4 ms·

I think the outcome of all of this is going to be much more aggressive cost-of-living adjustments. It provides real, non-negligible value to sit in the same ro

I think the outcome of all of this is going to be much more aggressive cost-of-living adjustments. It provides real, non-negligible value to sit in the same room as your coworkers. If companies want to reap that value though, they are going to have to pay for it. I think the days of setting up shop in downtown SF and just expecting talent to show up are over.

dmitrygr 2y ago
> It provides real, non-negligible value to sit in the same room as your coworkers Please cite a reputable source for this unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable claim. eg: to me it provides a negative value (commute, noise, lack of my cat). To my employer it also provides negative value: my lower productivity, my much higher chance to GTFO to a more sane workplace. I can and do communicate with my coworkers over slack and zoom just fine. As my job does not require touching them, no problems are created by this arrangement.
- Jahkk 2y ago
  When I interned at MS in 2021, I was forced to be remote. I sat in calls with heavily-accented people with crying babies in the background. It was unbelievably bad. I was catching every third word from my “mentor”. That’s why I’m not there today. (I turned down a full time offer)
  - andry_ad 2y ago
    And now, people go back to the office and I hear other people in the background instead of babies because companies have mandatory office days when they have all employees there at the same time. I can tell you, it's easier to phase out baby than other people in the background :)
  - olliej 2y ago
    Sounds like you would prefer a in person job. The question is not “do some people prefer offices”, the problem is “some people prefer offices and then require everyone else to be there to support them as well”
    - TeaBrain 2y ago
      Since the purpose of a company is to function as a whole, and not to accommodate individual employees, the actual question and issue at hand is whether companies and company teams function better working remotely or working in office. This is also a matter not simply of the state of being in office, but of office work. Coming to the office to only talk to remote employees is not office work, but remote work with more steps. Office work isn't possible unless the team is present.
      - olliej 2y ago
        Which means you are making the assumption that working in an office is better, so you need to be able to back that up. I could just as easily ask why everyone is having to go to an office to accommodate people who can only work in office environments. Especially given the overwhelming evidence that office environments reduce productivity, morale, and employee health? You're just repeating the "I can't do my job unless I'm in an office, therefore I need everyone else to spend hours every week coming into an office to coddle me". Me not spending hours of unpaid time coming to the office does not prevent you from going into an office. You requiring me to drive for hours to come to the office has a direct and measurable cost, that solely benefits you. It does not benefit productivity. It does not benefit morale. It actively harms the health of everyone, including you. > Office work isn't possible unless the team is present. Well yes, you've just said "everyone being in the office is only possible if everyone is in the office". My job, and the job of most people in tech (or jobs where being in the office is not required to work), is not to heat a seat in an office. The fact that you use work as a proxy for a social life, or find it necessary to interrupt other people who are working, does not mean that being in an office is necessary to do our jobs. It means it is necessary for you to do your job. So please stop presenting your own requirements as if they (1) apply to everyone universally, and (2) supporting your requirements is free for everyone else. (1) is demonstrably false, (2) is just selfish - why do you get to demand your coworkers give up a significant fraction of their lives and a significant amount of money to support your requirements?
        TeaBrain 2y ago
- legitster 2y ago
  My counter to this - why do people pay to go to a concert when they can just watch a video? Do you not pay to fly to places that you could see in pictures? Do people not find some sort of value in this? And would you need to find a "reputable" source to prove it? Clearly there are some amount of intangibles that the corporations care about, otherwise why would they bother with RTO at all instead of just firing everyone and offshoring the entire team? This is kind of the argument we are making for them.
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    Why? Preferences. And I don’t mind if YOU go to the office. I mind if you make me do it. I have voted with my feet on this issue before and I would again.
  - pllbnk 2y ago
    My counter to you. When you hear a few songs by the performer and like them, do you not want to go to the concert to hear them live for once? Or do you start tracking their every performance and go to every concert they ever perform at? When you see a picture of a place you like, do you only go to that particular place and nowhere else from that point on, or possibly you want to explore more? Although your analogy is absolutely flawed in that it compares leisure with work, by following up with it, I guess everybody should be fine meeting their colleagues for a drink a couple times a year rather than going to see them every day whether you like them or not.
olliej 2y ago
If you want to have people go to the office you need to pay them for the time to commute to that office. There is negative value to requiring people be in the office, especially given all these companies have opted for open plan BS - every study ever performed has found open and “shared” office plans reduce productivity, reduce collaboration, reduce morale, and increase disease. The value businesses get from putting employees in the same room is making it harder to go elsewhere (creating a fake “family”), and managers get to feel like they have control and ownership of their plebs. There are also people who use office life as surrogate social lives, and they seem to be the employees they were most in favour of mandatory RTO - “I can’t deal with not having a forcefully created social environment, so I’m going to demand that everyone come back”
- jareklupinski 2y ago
  Three guys stuck on a desert island stumble across a magic genie, who agrees to grant them each one wish. The first man wishes to be home with his family, his wish is granted. The second man wishes to be in Vegas with lots of money, his wish is granted. The third man says "I'm really lonely now... I wish those guys were back here with me"
hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago
Not yet. Meta is currently offering hardly any COLA while demanding RTO. Fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on.
- Towaway69 2y ago
  What’s the horse gotta do with it? /s

dmitrygr 2y ago

> It provides real, non-negligible value to sit in the same room as your coworkers Please cite a reputable source for this unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable claim. eg: to me it provides a negative value (commute, noise, lack of my cat). To my employer it also provides negative value: my lower productivity, my much higher chance to GTFO to a more sane workplace. I can and do communicate with my coworkers over slack and zoom just fine. As my job does not require touching them, no problems are created by this arrangement.

Jahkk 2y ago
When I interned at MS in 2021, I was forced to be remote. I sat in calls with heavily-accented people with crying babies in the background. It was unbelievably bad. I was catching every third word from my “mentor”. That’s why I’m not there today. (I turned down a full time offer)
- andry_ad 2y ago
  And now, people go back to the office and I hear other people in the background instead of babies because companies have mandatory office days when they have all employees there at the same time. I can tell you, it's easier to phase out baby than other people in the background :)
- olliej 2y ago
  Sounds like you would prefer a in person job. The question is not “do some people prefer offices”, the problem is “some people prefer offices and then require everyone else to be there to support them as well”
  - TeaBrain 2y ago
    Since the purpose of a company is to function as a whole, and not to accommodate individual employees, the actual question and issue at hand is whether companies and company teams function better working remotely or working in office. This is also a matter not simply of the state of being in office, but of office work. Coming to the office to only talk to remote employees is not office work, but remote work with more steps. Office work isn't possible unless the team is present.
    - olliej 2y ago
      Which means you are making the assumption that working in an office is better, so you need to be able to back that up. I could just as easily ask why everyone is having to go to an office to accommodate people who can only work in office environments. Especially given the overwhelming evidence that office environments reduce productivity, morale, and employee health? You're just repeating the "I can't do my job unless I'm in an office, therefore I need everyone else to spend hours every week coming into an office to coddle me". Me not spending hours of unpaid time coming to the office does not prevent you from going into an office. You requiring me to drive for hours to come to the office has a direct and measurable cost, that solely benefits you. It does not benefit productivity. It does not benefit morale. It actively harms the health of everyone, including you. > Office work isn't possible unless the team is present. Well yes, you've just said "everyone being in the office is only possible if everyone is in the office". My job, and the job of most people in tech (or jobs where being in the office is not required to work), is not to heat a seat in an office. The fact that you use work as a proxy for a social life, or find it necessary to interrupt other people who are working, does not mean that being in an office is necessary to do our jobs. It means it is necessary for you to do your job. So please stop presenting your own requirements as if they (1) apply to everyone universally, and (2) supporting your requirements is free for everyone else. (1) is demonstrably false, (2) is just selfish - why do you get to demand your coworkers give up a significant fraction of their lives and a significant amount of money to support your requirements?
      - TeaBrain 2y ago
legitster 2y ago
My counter to this - why do people pay to go to a concert when they can just watch a video? Do you not pay to fly to places that you could see in pictures? Do people not find some sort of value in this? And would you need to find a "reputable" source to prove it? Clearly there are some amount of intangibles that the corporations care about, otherwise why would they bother with RTO at all instead of just firing everyone and offshoring the entire team? This is kind of the argument we are making for them.
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  Why? Preferences. And I don’t mind if YOU go to the office. I mind if you make me do it. I have voted with my feet on this issue before and I would again.
- pllbnk 2y ago
  My counter to you. When you hear a few songs by the performer and like them, do you not want to go to the concert to hear them live for once? Or do you start tracking their every performance and go to every concert they ever perform at? When you see a picture of a place you like, do you only go to that particular place and nowhere else from that point on, or possibly you want to explore more? Although your analogy is absolutely flawed in that it compares leisure with work, by following up with it, I guess everybody should be fine meeting their colleagues for a drink a couple times a year rather than going to see them every day whether you like them or not.

olliej 2y ago

If you want to have people go to the office you need to pay them for the time to commute to that office. There is negative value to requiring people be in the office, especially given all these companies have opted for open plan BS - every study ever performed has found open and “shared” office plans reduce productivity, reduce collaboration, reduce morale, and increase disease. The value businesses get from putting employees in the same room is making it harder to go elsewhere (creating a fake “family”), and managers get to feel like they have control and ownership of their plebs. There are also people who use office life as surrogate social lives, and they seem to be the employees they were most in favour of mandatory RTO - “I can’t deal with not having a forcefully created social environment, so I’m going to demand that everyone come back”

jareklupinski 2y ago
Three guys stuck on a desert island stumble across a magic genie, who agrees to grant them each one wish. The first man wishes to be home with his family, his wish is granted. The second man wishes to be in Vegas with lots of money, his wish is granted. The third man says "I'm really lonely now... I wish those guys were back here with me"

hi-v-rocknroll 2y ago

Not yet. Meta is currently offering hardly any COLA while demanding RTO. Fuck 'em and the horse they rode in on.

Towaway69 2y ago
What’s the horse gotta do with it? /s