6 ms·

Sheesh, why should it be unpopular. It's called having a preference/choice. Companies telling everyone to be in the office 5 days a week 9-5 (or whatever) is re

Sheesh, why should it be unpopular. It's called having a preference/choice. Companies telling everyone to be in the office 5 days a week 9-5 (or whatever) is removing that choice. Some like you may not mind, but for others it might be hell...

ljm 2y ago
totally depends on the job, team, and culture as well I think. I thought I'd enjoy going back to the office, until 5 days a week was enforced and I was frequently getting interrupted. As another commenter said, nurturing a social life is more difficult when working from home, you have to be deliberate about it. I felt the office just made it more convenient to hang out, but it never really happened because I was too burned out by the work.
- vladvasiliu 2y ago
  > As another commenter said, nurturing a social life is more difficult when working from home If you're happy with token interactions, sure. Your colleagues are right there (even talking to you while you try to work!). But IME, and from what I hear others say on HN and elsewhere, those aren't really "friends". The relationships are very superficial. How many of these people would help you move? With how many do you keep in contact when one of you changes jobs? I know exceptions exist, but those seem to be rather rare. So, if you actually want a deeper relationship, you still have to look for it deliberately. Only now, you have even less time to do it, since you're stuck in the office for 8 hours a day and possibly a few more depending on your commute. Whereas if you're at home, if it's not practical to go have lunch with a buddy or something, at least you can deal with some of your chores that can be time-consuming, while not requiring you to interact with them continuously, like laundry, waiting for a delivery, slow cooking something, etc.
  - devjab 2y ago
    I think it’s a little condescending to call them token interactions. They can be, but they also don’t have to be. I’ve worked in teams which were like little families while they lasted. I’ve had co-workers become real friends whom I still see many years after we stopped being co-workers. I’ve also had co-workers who were token interactions at best. I think it completely depends on who you are as a person, and also who you work with. Even if you don’t become life long friends you can easily have valuable social interactions with co-workers. Just like you can grow apart from friends. It’s all depending on the situation, and most often on you. At least in my experience. 5 days on office places are silly in my book. They’ll lose anyone talented enough to get another job. I’m an in office person for the most part, but if you take away my flexibility I’m frankly just going to work for someone who gives it back to me. Why wouldn’t I want the ability to work from home when I need to pick up the kids early or similar? In my experience the best of both worlds is when you let people work where they want but try to staff your teams with half of each preference or with people in between and then label certain days as preferred in-office days. Notice how I said preferred and not enforced. I my teams it has usually developed sort of naturally, often depending on what is for lunch.
    - saghm 2y ago
      Agreed! At the end of the day, humans at work are still humans, and can form any level of human connection with their coworkers. Long-lasting friendships that persevere past being coworkers isn't super common, but that's because making those friendships isn't super common in general. I think the very real human connections we can make with coworkers is a large part of why it can be easy to confuse mutual loyalty between coworkers with loyalty to a company (which is effectively never mutual because companies don't operate in a way that incentivizes caring about the feelings of individuals). That doesn't make it reasonable to _force_ people back into offices though. Companies requiring in-office work so that the workers can experience social interaction that they don't have time for outside work sounds pretty dystopian, and arguing for that for one's own personal benefit at the cost of others feels pretty selfish to me. To be clear, I think it's totally reasonable for a company to hire someone with the understanding that they'll be in-office, but the issue with what's going on now for me is that plenty of people who were hired with the understanding that they _wouldn't_ ever have to be in an office are now being told that they need to. I'd argue that forcing someone originally hired remotely to pick between coming into the office or resigning is effectively equivalent to firing without cause, and it's disappointing that it isn't viewed that way legally.
  - boredtofears 2y ago
    You've never had lasting relationships with co-workers? A significant percentage of my social circle is former coworkers. I still meet up with some that I haven't worked with for over a decade. Or even several decades if you count pre-career jobs. It'd be pretty weird for me to assume those interactions have to be token interactions.
    - vladvasiliu 2y ago
      I did, maybe one or two over some 12 years. I've been friendly with most of my co-workers, but aside from the two above, I wouldn't consider any of them "friends". As in we'd never randomly hang out outside of after-work drinks.
- mezzie2 2y ago
  I find nurturing a social life much easier when I'm WFH because I don't end each day dead on my feet from being overstimulated all day, being in uncomfortable clothes, etc. It also means I don't have to choose between chores and going out after work/on weekends. (A lot of my job is being available for issues and/or requires waiting on SMEs so I have downtime). And it means my social battery isn't drained by the 40 conversations about coworkers' kids that I don't care about (I participate to create a good social environment, but it's just not an enjoyable conversation topic for me) so I can spend my social energy on people and topics that actually fill my cup.
  - scottyah 2y ago
    I used to get drained by uncomfortable clothes without noticing it until I got on the Vuori train. There are plenty of other brands now but the Meta pants and Strato Tech Tee are my go-to's. Sizing up helps too. Not sponsored, I encourage you and anyone else who suffers from clothing-drain to try different brands too. Stretchy, breathable, and clean/crisp looking work best for me.
    - mezzie2 2y ago
      Weeeelll, one of the issues is that I'm female and am sensitive to pressure. Wearing a bra all day everyday SUCKS, especially since I'm a very strange size and shape so finding ones that fit costs hundreds of dollars and hours of my time. But God forbid men be aware that we have breasts and that sometimes they dangle or have nipples. Sizing up also doesn't work for women - we look slovenly then unless we go tailor everything which is more time and $. I prefer being able to work in a sports bra and sweatpants.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        > But God forbid men be aware that we have breasts and that sometimes they dangle or have nipples. They’re aware. What a strange comment. Are you mad? Edit: you have more nipples than I do, and I’ve never felt compelled to talk about it until right now.
- Insanity 2y ago
  The office makes it convenient to hang out with people who aren’t friends and unlikely to become so. In my 10+ years working in offices, I made exactly one friend (someone who I see outside of work). I would rather not commute and spend that time with actual friends, more quality social interaction over quantity. (YMMV of course)
  - pokerface_86 2y ago
    that’s generally what happens when you / the people you work with are socially awkward autismos. i hang out with several colleagues outside of work multiple times a week, and consider them friends
  - anthonypasq 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - dspillett 2y ago
      No, it is quite common. I'm very much a prefer-to-work-in-the-office-with-the-people-I'm-working-with person, but I've not made many long-lasting friends in my 24 years in the workplace since leaving full time education. Many short-term friends, yes, but not long-term, compared to the balance of people I've met in “hobby time” & similar.
    - Insanity 2y ago
      I don’t think it is a problem at all though - I don’t look for friends at work. I have an active social life _outside_ of work with people whom I choose to spend time with.
  - ljm 2y ago
    I’d just find it easier to make plans when I’m already in the city, rather than wrapping up and travelling into the city and arriving a bit later as a result. One of those things where I’m happy to hang out with a friend for an hour so if I’m already out, but travelling there only to return after an hour is less attractive.
jfranche 2y ago
Even more unpopular, you have a choice to work. To work at Amazon. We haven't really hit a true recession yet, esp for the laptop class. I think you will see more of this.
- sandworm101 2y ago
  Correct. Every job that can be done remotely can equally be done very remotely. At home tech workers compete in a global marketplace. My job requires me to be in the office, not by anyone's choice. It's a legal requirement. That offers me protection should cuts ever come.
  - mleo 2y ago
    Yes and no. Everyone on the team tries to be cognizant of time zones and coworkers availability. Trying to schedule meetings across multiple time zones quickly limits available working hours.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - dartos 2y ago
    We love legally backed job protections.
    - sandworm101 2y ago
      The laws are just the embodiment of the requirement, not the requirement themselves. Many jobs involve information and processes that simply cannot be handled in a home office environment. For instance, there aren't any work-from-home air traffic controllers. Nor do many companies let certain trade secrets be discussed outside dedicated facilities.
    - pokerface_86 2y ago
      especially when our friends in tech get laid off
treis 2y ago
Because it's really hard for a company to do both. Even if it's a remote first and the office is just a place to do zoom calls. Human nature will divide it into two camps with social bonds being stronger within the remote/on office groups than across. Speaking as someone who would have to be dragged back to an office, it's obvious that the in office group would win out. Bonds are weaker in the remote group and your type A ladder climbers will be overrepresented in the in office group. So hybrid office is probably going to lead to all in office. Especially in these difficult economic times as workforces stagnate or shrink in these companies.
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Some coordinated office presence + some WFH is a good mix that reduces commute times, increases WFH productivity (because in-office interactions lead to pressure to deliver), and maintains face-to-face access.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Teams that are relatively co-located geographically can coordinate to come into a location regularly on the same days. That really didn't happen where I worked and, as far as I know, the company continues to shed real estate. I'm not sure the execs especially liked the shift but, starting from the base of a fairly remote-friendly company, COVID just largely shredded whatever in-office culture there was for better or worse. So, yeah, I think there was some pre-COVID middle ground but you probably have a fairly large percent of people mostly coming into an office and a fairly small percent doing so--which of course tends to reinforce both behaviors. (And it grew a lot in a distributed manner as well which probably made getting everyone together physically all the time less relevant.)
  - treis 2y ago
    Think this is like a lot of things that work in theory but don't work in practice. You think you'll get the best of both worlds but really you get the worst of both.
    - 2y ago
consteval 2y ago
It's unpopular because the positions aren't on equal footing. In order to achieve the in-office scenario you HAVE to force people into the office. Because the office itself has no value - it's a building. The value is the people there. That's not the case with WFH setups. WFH scenarios do not care where people are. They could be in the office, in a stairwell, or on the beach. So one position is inherently one of control, and the other is one of freedom. Maybe that's controversial to say, but to me it's plainly true.
- nostrademons 2y ago
  You don't necessarily. Optional WFH or coworking arrangements let you come into the office if you prefer to, but let people who would rather WFH do so if they prefer to. They were pretty common even during the pandemic, eg. in my time in the startup scene probably 70-80% of founders worked out of a coworking office instead of their home.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Optional WFH is the one thing called "WFH" on the vast majority of cases. The few places that mandate you not to go to the office all make sure to make that position clear.
    - eric-hu 2y ago
      I’m currently job searching and I tend to just see (remote) or (hybrid). It usually requires me digging into the description to see if a company has an office I can go to. Some that are hybrid optional list themselves as (remote), but do so fully remote companies.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  I parsed that as: "If anyone has an office in a building, then everyone must have an office in that building and must be forced to work there." And I just don't follow that. Why must it be this way? So that the office is full? If so, then: If having the office full every day is an important metric and WfH interferes with that metric, then the problem is not that the people make choices. Instead, it is that the office is larger than it should be.
dspillett 2y ago
> Sheesh, why should it be unpopular. It shouldn't be, but it is for many. Most times I mention online preferring to not work remote I get people calling me some sort of corporate shill, or worse. (Or the posts just get downvoted to oblivion by people who can't articulate their objection more meaningfully than that!) > Companies telling everyone to be in the office 5 days a week 9-5 (or whatever) is removing that choice. The problem is that it is genuinely hard for a company to support both (and/or flexible mixes) well, and if you ask for a little of the old way it becomes a tribal binary us-vs-them thing. I work in the office most of the time because I prefer to keep work and home separate, and I find I work better that way, but I'm still working on a remote team because practically everyone else is remote. We have a day-per-week policy (well, more of a string suggestion) but most people ignore that. > It's called having a preference/choice. Unfortunately while people are usually all for being flexible when being flexible means doing things the way they prefer, being flexible in both directions is rarer than it should be. For instance: I dislike phone calls and video calls, to the point of significant anxiety, but trying to get people to just send me an email or IM instead has been an uphill struggle with some. Of course I'll clench my arse and take part in a call when it is the best way to deal with a situation (as it sometimes really is) or because there is no choice (perhaps it is dictated by a client, or those up high), or the dailies and other regulars (calls that are habit/routine are less of a problem) but otherwise I much prefer to communicate in person (“in person” in person, not virtual in person) or by text mediums. If I leave this tech job, or lose it for any reason, I think I'll have to retrain for a different industry, even if that means taking a hefty pay cut, heck even if that means mind-numbing minimum wage work. Working on a remote team is not great for my mental health, and it very much seems to have become the norm. Luckily in current DayJob we have found some sort of balance that works well enough, and I've been here long enough (and I'm sufficiently good at what I do) to be inconvenient to dispose of, and the people who wouldn't take the hint about not wanting to take a call for a chit-chat are no longer here, but at some point that might all change.

ljm 2y ago

totally depends on the job, team, and culture as well I think. I thought I'd enjoy going back to the office, until 5 days a week was enforced and I was frequently getting interrupted. As another commenter said, nurturing a social life is more difficult when working from home, you have to be deliberate about it. I felt the office just made it more convenient to hang out, but it never really happened because I was too burned out by the work.

vladvasiliu 2y ago
> As another commenter said, nurturing a social life is more difficult when working from home If you're happy with token interactions, sure. Your colleagues are right there (even talking to you while you try to work!). But IME, and from what I hear others say on HN and elsewhere, those aren't really "friends". The relationships are very superficial. How many of these people would help you move? With how many do you keep in contact when one of you changes jobs? I know exceptions exist, but those seem to be rather rare. So, if you actually want a deeper relationship, you still have to look for it deliberately. Only now, you have even less time to do it, since you're stuck in the office for 8 hours a day and possibly a few more depending on your commute. Whereas if you're at home, if it's not practical to go have lunch with a buddy or something, at least you can deal with some of your chores that can be time-consuming, while not requiring you to interact with them continuously, like laundry, waiting for a delivery, slow cooking something, etc.
- devjab 2y ago
  I think it’s a little condescending to call them token interactions. They can be, but they also don’t have to be. I’ve worked in teams which were like little families while they lasted. I’ve had co-workers become real friends whom I still see many years after we stopped being co-workers. I’ve also had co-workers who were token interactions at best. I think it completely depends on who you are as a person, and also who you work with. Even if you don’t become life long friends you can easily have valuable social interactions with co-workers. Just like you can grow apart from friends. It’s all depending on the situation, and most often on you. At least in my experience. 5 days on office places are silly in my book. They’ll lose anyone talented enough to get another job. I’m an in office person for the most part, but if you take away my flexibility I’m frankly just going to work for someone who gives it back to me. Why wouldn’t I want the ability to work from home when I need to pick up the kids early or similar? In my experience the best of both worlds is when you let people work where they want but try to staff your teams with half of each preference or with people in between and then label certain days as preferred in-office days. Notice how I said preferred and not enforced. I my teams it has usually developed sort of naturally, often depending on what is for lunch.
  - saghm 2y ago
    Agreed! At the end of the day, humans at work are still humans, and can form any level of human connection with their coworkers. Long-lasting friendships that persevere past being coworkers isn't super common, but that's because making those friendships isn't super common in general. I think the very real human connections we can make with coworkers is a large part of why it can be easy to confuse mutual loyalty between coworkers with loyalty to a company (which is effectively never mutual because companies don't operate in a way that incentivizes caring about the feelings of individuals). That doesn't make it reasonable to _force_ people back into offices though. Companies requiring in-office work so that the workers can experience social interaction that they don't have time for outside work sounds pretty dystopian, and arguing for that for one's own personal benefit at the cost of others feels pretty selfish to me. To be clear, I think it's totally reasonable for a company to hire someone with the understanding that they'll be in-office, but the issue with what's going on now for me is that plenty of people who were hired with the understanding that they _wouldn't_ ever have to be in an office are now being told that they need to. I'd argue that forcing someone originally hired remotely to pick between coming into the office or resigning is effectively equivalent to firing without cause, and it's disappointing that it isn't viewed that way legally.
- boredtofears 2y ago
  You've never had lasting relationships with co-workers? A significant percentage of my social circle is former coworkers. I still meet up with some that I haven't worked with for over a decade. Or even several decades if you count pre-career jobs. It'd be pretty weird for me to assume those interactions have to be token interactions.
  - vladvasiliu 2y ago
    I did, maybe one or two over some 12 years. I've been friendly with most of my co-workers, but aside from the two above, I wouldn't consider any of them "friends". As in we'd never randomly hang out outside of after-work drinks.
mezzie2 2y ago
I find nurturing a social life much easier when I'm WFH because I don't end each day dead on my feet from being overstimulated all day, being in uncomfortable clothes, etc. It also means I don't have to choose between chores and going out after work/on weekends. (A lot of my job is being available for issues and/or requires waiting on SMEs so I have downtime). And it means my social battery isn't drained by the 40 conversations about coworkers' kids that I don't care about (I participate to create a good social environment, but it's just not an enjoyable conversation topic for me) so I can spend my social energy on people and topics that actually fill my cup.
- scottyah 2y ago
  I used to get drained by uncomfortable clothes without noticing it until I got on the Vuori train. There are plenty of other brands now but the Meta pants and Strato Tech Tee are my go-to's. Sizing up helps too. Not sponsored, I encourage you and anyone else who suffers from clothing-drain to try different brands too. Stretchy, breathable, and clean/crisp looking work best for me.
  - mezzie2 2y ago
    Weeeelll, one of the issues is that I'm female and am sensitive to pressure. Wearing a bra all day everyday SUCKS, especially since I'm a very strange size and shape so finding ones that fit costs hundreds of dollars and hours of my time. But God forbid men be aware that we have breasts and that sometimes they dangle or have nipples. Sizing up also doesn't work for women - we look slovenly then unless we go tailor everything which is more time and $. I prefer being able to work in a sports bra and sweatpants.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      > But God forbid men be aware that we have breasts and that sometimes they dangle or have nipples. They’re aware. What a strange comment. Are you mad? Edit: you have more nipples than I do, and I’ve never felt compelled to talk about it until right now.
Insanity 2y ago
The office makes it convenient to hang out with people who aren’t friends and unlikely to become so. In my 10+ years working in offices, I made exactly one friend (someone who I see outside of work). I would rather not commute and spend that time with actual friends, more quality social interaction over quantity. (YMMV of course)
- pokerface_86 2y ago
  that’s generally what happens when you / the people you work with are socially awkward autismos. i hang out with several colleagues outside of work multiple times a week, and consider them friends
- anthonypasq 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - dspillett 2y ago
    No, it is quite common. I'm very much a prefer-to-work-in-the-office-with-the-people-I'm-working-with person, but I've not made many long-lasting friends in my 24 years in the workplace since leaving full time education. Many short-term friends, yes, but not long-term, compared to the balance of people I've met in “hobby time” & similar.
  - Insanity 2y ago
    I don’t think it is a problem at all though - I don’t look for friends at work. I have an active social life _outside_ of work with people whom I choose to spend time with.
- ljm 2y ago
  I’d just find it easier to make plans when I’m already in the city, rather than wrapping up and travelling into the city and arriving a bit later as a result. One of those things where I’m happy to hang out with a friend for an hour so if I’m already out, but travelling there only to return after an hour is less attractive.

jfranche 2y ago

Even more unpopular, you have a choice to work. To work at Amazon. We haven't really hit a true recession yet, esp for the laptop class. I think you will see more of this.

sandworm101 2y ago
Correct. Every job that can be done remotely can equally be done very remotely. At home tech workers compete in a global marketplace. My job requires me to be in the office, not by anyone's choice. It's a legal requirement. That offers me protection should cuts ever come.
- mleo 2y ago
  Yes and no. Everyone on the team tries to be cognizant of time zones and coworkers availability. Trying to schedule meetings across multiple time zones quickly limits available working hours.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- dartos 2y ago
  We love legally backed job protections.
  - sandworm101 2y ago
    The laws are just the embodiment of the requirement, not the requirement themselves. Many jobs involve information and processes that simply cannot be handled in a home office environment. For instance, there aren't any work-from-home air traffic controllers. Nor do many companies let certain trade secrets be discussed outside dedicated facilities.
  - pokerface_86 2y ago
    especially when our friends in tech get laid off

treis 2y ago

Because it's really hard for a company to do both. Even if it's a remote first and the office is just a place to do zoom calls. Human nature will divide it into two camps with social bonds being stronger within the remote/on office groups than across. Speaking as someone who would have to be dragged back to an office, it's obvious that the in office group would win out. Bonds are weaker in the remote group and your type A ladder climbers will be overrepresented in the in office group. So hybrid office is probably going to lead to all in office. Especially in these difficult economic times as workforces stagnate or shrink in these companies.

cryptonector 2y ago
Some coordinated office presence + some WFH is a good mix that reduces commute times, increases WFH productivity (because in-office interactions lead to pressure to deliver), and maintains face-to-face access.
ghaff 2y ago
Teams that are relatively co-located geographically can coordinate to come into a location regularly on the same days. That really didn't happen where I worked and, as far as I know, the company continues to shed real estate. I'm not sure the execs especially liked the shift but, starting from the base of a fairly remote-friendly company, COVID just largely shredded whatever in-office culture there was for better or worse. So, yeah, I think there was some pre-COVID middle ground but you probably have a fairly large percent of people mostly coming into an office and a fairly small percent doing so--which of course tends to reinforce both behaviors. (And it grew a lot in a distributed manner as well which probably made getting everyone together physically all the time less relevant.)
- treis 2y ago
  Think this is like a lot of things that work in theory but don't work in practice. You think you'll get the best of both worlds but really you get the worst of both.
  - 2y ago

consteval 2y ago

It's unpopular because the positions aren't on equal footing. In order to achieve the in-office scenario you HAVE to force people into the office. Because the office itself has no value - it's a building. The value is the people there. That's not the case with WFH setups. WFH scenarios do not care where people are. They could be in the office, in a stairwell, or on the beach. So one position is inherently one of control, and the other is one of freedom. Maybe that's controversial to say, but to me it's plainly true.

nostrademons 2y ago
You don't necessarily. Optional WFH or coworking arrangements let you come into the office if you prefer to, but let people who would rather WFH do so if they prefer to. They were pretty common even during the pandemic, eg. in my time in the startup scene probably 70-80% of founders worked out of a coworking office instead of their home.
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Optional WFH is the one thing called "WFH" on the vast majority of cases. The few places that mandate you not to go to the office all make sure to make that position clear.
  - eric-hu 2y ago
    I’m currently job searching and I tend to just see (remote) or (hybrid). It usually requires me digging into the description to see if a company has an office I can go to. Some that are hybrid optional list themselves as (remote), but do so fully remote companies.
ssl-3 2y ago
I parsed that as: "If anyone has an office in a building, then everyone must have an office in that building and must be forced to work there." And I just don't follow that. Why must it be this way? So that the office is full? If so, then: If having the office full every day is an important metric and WfH interferes with that metric, then the problem is not that the people make choices. Instead, it is that the office is larger than it should be.

dspillett 2y ago

> Sheesh, why should it be unpopular. It shouldn't be, but it is for many. Most times I mention online preferring to not work remote I get people calling me some sort of corporate shill, or worse. (Or the posts just get downvoted to oblivion by people who can't articulate their objection more meaningfully than that!) > Companies telling everyone to be in the office 5 days a week 9-5 (or whatever) is removing that choice. The problem is that it is genuinely hard for a company to support both (and/or flexible mixes) well, and if you ask for a little of the old way it becomes a tribal binary us-vs-them thing. I work in the office most of the time because I prefer to keep work and home separate, and I find I work better that way, but I'm still working on a remote team because practically everyone else is remote. We have a day-per-week policy (well, more of a string suggestion) but most people ignore that. > It's called having a preference/choice. Unfortunately while people are usually all for being flexible when being flexible means doing things the way they prefer, being flexible in both directions is rarer than it should be. For instance: I dislike phone calls and video calls, to the point of significant anxiety, but trying to get people to just send me an email or IM instead has been an uphill struggle with some. Of course I'll clench my arse and take part in a call when it is the best way to deal with a situation (as it sometimes really is) or because there is no choice (perhaps it is dictated by a client, or those up high), or the dailies and other regulars (calls that are habit/routine are less of a problem) but otherwise I much prefer to communicate in person (“in person” in person, not virtual in person) or by text mediums. If I leave this tech job, or lose it for any reason, I think I'll have to retrain for a different industry, even if that means taking a hefty pay cut, heck even if that means mind-numbing minimum wage work. Working on a remote team is not great for my mental health, and it very much seems to have become the norm. Luckily in current DayJob we have found some sort of balance that works well enough, and I've been here long enough (and I'm sufficiently good at what I do) to be inconvenient to dispose of, and the people who wouldn't take the hint about not wanting to take a call for a chit-chat are no longer here, but at some point that might all change.