3 ms·

but that's a bit of a stretch isn't it? Like why go through all of these hoops instead of changing up your portfolio. It's not like the CEO of UberForDogs doesn

by rtpg 3y ago

but that's a bit of a stretch isn't it? Like why go through all of these hoops instead of changing up your portfolio. It's not like the CEO of UberForDogs doesn't have other things to do than plot this out. Every executive I've seen pushing for RTO, it seems prima facie explainable by "executive is lonely and wants to see people". Legit, and I get it! And all the other WFH debates are there, but especially if you've been an exec for a long time and really don't do anything apart from talk to people all day.... RTO sounds nice compared to the alternative

disgruntledphd2 3y ago
It's a conspiracy theory, to be brutally frank. Like, what seems much more likely is a combination of a bunch of things. 1. Lots of people don't work effectively remotely 2. Lots of companies aren't set up to work remotely (which is a big deal) 3. Lots of management are socialised to prefer working in offices 4. RTO is a way to do a soft layoff 5. (way down the list) Some companies have financial arrangements with cities that require them to get people back in the office. Additionally, it's worth noting that this argument is much more prevalent in the Anglosphere (broadly constructed), as I believe that levels of office occupancy are much higher on continental Europe (Western) at least. The worker side is presumably being driven by poorer public transportation and housing policies, which means that workers gain more from WFH.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > 3. Lots of management are socialised to prefer working in offices I would rank this as 1 on the list.
  - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
    Yeah, depends on the management. Honestly though, lots and lots of people/companies can't work remotely. It probably works for a higher proportion of tech people, but even I, who's been full time remote for four years, and basically remote for the majority of my career, still prefer in-person for bandwidth purposes. My current team are all scattered across different countries, but when we had an offsite and a problem, it was so incredibly nice to be able to simply pop my head up and ask someone a quick question.
    - lapcat 3y ago
      Is the main problem non-overlapping work schedules? That's an issue, of course, but the tradeoff is that the company's potential talent pool is severely limited if all hires are forced to relocate internationally.
      - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
        Nah, it's just so much quicker to speak across a desk relative to sending a slack message. Let's be honest, I love my current team and company, and we have enough overlap (5 hours difference in the worst case) that it's relatively straightforward. Like, in-person is substantially higher bandwidth. Remote has lots of things that make up for it, but let's not pretend there's no difference.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

by rtpg 3y ago

disgruntledphd2 3y ago

It's a conspiracy theory, to be brutally frank. Like, what seems much more likely is a combination of a bunch of things. 1. Lots of people don't work effectively remotely 2. Lots of companies aren't set up to work remotely (which is a big deal) 3. Lots of management are socialised to prefer working in offices 4. RTO is a way to do a soft layoff 5. (way down the list) Some companies have financial arrangements with cities that require them to get people back in the office. Additionally, it's worth noting that this argument is much more prevalent in the Anglosphere (broadly constructed), as I believe that levels of office occupancy are much higher on continental Europe (Western) at least. The worker side is presumably being driven by poorer public transportation and housing policies, which means that workers gain more from WFH.

lapcat 3y ago
> 3. Lots of management are socialised to prefer working in offices I would rank this as 1 on the list.
- disgruntledphd2 3y ago
  Yeah, depends on the management. Honestly though, lots and lots of people/companies can't work remotely. It probably works for a higher proportion of tech people, but even I, who's been full time remote for four years, and basically remote for the majority of my career, still prefer in-person for bandwidth purposes. My current team are all scattered across different countries, but when we had an offsite and a problem, it was so incredibly nice to be able to simply pop my head up and ask someone a quick question.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    Is the main problem non-overlapping work schedules? That's an issue, of course, but the tradeoff is that the company's potential talent pool is severely limited if all hires are forced to relocate internationally.
    - disgruntledphd2 3y ago
      Nah, it's just so much quicker to speak across a desk relative to sending a slack message. Let's be honest, I love my current team and company, and we have enough overlap (5 hours difference in the worst case) that it's relatively straightforward. Like, in-person is substantially higher bandwidth. Remote has lots of things that make up for it, but let's not pretend there's no difference.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]