3 ms·

My initial reaction was that WFH allows employees to work for anyone in the country, and therefore employers are opposed because it lets the national market ins

My initial reaction was that WFH allows employees to work for anyone in the country, and therefore employers are opposed because it lets the national market instead of the local market determine the price they have to pay for talent, and that employers are "fixing" the problem by demanding in-office. On second glance, though, employees also face a national market rather than a local one, and can be underbid for the job by anyone in the country. Maybe employers like that, and employees don't. But maybe it's like this: WFH means that employees can leave more easily. If you work in the office, and you're in my town, there's only so many places you can go. I can mistreat you (bad bosses, bad raises, bad working conditions), and your options are somewhat limited, and you're more likely to stay. But if you're full remote, the whole country is open to you (without even a relocation), so you're more likely to not take it. So I suspect that maybe bad bosses and bad companies want to avoid WFH, because remote employees are less constrained to put up with the bad conditions.

poikroequ 2y ago
It's complex and there is no single reason for employers to be for or against WFH.
The_Colonel 2y ago
Except these big RTO companies are mostly located in huge cities. Also, working currently in the office does not make it more difficult to leave and find a full remote job. It seems funny to me how people always look for the ulterior motives and give basically no chance to the explanation CEOs give (collocation leads to a more productive organization).
- salawat 2y ago
  >collocation leads to a more productive organization. Because it's horseshit, and everyone knows it. The only orgs that truly need colocation are those built around non-digital machines. Anything data based can be handled through one screen as well as another.
  - unshavedyak 2y ago
    It’s not entirely bullshit, as it does require slightly different behavior. Stubborn managers who refuse to adapt will lose efficiency in WFH teams. More likely to me is that many managers were coasting and not needing to actually track work, manage, etc. there’s a big pushback when they’re forced to actually do their job and not just rely on butts in seats.
- LiquidSky 2y ago
  >give basically no chance to the explanation CEOs give (collocation leads to a more productive organization). Well no, there have been years of chances for those CEOs demonstrate their position. That's precisely why no one believes them anymore. The problem for them is that there has been zero evidence for what they're saying. No one has been able to actually demonstrate these supposed benefits (or, more precisely, the supposed harms to productivity that WFH brings). You can see this in how their claims shifted over time: in the early days of the pandemic WFH shift they offered the productivity claims you note, but it soon became clear that there wasn't any evidence for that. Then the claims shifted to vaguer, non-measurable ones about office culture and exchanges of ideas. When that didn't really convince anyone it finally shifted to "you have to because we said so". So you're getting it precisely backwards: it's the proponents of returning to the office that now offer theories of conspiracies and secret data that totally support these moves but somehow can't be shown to anyone.

poikroequ 2y ago

It's complex and there is no single reason for employers to be for or against WFH.

The_Colonel 2y ago

Except these big RTO companies are mostly located in huge cities. Also, working currently in the office does not make it more difficult to leave and find a full remote job. It seems funny to me how people always look for the ulterior motives and give basically no chance to the explanation CEOs give (collocation leads to a more productive organization).

salawat 2y ago
>collocation leads to a more productive organization. Because it's horseshit, and everyone knows it. The only orgs that truly need colocation are those built around non-digital machines. Anything data based can be handled through one screen as well as another.
- unshavedyak 2y ago
  It’s not entirely bullshit, as it does require slightly different behavior. Stubborn managers who refuse to adapt will lose efficiency in WFH teams. More likely to me is that many managers were coasting and not needing to actually track work, manage, etc. there’s a big pushback when they’re forced to actually do their job and not just rely on butts in seats.
LiquidSky 2y ago
>give basically no chance to the explanation CEOs give (collocation leads to a more productive organization). Well no, there have been years of chances for those CEOs demonstrate their position. That's precisely why no one believes them anymore. The problem for them is that there has been zero evidence for what they're saying. No one has been able to actually demonstrate these supposed benefits (or, more precisely, the supposed harms to productivity that WFH brings). You can see this in how their claims shifted over time: in the early days of the pandemic WFH shift they offered the productivity claims you note, but it soon became clear that there wasn't any evidence for that. Then the claims shifted to vaguer, non-measurable ones about office culture and exchanges of ideas. When that didn't really convince anyone it finally shifted to "you have to because we said so". So you're getting it precisely backwards: it's the proponents of returning to the office that now offer theories of conspiracies and secret data that totally support these moves but somehow can't be shown to anyone.