3 ms·

The University of Chicago research was a little confusing. They added a May 2024 date to the top of the official paper, but they show most people moved to Meta

by shmatt 2y ago

The University of Chicago research was a little confusing. They added a May 2024 date to the top of the official paper, but they show most people moved to Meta and Snap. 2 companies who have been aggressively forcing people back to office and are also generally higher paying than their previous employer They should have at least added a note that their data was 1+ years old and that RTO mandates changed during that time It’s not surprising that people left MSFT for companies that pay double or triple. The part that’s more interesting is if people are willing to take a 50% pay cut to go remote. I haven’t seen any research on that yet So far the data shows RTO makes people leave, but it makes them leave to other RTO companies, not fully remote ones

esrauch 2y ago
Even if they leave a non-RTO company and join a non-RTO company its an interesting effect. It seems that being forced to RTO in the same role can lead to unhappiness and into 'shields down' (https://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/ https://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/), then people are more willing to look around to see if there's a better deal on offer somewhere else (even if the _other_ deal ends up also being in-office).
- bravetraveler 2y ago
  This is delightful to read, thank you for sharing. Ham-fisted RTO was definitely my 'shields down' moment. The 'how' matters much like the 'what' or 'why'. In terms of on-site/remote, I'm not firmly for or against either. I see benefits in both. Similarly - it's interesting to see this from the manager PoV. I've been primarily WFH since ~2016 after doing the traditional thing for longer. I'm not new to either. Then the pandemic came/went... and how we kept working remained a hot topic. I saw executives above me (with more pull) get put in a tough spot: sell their new homes and relocate, or find new work. Then their peons/reporting managers tried to convince me that I'd be safe - appealing to pride saying I was too important to be lost to things like that. Yeah, right. As strange as it sounds... my shields were forced down out of preservation. It took over a year of (communicated) discontent before the shields finally went down for good. Nobody else did this - it was the business/leadership. I was productive despite most of the job not being about the work. It just so happens there are places requiring less work (relevant to the job or not) while being more rewarding. Loyalty is a funny dynamic. There's efficiency and leniency for everyone involved by choosing to not bike-shed over things like 'Where Are My Adults'. Doing the job you hired them for. I hope.
- animuchan 2y ago
  Absolutely, it's like any other worsening of the working conditions. When I've had a conflict of sorts with my direct manager, I also started looking elsewhere for job opportunities. Obviously in those other potential workplaces the same thing could happen, but in the current job I already know it has happened, so a coin flip is a (perceived) improvement. (Also when negotiating a new contract with a working-from-office company, there's a better chance of getting a hybrid model than if you're already an employee.)
malfist 2y ago
I wouldn't characterize Meta as being aggressive towards RTO. I get contacted by Meta recruiters all the time for remote roles. Last time I spoke to one they said RTO was only for those folks living near an office
- p0seidon 2y ago
  Probably depends on the role if it needs creative interaction.
segmondy 2y ago
If you have to RTO, better to RTO where you get paid better. I WFH and pay isn't what I can make if in office, I take the flexibility. If I have to RTO, I'll seek higher pay, even if it means relocating to a different location.
mgerdts 2y ago
Maybe the RTO job they switch to is a better match with their location. Some people accepted a job assuming or being told it was permanently WFH. From 2007 through 2010 I worked in an office in a job I didn’t particularly like and repeatedly turned away recruiters from Google. In 2010 I joined Oracle (Solaris org) remotely. As the Solaris org wound down, I continued to turn away the google recruiters with positions that would have required a move. Since leaving Oracle I’ve held two other remote jobs. If any of those remote jobs would have required me to move within commuting distance of an engineering office, I would have left.
everforward 2y ago
> It’s not surprising that people left MSFT for companies that pay double or triple. The part that’s more interesting is if people are willing to take a 50% pay cut to go remote. I haven’t seen any research on that yet It would also be interesting to see if there are preferences when given equal pay. I suspect most people have a number where they're willing to go into the office every day, it's not surprising to me that people are willing to RTO for multiples of their current pay. It all gets a touch weird when comparing comp, though. If someone takes a 50% pay cut, but they move from SF to somewhere that costs something like 60% less, have they taken a pay cut or not? That feels subjective to me, and I've heard both sides. Their ability to save may have gone down, their quality of life may have gone up, it feels like a wash. Another factor that may be weighing on people is stability of infrastructure and of the remote work job market. I grew up rural and would like to return to the country (not for farming, I already know I hate that from experience). I'm also fully remote, but haven't moved back. There are too many uncertainties. Will the remote work job market hold up, or will it collapse and I have to keep the same job for forever or uproot my whole life? Will Starlink continue to be a reliable provider, or are they going to enter the race to the bottom in 5 years? In the end, I work remotely, about a 15 minute drive from the office, because of the certainty it brings. I don't have to watch the news with anxiety, waiting to see whether the life I've chosen has become unviable or not. That undercuts the kind of peace I'm looking for in moving to a rural area in the first place. It's probably less of a concern for the digital nomads, who seem to live in relative chaos generally (not a moral judgement, I can see the appeal, it's just not for me at this point in my life).

by shmatt 2y ago

esrauch 2y ago

Even if they leave a non-RTO company and join a non-RTO company its an interesting effect. It seems that being forced to RTO in the same role can lead to unhappiness and into 'shields down' (https://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/ https://randsinrepose.com/archives/shields-down/), then people are more willing to look around to see if there's a better deal on offer somewhere else (even if the _other_ deal ends up also being in-office).

bravetraveler 2y ago
This is delightful to read, thank you for sharing. Ham-fisted RTO was definitely my 'shields down' moment. The 'how' matters much like the 'what' or 'why'. In terms of on-site/remote, I'm not firmly for or against either. I see benefits in both. Similarly - it's interesting to see this from the manager PoV. I've been primarily WFH since ~2016 after doing the traditional thing for longer. I'm not new to either. Then the pandemic came/went... and how we kept working remained a hot topic. I saw executives above me (with more pull) get put in a tough spot: sell their new homes and relocate, or find new work. Then their peons/reporting managers tried to convince me that I'd be safe - appealing to pride saying I was too important to be lost to things like that. Yeah, right. As strange as it sounds... my shields were forced down out of preservation. It took over a year of (communicated) discontent before the shields finally went down for good. Nobody else did this - it was the business/leadership. I was productive despite most of the job not being about the work. It just so happens there are places requiring less work (relevant to the job or not) while being more rewarding. Loyalty is a funny dynamic. There's efficiency and leniency for everyone involved by choosing to not bike-shed over things like 'Where Are My Adults'. Doing the job you hired them for. I hope.
animuchan 2y ago
Absolutely, it's like any other worsening of the working conditions. When I've had a conflict of sorts with my direct manager, I also started looking elsewhere for job opportunities. Obviously in those other potential workplaces the same thing could happen, but in the current job I already know it has happened, so a coin flip is a (perceived) improvement. (Also when negotiating a new contract with a working-from-office company, there's a better chance of getting a hybrid model than if you're already an employee.)

malfist 2y ago

I wouldn't characterize Meta as being aggressive towards RTO. I get contacted by Meta recruiters all the time for remote roles. Last time I spoke to one they said RTO was only for those folks living near an office

p0seidon 2y ago
Probably depends on the role if it needs creative interaction.

segmondy 2y ago

If you have to RTO, better to RTO where you get paid better. I WFH and pay isn't what I can make if in office, I take the flexibility. If I have to RTO, I'll seek higher pay, even if it means relocating to a different location.

mgerdts 2y ago

Maybe the RTO job they switch to is a better match with their location. Some people accepted a job assuming or being told it was permanently WFH. From 2007 through 2010 I worked in an office in a job I didn’t particularly like and repeatedly turned away recruiters from Google. In 2010 I joined Oracle (Solaris org) remotely. As the Solaris org wound down, I continued to turn away the google recruiters with positions that would have required a move. Since leaving Oracle I’ve held two other remote jobs. If any of those remote jobs would have required me to move within commuting distance of an engineering office, I would have left.

everforward 2y ago

> It’s not surprising that people left MSFT for companies that pay double or triple. The part that’s more interesting is if people are willing to take a 50% pay cut to go remote. I haven’t seen any research on that yet It would also be interesting to see if there are preferences when given equal pay. I suspect most people have a number where they're willing to go into the office every day, it's not surprising to me that people are willing to RTO for multiples of their current pay. It all gets a touch weird when comparing comp, though. If someone takes a 50% pay cut, but they move from SF to somewhere that costs something like 60% less, have they taken a pay cut or not? That feels subjective to me, and I've heard both sides. Their ability to save may have gone down, their quality of life may have gone up, it feels like a wash. Another factor that may be weighing on people is stability of infrastructure and of the remote work job market. I grew up rural and would like to return to the country (not for farming, I already know I hate that from experience). I'm also fully remote, but haven't moved back. There are too many uncertainties. Will the remote work job market hold up, or will it collapse and I have to keep the same job for forever or uproot my whole life? Will Starlink continue to be a reliable provider, or are they going to enter the race to the bottom in 5 years? In the end, I work remotely, about a 15 minute drive from the office, because of the certainty it brings. I don't have to watch the news with anxiety, waiting to see whether the life I've chosen has become unviable or not. That undercuts the kind of peace I'm looking for in moving to a rural area in the first place. It's probably less of a concern for the digital nomads, who seem to live in relative chaos generally (not a moral judgement, I can see the appeal, it's just not for me at this point in my life).