4 ms·

> It's like people arguing over whether driving on the left or right side is better. It doesn't matter. As long as everyone in a system is in sync, it works. I

> It's like people arguing over whether driving on the left or right side is better. It doesn't matter. As long as everyone in a system is in sync, it works. I 100% agree with you and this is a great analogy. The biggest problem of all is that the left-lane (remote) contingent will say, “I don’t care what lane you drive in as long as I get to drive in the left lane.”

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> biggest problem of all is that the left-lane (remote) contingent will say, “I don’t care what lane you drive in as long as I get to drive in the left lane." Which obviously doesn't work. But what also doesn't work is companies pretending they're WFH or hybrid friendly when they're really not.
- paulcole 2y ago
  No, my point was that people who like remote work like to believe that as long as they are working where they want to work (their homes) then everyone else is happy as well if they can work where they want to work. They miss the point that Person A working in an office while Person B works at home is generally not what Person A wants. Person A generally wants to work with other people in the same physical space. The pro-remote crowd does not mind upsetting others as long as they can continue to work from home.
  - AbstractH24 2y ago
    That’s making a lot of assumptions about Person A
    - paulcole 2y ago
      Do you think there are no Person As in the world? And you think I’m not making assumptions about Person B?
  - no_wizard 2y ago
    Why does anyone have to cater to Person A? Frankly if people can work where they want to work that’s fine, but you’re saying that because one person wants to be in office their entire team does too?
    - paulcole 2y ago
      Believe it or not, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Let’s say Person A wants to be in the office with other people also in that office. Then Person B wants to work in their home and doesn’t care where other people work. If Person B gets their way (thru remote work) then Person A is dissatisfied. If Person A gets their way (thru companywide RTO) then Person B is dissatisfied. My point is Why should anyone have to cater to either Person B or Person A? Whichever choice a company makes, someone is going to be dissatisfied. There are no right or wrong choices here, just choices. The employees have choices, too. They can get new jobs or they can deal with a situation they find dissatisfying in some way.
      - no_wizard 2y ago
        This is more reasonable, and I agree with it. I think people should be able to work where they are most productive, assuming the work can reasonably accommodate such things, and business process and culture should adapt / grow accordingly. If a bunch of people really want to work in an office together, go ahead. Want to work from home? go ahead. Want to work hybrid? Have at it. The problem is, business culture hates worker flexibility, but sure loves executive flexibility.
  - phatskat 2y ago
    This feels like a wild take, and I haven’t seen anyone espouse the view that WFH people don’t mind upsetting others, other than you so far. I’ve seen people fervently against mandated RTO, and I understand that. I see people saying they want WFH as an option - also valid. The option to have WFH does not mean they’re advocating for others to not be able to be in office or hybrid. I’ve worked from home for years now, maybe about 10? And I don’t care at all if anyone wants to work in an office - go for it! I get it, and it’s not for me.
    - paulcole 2y ago
      > I haven’t seen anyone espouse the view that WFH people don’t mind upsetting others, other than you so far You may not have seen it, but you yourself do it just a few sentences later: > And I don’t care at all if anyone wants to work in an office - go for it! I get it, and it’s not for me. If you and I work together and my preference is to work in an office with other people in that office then you don't seem to mind upsetting me. And again, it is not bad to upset me. It is your right to upset me. Just the same as it is my right to upset you by requiring you to come into an office. Neither option is right and neither option is wrong. It's just that each one upsets a different person.
      - phatskat 2y ago
        Maybe my energy came across a bit off, and I apologize. I’m all for you working in an office - and if that’s something you and I would need to figure out if we worked together, I’d be happy to find a middle ground. I don’t think anyone should be required to do one or the other, and I think a team needs to be able to find compromises to get to a healthy place for all involved. Ideally, managers and employers would work to team people up who aligned on those views, and that’s unrealistic to expect for more so than to hope for.
        paulcole 2y ago
        > I don’t think anyone should be required to do one or the other Yes, you do not think that because you are OK upsetting me. I am OK with upsetting you by encouraging a full-company RTO policy. The compromise is that one of us deals with it or gets a new job.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> biggest problem of all is that the left-lane (remote) contingent will say, “I don’t care what lane you drive in as long as I get to drive in the left lane." Which obviously doesn't work. But what also doesn't work is companies pretending they're WFH or hybrid friendly when they're really not.

paulcole 2y ago
No, my point was that people who like remote work like to believe that as long as they are working where they want to work (their homes) then everyone else is happy as well if they can work where they want to work. They miss the point that Person A working in an office while Person B works at home is generally not what Person A wants. Person A generally wants to work with other people in the same physical space. The pro-remote crowd does not mind upsetting others as long as they can continue to work from home.
- AbstractH24 2y ago
  That’s making a lot of assumptions about Person A
  - paulcole 2y ago
    Do you think there are no Person As in the world? And you think I’m not making assumptions about Person B?
- no_wizard 2y ago
  Why does anyone have to cater to Person A? Frankly if people can work where they want to work that’s fine, but you’re saying that because one person wants to be in office their entire team does too?
  - paulcole 2y ago
    Believe it or not, that’s not at all what I’m saying. Let’s say Person A wants to be in the office with other people also in that office. Then Person B wants to work in their home and doesn’t care where other people work. If Person B gets their way (thru remote work) then Person A is dissatisfied. If Person A gets their way (thru companywide RTO) then Person B is dissatisfied. My point is Why should anyone have to cater to either Person B or Person A? Whichever choice a company makes, someone is going to be dissatisfied. There are no right or wrong choices here, just choices. The employees have choices, too. They can get new jobs or they can deal with a situation they find dissatisfying in some way.
    - no_wizard 2y ago
      This is more reasonable, and I agree with it. I think people should be able to work where they are most productive, assuming the work can reasonably accommodate such things, and business process and culture should adapt / grow accordingly. If a bunch of people really want to work in an office together, go ahead. Want to work from home? go ahead. Want to work hybrid? Have at it. The problem is, business culture hates worker flexibility, but sure loves executive flexibility.
- phatskat 2y ago
  This feels like a wild take, and I haven’t seen anyone espouse the view that WFH people don’t mind upsetting others, other than you so far. I’ve seen people fervently against mandated RTO, and I understand that. I see people saying they want WFH as an option - also valid. The option to have WFH does not mean they’re advocating for others to not be able to be in office or hybrid. I’ve worked from home for years now, maybe about 10? And I don’t care at all if anyone wants to work in an office - go for it! I get it, and it’s not for me.
  - paulcole 2y ago
    > I haven’t seen anyone espouse the view that WFH people don’t mind upsetting others, other than you so far You may not have seen it, but you yourself do it just a few sentences later: > And I don’t care at all if anyone wants to work in an office - go for it! I get it, and it’s not for me. If you and I work together and my preference is to work in an office with other people in that office then you don't seem to mind upsetting me. And again, it is not bad to upset me. It is your right to upset me. Just the same as it is my right to upset you by requiring you to come into an office. Neither option is right and neither option is wrong. It's just that each one upsets a different person.
    - phatskat 2y ago
      Maybe my energy came across a bit off, and I apologize. I’m all for you working in an office - and if that’s something you and I would need to figure out if we worked together, I’d be happy to find a middle ground. I don’t think anyone should be required to do one or the other, and I think a team needs to be able to find compromises to get to a healthy place for all involved. Ideally, managers and employers would work to team people up who aligned on those views, and that’s unrealistic to expect for more so than to hope for.
      - paulcole 2y ago
        > I don’t think anyone should be required to do one or the other Yes, you do not think that because you are OK upsetting me. I am OK with upsetting you by encouraging a full-company RTO policy. The compromise is that one of us deals with it or gets a new job.