3 ms·

I've been applying for tech jobs in Australia and what I've seen is almost all tech jobs are hybrid, with 2-3 mandatory days in office and the rest up to you. H

I've been applying for tech jobs in Australia and what I've seen is almost all tech jobs are hybrid, with 2-3 mandatory days in office and the rest up to you. Have not encountered any 5 day mandatory jobs, and few 100% remote. Which makes sense to me. In office is very much useful for collaboration, team building, etc. But you aren't doing that 5 days a week anyway.

derr1 2y ago
I interviewed for a UK company that said 5 days in-office was a hard requirement. I politely declined and the interview ended shortly thereafter! Seems like a massive time waste for no benefit. I go to the office 1-2x a week and that's enough for me to meet my team members and collaborate. But any more than that is too much!
regularfry 2y ago
What's fascinating to me is how much everyone seems to have accepted the "per week" framing, which puts an implicit 20% lower bound on the ratio. In-office may be useful for some things, but I see very little thought given to how little of those things you actually need, what the optimum frequency is (rather than the overall amount), how clumping days in a row might affect things, or how those in-office days should be coordinated between teams. My hunch is that team-building and the more social aspects need far less than justifies anything like once a week; and collaboration is always best done at point of need, not to a schedule, in my experience. That need might be week-long! That can happen! But to assume everyone's best served by some arbitrary ratio is patently absurd; so much so that I find it hard to take arguments for it in good faith. I will acknowledge that new starters and juniors do need hand-holding, and in most companies that's hard to substitute out. The mechanisms for doing that face to face are well established. But I don't think that's impossible to migrate to a mostly remote experience.
- Gigachad 2y ago
  Personally I find 2-3 days pretty much right. If I ever need to talk to someone I just have to hold it for tomorrow and chat in person. But still allowing for flexibility for the random stuff you might have to do (doctors appointments, rental inspections, etc)
- ryandrake 2y ago
  If I had to do hybrid, I would MUCH rather 1 week per month than 1 day per week, even though it would technically be more time spent in the office. And I would much rather 3 months per year than 1 week per month, assuming corp subsidizes a hotel room like all business travel. Both of those alternative schedules allow me to move out of my employer's expensive location which to me is the number one selling point of remote work. 1 day per week means I still have to live there.
wkat4242 2y ago
I also have 2 mandatory days but they are completely useless. Due to the hotdesking I'm sitting next to people I have nothing to do with. On the same calls as i am doing at home because my entire team is in other countries.
theshrike79 2y ago
We have a suggestion that teams decide which day to be at the office, but it's not enforced on a company level. For my team we picked Mondays, so we can have our chats and meetings then and focus on work the rest of the week.

derr1 2y ago

I interviewed for a UK company that said 5 days in-office was a hard requirement. I politely declined and the interview ended shortly thereafter! Seems like a massive time waste for no benefit. I go to the office 1-2x a week and that's enough for me to meet my team members and collaborate. But any more than that is too much!

regularfry 2y ago

What's fascinating to me is how much everyone seems to have accepted the "per week" framing, which puts an implicit 20% lower bound on the ratio. In-office may be useful for some things, but I see very little thought given to how little of those things you actually need, what the optimum frequency is (rather than the overall amount), how clumping days in a row might affect things, or how those in-office days should be coordinated between teams. My hunch is that team-building and the more social aspects need far less than justifies anything like once a week; and collaboration is always best done at point of need, not to a schedule, in my experience. That need might be week-long! That can happen! But to assume everyone's best served by some arbitrary ratio is patently absurd; so much so that I find it hard to take arguments for it in good faith. I will acknowledge that new starters and juniors do need hand-holding, and in most companies that's hard to substitute out. The mechanisms for doing that face to face are well established. But I don't think that's impossible to migrate to a mostly remote experience.

Gigachad 2y ago
Personally I find 2-3 days pretty much right. If I ever need to talk to someone I just have to hold it for tomorrow and chat in person. But still allowing for flexibility for the random stuff you might have to do (doctors appointments, rental inspections, etc)
ryandrake 2y ago
If I had to do hybrid, I would MUCH rather 1 week per month than 1 day per week, even though it would technically be more time spent in the office. And I would much rather 3 months per year than 1 week per month, assuming corp subsidizes a hotel room like all business travel. Both of those alternative schedules allow me to move out of my employer's expensive location which to me is the number one selling point of remote work. 1 day per week means I still have to live there.

wkat4242 2y ago

I also have 2 mandatory days but they are completely useless. Due to the hotdesking I'm sitting next to people I have nothing to do with. On the same calls as i am doing at home because my entire team is in other countries.

theshrike79 2y ago

We have a suggestion that teams decide which day to be at the office, but it's not enforced on a company level. For my team we picked Mondays, so we can have our chats and meetings then and focus on work the rest of the week.