6 ms·

Shove your office mandates, people still prefer working from home

62 points by rntn 2y ago

overu589 2y ago
This is where the hypocrisy and short sightedness of those worker/contractor regulations begins to show. If these transferred to independent there may be a win for all sides. Merit and recurring opportunities may become more competitive.
- everdrive 2y ago
  I think this ignores just how poor and inconsistent companies and managers are with regard to accurately judging talent and competence. If I were put into a more competitive system, it would not necessarily matter that I was above the bell curve with regard to talent. This is still a problem in the current system, except I only need to get my foot in the door once. Having to constantly sell myself to an arbitrary and incompetent crowd would probably bias towards skillsets I don’t have, even if I could complete the work just fine.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
bell-cot 2y ago
As usual, the article never lets slip that billions of humans have non-cushy-office jobs - for which remote work is not physically possible.
- Molitor5901 2y ago
  I have picked up on some social ..animosity towards those who WFH. You make a very good point, there are many, many more people who can never WFH, and I think there is growing negativity towards those who complain about having to go into an office. Working from home is very logical, cheaper, and better for a lot of office workers but the campaign against RTO could backfire if we are seen as privileged.
  - brianmcc 2y ago
    all true; there is though a useful point to be made that more WFH-ing office folks does free up transport for those who need to travel, be it rail/bus or just car commutes
    - zrobotics 2y ago
      One thing to consider is that most of the blue-collar workers who would have an easier commute into a city center due to WFH will have their job negatively affected by office workers not also traveling to the city center. If you do facilities work in a downtown area, people not working from the office means you have less work to do and your job is potentially affected. Same goes for restaurant workers, sanitation workers, etc.
  - beernet 2y ago
    > if we are seen as privileged This is not a matter of interpretation or view. You are privileged and your comment shows exactly that.
    - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
      I find the privileged argument to be unproductive. Do you work in a coal mine or a third world factory? Nearly every position has some level of privilege, does that make the desires of the workers invalid? Does that mean that every job needs to find the lowest common denominator working conditions?
    - drivingmenuts 2y ago
      If we are privileged, does that mean we should NOT work from home when it's clearly possible?
    - xigency 2y ago
      That's cool but I have crippling debt and I was just laid off. I'm considering signing up for disability or going to debtor's prison. I'm in my early 30s and I've spent way more than 10,000 hours programming and now my vision is suffering. Sure I was lucky enough I had WFH at a FAANG. I give to charity and I pay taxes. Do I need to self-flagellate some more or am I privileged enough now? I suppose I can always get a job at Walmart and apply for welfare because those are not exclusive at all. Lest my negative attitude get the better of both of us, we should believe that society's goals are to improve everyone's quality of life.
- no_wizard 2y ago
  The target audience of this article isn't workers in general though, its white collar workers who have white collar jobs that 100% allow workers to work from home. I don't think its a crime of omission to focus on the target audience by any means. The Register is a tech focused news outlet and an overwhelming amount of tech jobs are white collar jobs.
  - throw5959 2y ago
    How many are there? Not even people in finance/accounting can do that as they need to handle physical documents that must never leave the office. HR, marketing, sales people need to do the same and meet the humans. IT people seem to be the only group capable of doing so, I don't know anyone else in any other profession who would even consider 100% remote a possibility.
    - paulryanrogers 2y ago
      My uncle was a CPA who worked in finance for decades. His last few were partially or fully remote. Some consulting was onsite, but that was never a surprise and didn't change suddenly with the winds of management trends.
      - throw5959 2y ago
        So where does he keep his client's documents?
        paulryanrogers 2y ago
        Online
        throw5959 2y ago
        Lucky you, to live in such jurisdiction.
    - no_wizard 2y ago
- badgersnake 2y ago
  What would be the point in return to office mandates for people who don’t work in an office? It’s not mentioned because it’s irrelevant.
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  Eh, you institute WFH where it makes sense. I am a heavy WFH proponent and I am not suggesting that surgery should be done remotely ( at least not yet, but technology is supposedly improving in that area ). On the other hand, some jobs absolutely can be. Why on earth does everyone have to fit the same mold?
  - doublerabbit 2y ago
    Why should you be entitled to WFH and a cashier not? How would you create a mold for like someone above? If automation was to be implemented then there would be no job at all for the cashier. Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument?
    - SpaceToast 2y ago
      I don't think importance is a factor; it's simply a matter of whether a job can be done remotely. Not every occupation, at this point, can fall under this categorization.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
      Hmm? I am amused by the attempted framing, but it is neither of those. The job is not entitled, but it is bound by requirements bestowed by reality of how that job functions. For example, cashier's job happens to, often, involve physically moving stuff around at the same time customer wants to have it moved. Therefore, they, currently, have to physically be there. My job, for better or worse, however, has to exist in the same time-zone for the sake of meetings, while my output is more ephemeral. << Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument? Hadly. If anything, I would argue that my job is less important.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - doublerabbit 2y ago
        So what is your reason to wanting to WFH? You advocate it yet give none or is it "I don't need to commute, family matters, can do my washing through the day"
- danielbln 2y ago
  Why would it, it's an article about office jobs. The word "office" is mentioned in the headline and multiple times in the article, so why should the article mention factory workers or truck drivers? White collar workers working from home is better for anyone, less traffic, less pollution, better home situation (e.g. if you live in a household where the other party is not an office worker) and so on.
- lolinder 2y ago
  What exactly is your point? There are billions of humans who live in countries that don't have a functioning democracy, but we still find it to be valuable to fight to keep and advance democracy in those countries that have it. There are billions of humans who are poorer than the poor in rich countries, but we still find it to be valuable to fight for better living conditions for the poor in our own countries. Are you proposing that no one should fight for WFH because not everyone can? Or that there should be one of those "privilege disclaimers" at the top of all of these articles that apologizes for bothering to write a piece that fights for improved conditions for a group that is already perceived as privileged?
pimterry 2y ago
Right now, RTO mandates can work simply because many employers _want_ to shed staff. It's a tidy way to drop a few people without having to make hard individual decisions, in a form you can justify as keeping 'the most committed' and 'improving productivity'. Anywhere where it's an employee's market though, anywhere that employers are really fighting to hire or retain good staff and they _could_ do WFH, RTO is out of the question. I suspect medium-term those days will return for tech (once interest rates drop and funding reappears) and all of a sudden WFH will spike enormously once again, as a baseline perk required to compete when hiring good experienced staff. Hopefully this pendulum won't swing back and forth too many times before the industry settles on consistent norms, but I wouldn't be surprised.
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  If there's anything to be learned from this, it's that when you're a hot commodity you need to get the things you want in writing as part of your employment agreement.
  - paxys 2y ago
    If you are employed at will then that employment agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
      Yes and no. Breach of contract is a breach of contract.
      - paxys 2y ago
        It's not a breach of contract if the company is allowed to change the contract whenever they want.
        A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
        I don't want to push too hard, because it may be against HN code, but how many workplace disputes were you a part of and was it in US? I think it is a relevant question here though.
idhegeu 2y ago
Could companies place an explicit value on WFH vs WFO? e.g. Set WFH salaries to 50% of the WFO rate and let the market sort it out.
- gruez 2y ago
  Isn't this already happening between companies? If people really prefer WFH jobs, then WFH employers would be able to lower their wages. Doing it within companies will be tricky though, because apparently you lose around a third of the benefits of in-office work if even one person is remote[1]. [1] "I think another possibility, and there our paper gives a little bit of evidence, is that if you have even one colleague who is remote, that yields about 30 percent of the loss from having everyone be remote." https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/06/remote-work-study-women/678582/ https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/06/remote-...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- paxys 2y ago
  They kinda do this already with location-based pay.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Location-based pay is not the same thing because location-based pay pays more to people who live in SF but don't ever go into the office than it does to people who live somewhere else and don't go into the office. Location agnostic pay comes close to what OP is suggesting: put your pay in the median of the country as a whole and pay that consistently to everyone regardless of where they live. The company saves money by not having to match tech hub prices, and there are tens of thousands of developers across the country who would love to accept a pay scale that's weighted higher than their local market by the tech hubs.
- lolinder 2y ago
  50% is absurd, but in general full-remote companies that know what they're doing are already sort of doing this—forgoing location-based pay and offer a consistent rate anywhere in the country. That rate will be lower than what they were paying for people living in the tech hubs (maybe in some cases actually 50%), but represent a major pay bump for people in the rest of the country. It's a win-win for everyone except the people who really want to stay in tech hubs.
donatj 2y ago
I have mixed feelings about it. Do I think I got more done in the office? Undoubtably. Do I cherish the fact that I have been able to be home with my young children? More than anything. I did not have children pre-pandemic, and was anxious to return to office. When our office did reopen I was there most days. But then my wife and I had children and I have not willingly worked from the office since.
- esskay 2y ago
  Thats where things fall apart though. Your opinion will be formed on the fact you get more done in the office. I get less done in the office. I'm orders of magnitude more productive at home. So my opinion is formed on that basis. Theres absolutely no need to force a single option. Where I work we went for an approach of "the office is there, its open, you've got a key, if you want to use it, use it. If you don't then dont." That as far as I can see is the fairest approach. Those that prefer being in the office can do so, those that prefer being at home can do so. Theres no loser there, except perhaps anyone with a bizarre view of "well I'm in the office so you should be too" but those people are crazy nutjobs.
  - dave4420 2y ago
    When I work in an office, I’m more productive when the other people on my team are also in my office. If management make me come into the office and expect me to work with people who are working remotely or from a different office, I will bitch about it.
  - ike2792 2y ago
    The general problem is that the value of the office tends to be directly proportional to how many people are present. I led hybrid and cross-site teams before COVID, and if even one person wasn't in the office everything had to be handled the same way you would if everyone was remote. The value of being in an office is in-person whiteboarding sessions, impromptu conversations, team bonding, and similar things that aren't as valuable if most/all of a given team isn't present. Conversely, the value of being remote is lost if many people are in an office having those side conversations and the remote people end up feeling like second class citizens. It presents a difficult problem b/c both sides have a point: without nearly everyone committing to being in the office (at least on certain days) or full-time remote, you lose the full value of either setup.
cudgy 2y ago
This is mainly an effort to get people to quit without providing severance. However, if RTO actually meant returning to an actual office with walls and a productive work environment instead of a free-floating table in the middle of a huge open space of people using video conferencing apps and chatting about sports and entertainment, more workers would accept the huge negative of commute time.
- xigency 2y ago
  Microsoft used to give every computer programmer their own office. Even with levels.fyi types of salary there's been a significant erosion to the social/political capital of our field.
abeppu 2y ago
(apologies; wrong tab, can't delete)
- SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
  I think you're in the wrong comment section.
throw0101c 2y ago
The problem(s) with RTO were manifested even before the mandates: open office plans. Office rents show up on expense reports. So do employee salaries. What doesn't? Employee productivity. There are many studies[1][2][3] showing the open office plans are worse for productivity. But lots of companies built them anyway. If the companies want to make an argument for RTO is better for productivity, but they also have open office plans, then it is inconsistent and non-sensical. If you want complete RTO (more than 'hydrid' 2-3 days per week), then you should at least give cubicles, and ideally offices (even if it's 'only' 2-4 person per office). [1] https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-truth-about-open-offices https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-truth-about-open-offices [2] https://business.adobe.com/blog/perspectives/what-science-says-about-open-offices https://business.adobe.com/blog/perspectives/what-science-sa... [3] https://www.rivier.edu/academics/blog-posts/the-price-of-collaboration-open-office-environments-and-employee-productivity/ https://www.rivier.edu/academics/blog-posts/the-price-of-col...
- up2isomorphism 2y ago
  I actually found cubicles are most useless, they look cramped but you also loose privacy. If I can not get a close office room I would prefer an open space. The problem of the “modern” office space is that they tends to be a demonstration of how a company wants to show to the outsiders instead of actually fulfilling tasks. For examples, a large amount lobby and common areas looks nice, but are not useful at all for completing tasks, i.e writing code or meeting. This is particularly bad when people are required to rto now. Keep in mind, no matter how nice your common area looks like, most of them WON’T want to come if they had a choice.
- spacemadness 2y ago
  Open office plans are shown to improve corporate masculine energy though which is vital to our productivity or something.
kemiller2002 2y ago
I will be the first to say I enjoy working from home. I don't want to go back to the office. What I will also say, that what doubly makes me not go back to the office is the office space itself. It was expensive to put in. Some company paid a lot for it. There are marble tables in the break room, the furniture is obviously not cheap. It is all jarring. It is an assault on the visual and auditory senses. It's bright and loud and overwhelming. If companies want to try and lure someone back to the office, they should spend some time and money and make it nice. It's not a magic bullet. It won't make people think, "wow I want to spend 30-40 minutes in the car each morning," but it's a start. It's the same thing about catering food into the office, don't buy mediocre food an expect people to hail your praises. If you really cared, you'd actually care about the quality.
mattlondon 2y ago
I prefer working from the office, but don't like the commute. If London public transport was not so utterly awful AND expensive AND slow AND unreliable AND overcrowded AND filthy then maybe, but as it is I pay crazy high prices to get a really unpleasant and inefficient experience. Anyone who has the ability to drive to the office, I envy you. What bliss.
- gedy 2y ago
  Thanks for sharing the opinion, as many folks I know and here fantasize for public transportation like London instead of driving. (I'm with you after dealing with San Francisco transit, I actually prefer driving and having my own space and control)
  - mattlondon 2y ago
    The only redeeming factor for public transport in London is the tube, and that it does not have to deal with the traffic and you don't have to try to park when you get there. There is no other reason to take it. Note that the congestion charge in London was supposed to fix the traffic (still no parking though), but it didn't and it's now basically just a toll. Good luck NYC.
PaulRobinson 2y ago
I'm currently sat in an office surrounded by people forced to be here due to an RTO mandate. 1% of people like it. 99% don't. So why not vote with feet? Because the market is grid-locked, everybody who wants to move is looking, and so we're in a position where the jobs that are fully remote are starting to shift down in comp offers a little too fast for people able to afford to make the move. Here's the thing, those who are going to align to 100% WFH are going to get some _superb_ talent if they offer ~80%-90% of RTO equivalents, and they're going to win a lot of brain share. The brain drain is no longer about the Atlantic or even Mediterranean: it's evolving into London vs Bedfordshire, New York vs Arkansas... The RTO-mandate companies are going to look at this in about 12-18 months and realise they can't attract talent in much the same way those who can't get people in to the country on the right visas weren't able to get people a few years ago. It's going to be a wild ride. Personally, I can't wait. And if you're building a team right now, make a clear choice: RTO might work if you want young people to grow with you, but if you want experience, you're going to go a lot faster, a lot sooner, for quite a lot less money, if you follow the data and go remote-first.
up2isomorphism 2y ago
I have seen such claims right after we are recovering from pandemic. However actually the people are losing even more flexibility compared to pre pandemic. Why? These reporter should be realistic about the economic situation and job market.
kkfx 2y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/19/starling-bank-staff-resign-after-new-chief-executive-calls-for-more-time-in-office https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/19/starling-ba...

62 points by rntn 2y ago

This is where the hypocrisy and short sightedness of those worker/contractor regulations begins to show. If these transferred to independent there may be a win for all sides. Merit and recurring opportunities may become more competitive.

everdrive 2y ago
I think this ignores just how poor and inconsistent companies and managers are with regard to accurately judging talent and competence. If I were put into a more competitive system, it would not necessarily matter that I was above the bell curve with regard to talent. This is still a problem in the current system, except I only need to get my foot in the door once. Having to constantly sell myself to an arbitrary and incompetent crowd would probably bias towards skillsets I don’t have, even if I could complete the work just fine.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

bell-cot 2y ago

As usual, the article never lets slip that billions of humans have non-cushy-office jobs - for which remote work is not physically possible.

Molitor5901 2y ago
I have picked up on some social ..animosity towards those who WFH. You make a very good point, there are many, many more people who can never WFH, and I think there is growing negativity towards those who complain about having to go into an office. Working from home is very logical, cheaper, and better for a lot of office workers but the campaign against RTO could backfire if we are seen as privileged.
- brianmcc 2y ago
  all true; there is though a useful point to be made that more WFH-ing office folks does free up transport for those who need to travel, be it rail/bus or just car commutes
  - zrobotics 2y ago
    One thing to consider is that most of the blue-collar workers who would have an easier commute into a city center due to WFH will have their job negatively affected by office workers not also traveling to the city center. If you do facilities work in a downtown area, people not working from the office means you have less work to do and your job is potentially affected. Same goes for restaurant workers, sanitation workers, etc.
- beernet 2y ago
  > if we are seen as privileged This is not a matter of interpretation or view. You are privileged and your comment shows exactly that.
  - SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
    I find the privileged argument to be unproductive. Do you work in a coal mine or a third world factory? Nearly every position has some level of privilege, does that make the desires of the workers invalid? Does that mean that every job needs to find the lowest common denominator working conditions?
  - drivingmenuts 2y ago
    If we are privileged, does that mean we should NOT work from home when it's clearly possible?
  - xigency 2y ago
    That's cool but I have crippling debt and I was just laid off. I'm considering signing up for disability or going to debtor's prison. I'm in my early 30s and I've spent way more than 10,000 hours programming and now my vision is suffering. Sure I was lucky enough I had WFH at a FAANG. I give to charity and I pay taxes. Do I need to self-flagellate some more or am I privileged enough now? I suppose I can always get a job at Walmart and apply for welfare because those are not exclusive at all. Lest my negative attitude get the better of both of us, we should believe that society's goals are to improve everyone's quality of life.
no_wizard 2y ago
The target audience of this article isn't workers in general though, its white collar workers who have white collar jobs that 100% allow workers to work from home. I don't think its a crime of omission to focus on the target audience by any means. The Register is a tech focused news outlet and an overwhelming amount of tech jobs are white collar jobs.
- throw5959 2y ago
  How many are there? Not even people in finance/accounting can do that as they need to handle physical documents that must never leave the office. HR, marketing, sales people need to do the same and meet the humans. IT people seem to be the only group capable of doing so, I don't know anyone else in any other profession who would even consider 100% remote a possibility.
  - paulryanrogers 2y ago
    My uncle was a CPA who worked in finance for decades. His last few were partially or fully remote. Some consulting was onsite, but that was never a surprise and didn't change suddenly with the winds of management trends.
    - throw5959 2y ago
      So where does he keep his client's documents?
      - paulryanrogers 2y ago
        Online
        throw5959 2y ago
        Lucky you, to live in such jurisdiction.
  - no_wizard 2y ago
badgersnake 2y ago
What would be the point in return to office mandates for people who don’t work in an office? It’s not mentioned because it’s irrelevant.
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
Eh, you institute WFH where it makes sense. I am a heavy WFH proponent and I am not suggesting that surgery should be done remotely ( at least not yet, but technology is supposedly improving in that area ). On the other hand, some jobs absolutely can be. Why on earth does everyone have to fit the same mold?
- doublerabbit 2y ago
  Why should you be entitled to WFH and a cashier not? How would you create a mold for like someone above? If automation was to be implemented then there would be no job at all for the cashier. Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument?
  - SpaceToast 2y ago
    I don't think importance is a factor; it's simply a matter of whether a job can be done remotely. Not every occupation, at this point, can fall under this categorization.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    Hmm? I am amused by the attempted framing, but it is neither of those. The job is not entitled, but it is bound by requirements bestowed by reality of how that job functions. For example, cashier's job happens to, often, involve physically moving stuff around at the same time customer wants to have it moved. Therefore, they, currently, have to physically be there. My job, for better or worse, however, has to exist in the same time-zone for the sake of meetings, while my output is more ephemeral. << Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument? Hadly. If anything, I would argue that my job is less important.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - doublerabbit 2y ago
      So what is your reason to wanting to WFH? You advocate it yet give none or is it "I don't need to commute, family matters, can do my washing through the day"
danielbln 2y ago
Why would it, it's an article about office jobs. The word "office" is mentioned in the headline and multiple times in the article, so why should the article mention factory workers or truck drivers? White collar workers working from home is better for anyone, less traffic, less pollution, better home situation (e.g. if you live in a household where the other party is not an office worker) and so on.
lolinder 2y ago
What exactly is your point? There are billions of humans who live in countries that don't have a functioning democracy, but we still find it to be valuable to fight to keep and advance democracy in those countries that have it. There are billions of humans who are poorer than the poor in rich countries, but we still find it to be valuable to fight for better living conditions for the poor in our own countries. Are you proposing that no one should fight for WFH because not everyone can? Or that there should be one of those "privilege disclaimers" at the top of all of these articles that apologizes for bothering to write a piece that fights for improved conditions for a group that is already perceived as privileged?

pimterry 2y ago

Right now, RTO mandates can work simply because many employers _want_ to shed staff. It's a tidy way to drop a few people without having to make hard individual decisions, in a form you can justify as keeping 'the most committed' and 'improving productivity'. Anywhere where it's an employee's market though, anywhere that employers are really fighting to hire or retain good staff and they _could_ do WFH, RTO is out of the question. I suspect medium-term those days will return for tech (once interest rates drop and funding reappears) and all of a sudden WFH will spike enormously once again, as a baseline perk required to compete when hiring good experienced staff. Hopefully this pendulum won't swing back and forth too many times before the industry settles on consistent norms, but I wouldn't be surprised.

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
If there's anything to be learned from this, it's that when you're a hot commodity you need to get the things you want in writing as part of your employment agreement.
- paxys 2y ago
  If you are employed at will then that employment agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
    Yes and no. Breach of contract is a breach of contract.
    - paxys 2y ago
      It's not a breach of contract if the company is allowed to change the contract whenever they want.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
        I don't want to push too hard, because it may be against HN code, but how many workplace disputes were you a part of and was it in US? I think it is a relevant question here though.

idhegeu 2y ago

Could companies place an explicit value on WFH vs WFO? e.g. Set WFH salaries to 50% of the WFO rate and let the market sort it out.

gruez 2y ago
Isn't this already happening between companies? If people really prefer WFH jobs, then WFH employers would be able to lower their wages. Doing it within companies will be tricky though, because apparently you lose around a third of the benefits of in-office work if even one person is remote[1]. [1] "I think another possibility, and there our paper gives a little bit of evidence, is that if you have even one colleague who is remote, that yields about 30 percent of the loss from having everyone be remote." https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/06/remote-work-study-women/678582/ https://www.theatlantic.com/podcasts/archive/2024/06/remote-...
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paxys 2y ago
They kinda do this already with location-based pay.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Location-based pay is not the same thing because location-based pay pays more to people who live in SF but don't ever go into the office than it does to people who live somewhere else and don't go into the office. Location agnostic pay comes close to what OP is suggesting: put your pay in the median of the country as a whole and pay that consistently to everyone regardless of where they live. The company saves money by not having to match tech hub prices, and there are tens of thousands of developers across the country who would love to accept a pay scale that's weighted higher than their local market by the tech hubs.
lolinder 2y ago
50% is absurd, but in general full-remote companies that know what they're doing are already sort of doing this—forgoing location-based pay and offer a consistent rate anywhere in the country. That rate will be lower than what they were paying for people living in the tech hubs (maybe in some cases actually 50%), but represent a major pay bump for people in the rest of the country. It's a win-win for everyone except the people who really want to stay in tech hubs.

donatj 2y ago

I have mixed feelings about it. Do I think I got more done in the office? Undoubtably. Do I cherish the fact that I have been able to be home with my young children? More than anything. I did not have children pre-pandemic, and was anxious to return to office. When our office did reopen I was there most days. But then my wife and I had children and I have not willingly worked from the office since.

esskay 2y ago
Thats where things fall apart though. Your opinion will be formed on the fact you get more done in the office. I get less done in the office. I'm orders of magnitude more productive at home. So my opinion is formed on that basis. Theres absolutely no need to force a single option. Where I work we went for an approach of "the office is there, its open, you've got a key, if you want to use it, use it. If you don't then dont." That as far as I can see is the fairest approach. Those that prefer being in the office can do so, those that prefer being at home can do so. Theres no loser there, except perhaps anyone with a bizarre view of "well I'm in the office so you should be too" but those people are crazy nutjobs.
- dave4420 2y ago
  When I work in an office, I’m more productive when the other people on my team are also in my office. If management make me come into the office and expect me to work with people who are working remotely or from a different office, I will bitch about it.
- ike2792 2y ago
  The general problem is that the value of the office tends to be directly proportional to how many people are present. I led hybrid and cross-site teams before COVID, and if even one person wasn't in the office everything had to be handled the same way you would if everyone was remote. The value of being in an office is in-person whiteboarding sessions, impromptu conversations, team bonding, and similar things that aren't as valuable if most/all of a given team isn't present. Conversely, the value of being remote is lost if many people are in an office having those side conversations and the remote people end up feeling like second class citizens. It presents a difficult problem b/c both sides have a point: without nearly everyone committing to being in the office (at least on certain days) or full-time remote, you lose the full value of either setup.

cudgy 2y ago

This is mainly an effort to get people to quit without providing severance. However, if RTO actually meant returning to an actual office with walls and a productive work environment instead of a free-floating table in the middle of a huge open space of people using video conferencing apps and chatting about sports and entertainment, more workers would accept the huge negative of commute time.

xigency 2y ago
Microsoft used to give every computer programmer their own office. Even with levels.fyi types of salary there's been a significant erosion to the social/political capital of our field.

abeppu 2y ago

(apologies; wrong tab, can't delete)

SketchySeaBeast 2y ago
I think you're in the wrong comment section.

throw0101c 2y ago

The problem(s) with RTO were manifested even before the mandates: open office plans. Office rents show up on expense reports. So do employee salaries. What doesn't? Employee productivity. There are many studies[1][2][3] showing the open office plans are worse for productivity. But lots of companies built them anyway. If the companies want to make an argument for RTO is better for productivity, but they also have open office plans, then it is inconsistent and non-sensical. If you want complete RTO (more than 'hydrid' 2-3 days per week), then you should at least give cubicles, and ideally offices (even if it's 'only' 2-4 person per office). [1] https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-truth-about-open-offices https://hbr.org/2019/11/the-truth-about-open-offices [2] https://business.adobe.com/blog/perspectives/what-science-says-about-open-offices https://business.adobe.com/blog/perspectives/what-science-sa... [3] https://www.rivier.edu/academics/blog-posts/the-price-of-collaboration-open-office-environments-and-employee-productivity/ https://www.rivier.edu/academics/blog-posts/the-price-of-col...

up2isomorphism 2y ago
I actually found cubicles are most useless, they look cramped but you also loose privacy. If I can not get a close office room I would prefer an open space. The problem of the “modern” office space is that they tends to be a demonstration of how a company wants to show to the outsiders instead of actually fulfilling tasks. For examples, a large amount lobby and common areas looks nice, but are not useful at all for completing tasks, i.e writing code or meeting. This is particularly bad when people are required to rto now. Keep in mind, no matter how nice your common area looks like, most of them WON’T want to come if they had a choice.
spacemadness 2y ago
Open office plans are shown to improve corporate masculine energy though which is vital to our productivity or something.

kemiller2002 2y ago

I will be the first to say I enjoy working from home. I don't want to go back to the office. What I will also say, that what doubly makes me not go back to the office is the office space itself. It was expensive to put in. Some company paid a lot for it. There are marble tables in the break room, the furniture is obviously not cheap. It is all jarring. It is an assault on the visual and auditory senses. It's bright and loud and overwhelming. If companies want to try and lure someone back to the office, they should spend some time and money and make it nice. It's not a magic bullet. It won't make people think, "wow I want to spend 30-40 minutes in the car each morning," but it's a start. It's the same thing about catering food into the office, don't buy mediocre food an expect people to hail your praises. If you really cared, you'd actually care about the quality.

mattlondon 2y ago

I prefer working from the office, but don't like the commute. If London public transport was not so utterly awful AND expensive AND slow AND unreliable AND overcrowded AND filthy then maybe, but as it is I pay crazy high prices to get a really unpleasant and inefficient experience. Anyone who has the ability to drive to the office, I envy you. What bliss.

gedy 2y ago
Thanks for sharing the opinion, as many folks I know and here fantasize for public transportation like London instead of driving. (I'm with you after dealing with San Francisco transit, I actually prefer driving and having my own space and control)
- mattlondon 2y ago
  The only redeeming factor for public transport in London is the tube, and that it does not have to deal with the traffic and you don't have to try to park when you get there. There is no other reason to take it. Note that the congestion charge in London was supposed to fix the traffic (still no parking though), but it didn't and it's now basically just a toll. Good luck NYC.

PaulRobinson 2y ago

I'm currently sat in an office surrounded by people forced to be here due to an RTO mandate. 1% of people like it. 99% don't. So why not vote with feet? Because the market is grid-locked, everybody who wants to move is looking, and so we're in a position where the jobs that are fully remote are starting to shift down in comp offers a little too fast for people able to afford to make the move. Here's the thing, those who are going to align to 100% WFH are going to get some _superb_ talent if they offer ~80%-90% of RTO equivalents, and they're going to win a lot of brain share. The brain drain is no longer about the Atlantic or even Mediterranean: it's evolving into London vs Bedfordshire, New York vs Arkansas... The RTO-mandate companies are going to look at this in about 12-18 months and realise they can't attract talent in much the same way those who can't get people in to the country on the right visas weren't able to get people a few years ago. It's going to be a wild ride. Personally, I can't wait. And if you're building a team right now, make a clear choice: RTO might work if you want young people to grow with you, but if you want experience, you're going to go a lot faster, a lot sooner, for quite a lot less money, if you follow the data and go remote-first.

up2isomorphism 2y ago

I have seen such claims right after we are recovering from pandemic. However actually the people are losing even more flexibility compared to pre pandemic. Why? These reporter should be realistic about the economic situation and job market.

kkfx 2y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/19/starling-bank-staff-resign-after-new-chief-executive-calls-for-more-time-in-office https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/19/starling-ba...