that people don't show up until well after 9 and everyone is gone by 3:30-4. I think many people have shifted to taking their commute time from what used to be considered the employer's time rather than personal time.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
I would argue the savings in corporate real estate occupancy cost and associated expenses are enough savings for the company, and I’m bearing the cost of maintained an office. As a sibling points out I also work more overall by not commuting or hanging out at a water cooler. At prior megacorps I was a senior person at and was in these discussions in key markets occupancy costs can be $15,000/person. That’s not chump change. However I would take 10% less to stop having the debate.
theandrewbailey 3y ago
I won't accept a pay cut to WFH. Almost none of the expenses incurred by commuting are going back to your employer. (Why would they care how much you spend getting to/from the office? It doesn't factor into their budgets.) In fact, your employer also sees massive savings by not having you in the office, mostly in the form of not having to rent/own/maintain so much overvalued office space.
gotaran 3y ago
I’d expect a pay raise if I had to accept WFH. I live a 5 minute walk from my office and I get catered lunches.
- francisofascii 3y ago
  Sure, that is really nice now, but what if you want to switch companies. At some point you will want to have a permanent home and not have to either move or accept a long commute to get a new job.
Kon5ole 3y ago
>You should at least accept less by the amount of your commuting costs, If that's the case then we should also demand more by the same amount that the employer pays in office leases, right? If the employer gets money that I save, then I get money that the employer saves too, or is this a one-way thing? I'm thinking it'll be a substantial salary increase, but I expect some opprobrium if I pitch the idea ;-) More seriously, I have no doubt that any honest knowledge worker with a decent WFH setup delivers more value to their employer from home than they did from the office. This increased productivity is increased value that the employers get for free. A good thing! Before the pandemic it was almost universally accepted that open offices were detrimental to knowledge work, but it was defended by the financials. You could fit more people in smaller offices, which saved money. Now that the offices can be eliminated almost entirely, suddenly it's no longer about the money. The real reason is of course that managers often can't measure productivity from office workers and use butts-in-seats as a substitute. I think it is a very poor substitute.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  It’s absolutely a one way thing. Welcome to capitalism

thebigspacefuck 3y ago

I was watching an interview with Gabe Newell where this question came up and he said at Valve they measured a 25% decrease in productivity due to remote work. In this article it says that WFH is worth 8% increase in pay. So if that holds true for every company, it seems fair to pay 15% more to have workers return to the office. Say for every day an employee works from the office, give them a bonus at the end of the year for an extra 3%. People bemoan their hour long commutes but if they can do the math and see they’re getting paid an extra $100 or whatever for sitting in traffic and listening to audiobooks, it becomes justifiable.