5 ms·

Why though. Are all these companies doing RTO because they believe it's more productive?

by nopelynopington 1y ago

fred_is_fred 1y ago
Because people quitting is cheaper than a layoff. It's a tried and true method.
- pqtyw 1y ago
  Except you can pick who to fire and the people leaving because they have better options might be slightly more valuable. Then again trusting or upper or middle management to get that right (outside of small/medium companies) is impossible.
  - op00to 1y ago
    Amazon doesn’t need the best. They need the desperate, the good enough with no better options. Those you can abuse and squeeze.
  - fred_is_fred 1y ago
    That's a local problem in that it affects the teams themselves, for the guy running the global Amazon spreadsheet it doesn't matter.
add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
They wouldn't be rushing to take back facilities and electricity costs that had been offloaded to employees if they didn't think it was a net benefit. Local commercial real estate markets aren't holding the reins of the tech industry.
- skyyler 1y ago
  It seems like RTO isn't specific to the tech industry. It also seems like most publicly traded companies have instituted some form of RTO by now. I'm fairly certain that many entities that hold large amounts of commercial real estate also own large amounts of stock in companies that are doing RTO. It's not the most far-fetched conspiracy theory.
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    If Amazon (or some other company) thought they were going to be more profitable and more successful working remotely, I don't think the threat is credible of some commercial property owning shareholders deciding to further underperform the market by dumping shares unless that company made the decision to underperform by forcing RTO. "If you want to threaten me that you'll underperform unless I do, be my guest..." I suspect that different companies could have different motivations (including potentially forcing resignations), but it strains credibility for me that it's to answer to shareholders in conflict with what they think will make them successful.
    - skyyler 1y ago
      >it strains credibility for me that it's to answer to shareholders in conflict with what they think will make them successful I'm not so sure. I don't think that it's exactly the most probably scenario, but I can absolutely see it being a factor. I don't think there's some commercial real estate mogul on every F500 board demanding RTO, reality is way more complicated than that.
      - pqtyw 1y ago
        Maybe not, but if you have signed a massively expensive long-term lease and end up keeping the offices empty your investor will start looking cross at you. Of course that's more of a Covid era thing.
    - pqtyw 1y ago
      > If Amazon (or some other company) thought they were going This presumes that the company is fully capable of measuring and comparing the utility between RTO and working from home. That might be the case or it might be mainly due to management culture and other indirect factors but neither is self evident. Major corporations are almost by definition have massive amounts of bloat and inefficiency to one degree or another and are carried (especially tech companies) by certain products/teams/departments the rest are often there only for the ride (short to medium term at least and who has time for any "long-term" development these days?). To be clear, I don't think this has that much to do with people who are "lazy" or hard workers (you can put in extreme amounts of effort into something that leads nowhere). Anyway, not particularly pro or anti-RTO but I just find it bizarre that we usually assume that decisions making in large companies are always logical, rational and quantifiable and are not made to benefit specific subgroups or individuals in one way or another.
- gopher_space 1y ago
  They are in Seattle.
qq66 1y ago
Yes, for the company’s definition of productivity.
rxtexit 1y ago
I am full remote for a very small, non-software business but I think even for us we are probably losing productivity vs the office. I think child care is a big driver but no one can come out and say this. I am more productive remote but I wouldn't be if I was also baby sitting a 5 year old while working. A big reason I am more productive is living alone and not being distracted. A company can't demand a remote worker pay for child care so the kid isn't at home like in an office. I also think my increase in productivity doesn't offset the office slackers who are doing basically nothing at home. I think the office can squeeze some productivity out of the slackers while it is a lost cause remote. In the aggregate, I think for most companies it has to be a net loss of productivity to be 100% remote. While it is a huge increase in my general well being and happiness, the highly productive workers are going to be highly productive either way and not that much more productive remote. It is everyone else that causes remote to not work as well at the margin. Then if a competitor does RTO, the company almost has to hedge and RTO as well.
- lr1970 1y ago
  It basically boils down to the dichotomy -- "live to work" or "work to live". We want "work to be able to live" while the employers want us "live to be able to work".
  - bagacrap 1y ago
    That is not at all what the comment you responded to said. Rather, if you are of the mindset that you want to work the bare minimum to get by in life, then what constitutes the bare minimum is probably more when you're in an office. To cast those who enjoy their work as having no meaningful life outside of work is small minded and jealous.
- nopelynopington 1y ago
  A lot to unpack here. I have children. I work from home. I don't look after them at the same time. This is true for every parent in my company who works from home. > A company can't demand a remote worker pay for child care so the kid isn't at home like in an office. A company can't demand an in office worker pay for childcare either. But if they don't have arrangements, they can't come to work. You seem to be implying that every parent who works from home is only doing so in order to secretly mind their kids and not pay childcare which is a very unfair and unrealistic generalisation.
ultimafan 1y ago
I see a lot of people on HN claiming to be more productive at home and honestly think they are the exception rather than the norm. Maybe there is a bias here because the kind of person who is "locked-in" enough to their career field to browse and discuss work-related articles and threads outside of work hours happens to be the same kind of person who cares enough about what they do at their job to be productive even at home. I suspect for the majority of people though, working from home lacks the mixture of accountability and shame that comes from having to work side by side alongside your coworkers/managers/bosses and at least have to do some level of work to appear minimally productive. If no one is watching you and you feel that work is just a means to an end you might be tempted to goof off or drag your feet. I personally noticed that my productivity plummeted during work from home and skyrocketed when return to office was mandated. Probably it is at least somewhat related to the above. If I'm at home I might be tempted to go on a walk / do some chores / read a few chapters of a book / go workout / take a nap because I don't feel shame for it and no one can tell me otherwise. I would feel significantly more uncomfortable doing any of those things in the office and will more likely than not actually be forced to get some work done out of boredom and with no other options or distractions.
- op00to 1y ago
  What’s wrong with doing chores or going for a walk? Doing such things increases my productivity. At a certain point you hit a cliff where further effort doesn’t increase productivity. When I worked in an office, I would often go on walks by myself or with colleagues, explore the campus, etc. It’s hilarious to believe you can’t fuck off and play hooky when you’re in an office.
  - ultimafan 1y ago
    Nothing is inherently wrong with that if you still get your work done. And I agree that you can find ways to slack off in the office just the same. I'm not saying everyone needs to be glued in butt in seat 8 hours a day 5 days a week to be productive. I'm saying I suspect that for a large and noticeable enough amount of people it is more shameful to slack off in office when they have to spend all day sitting next to / passing by / talking to the people they are accountable to than when they spend their whole day at home with no worry that they're being judged by anyone. It's no doubt much easier to justify goofing off all day instead of working when your boss and coworkers aren't in constant visual range of you. Companies probably noticed this (I don't think a degree in psychology is needed to acknowledge that most people act differently alone vs in social settings) and are making people go back.
stuaxo 1y ago
An authoritarian streak amongst management. Something funny about dealing with AWS tech is that it's so full of bureaucracy, it feels like dealing with a soviet government department at times.

Why though. Are all these companies doing RTO because they believe it's more productive?

fred_is_fred 1y ago

Because people quitting is cheaper than a layoff. It's a tried and true method.

pqtyw 1y ago
Except you can pick who to fire and the people leaving because they have better options might be slightly more valuable. Then again trusting or upper or middle management to get that right (outside of small/medium companies) is impossible.
- op00to 1y ago
  Amazon doesn’t need the best. They need the desperate, the good enough with no better options. Those you can abuse and squeeze.
- fred_is_fred 1y ago
  That's a local problem in that it affects the teams themselves, for the guy running the global Amazon spreadsheet it doesn't matter.

add-sub-mul-div 1y ago

They wouldn't be rushing to take back facilities and electricity costs that had been offloaded to employees if they didn't think it was a net benefit. Local commercial real estate markets aren't holding the reins of the tech industry.

skyyler 1y ago
It seems like RTO isn't specific to the tech industry. It also seems like most publicly traded companies have instituted some form of RTO by now. I'm fairly certain that many entities that hold large amounts of commercial real estate also own large amounts of stock in companies that are doing RTO. It's not the most far-fetched conspiracy theory.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  If Amazon (or some other company) thought they were going to be more profitable and more successful working remotely, I don't think the threat is credible of some commercial property owning shareholders deciding to further underperform the market by dumping shares unless that company made the decision to underperform by forcing RTO. "If you want to threaten me that you'll underperform unless I do, be my guest..." I suspect that different companies could have different motivations (including potentially forcing resignations), but it strains credibility for me that it's to answer to shareholders in conflict with what they think will make them successful.
  - skyyler 1y ago
    >it strains credibility for me that it's to answer to shareholders in conflict with what they think will make them successful I'm not so sure. I don't think that it's exactly the most probably scenario, but I can absolutely see it being a factor. I don't think there's some commercial real estate mogul on every F500 board demanding RTO, reality is way more complicated than that.
    - pqtyw 1y ago
      Maybe not, but if you have signed a massively expensive long-term lease and end up keeping the offices empty your investor will start looking cross at you. Of course that's more of a Covid era thing.
  - pqtyw 1y ago
    > If Amazon (or some other company) thought they were going This presumes that the company is fully capable of measuring and comparing the utility between RTO and working from home. That might be the case or it might be mainly due to management culture and other indirect factors but neither is self evident. Major corporations are almost by definition have massive amounts of bloat and inefficiency to one degree or another and are carried (especially tech companies) by certain products/teams/departments the rest are often there only for the ride (short to medium term at least and who has time for any "long-term" development these days?). To be clear, I don't think this has that much to do with people who are "lazy" or hard workers (you can put in extreme amounts of effort into something that leads nowhere). Anyway, not particularly pro or anti-RTO but I just find it bizarre that we usually assume that decisions making in large companies are always logical, rational and quantifiable and are not made to benefit specific subgroups or individuals in one way or another.
gopher_space 1y ago
They are in Seattle.

qq66 1y ago

Yes, for the company’s definition of productivity.

rxtexit 1y ago

I am full remote for a very small, non-software business but I think even for us we are probably losing productivity vs the office. I think child care is a big driver but no one can come out and say this. I am more productive remote but I wouldn't be if I was also baby sitting a 5 year old while working. A big reason I am more productive is living alone and not being distracted. A company can't demand a remote worker pay for child care so the kid isn't at home like in an office. I also think my increase in productivity doesn't offset the office slackers who are doing basically nothing at home. I think the office can squeeze some productivity out of the slackers while it is a lost cause remote. In the aggregate, I think for most companies it has to be a net loss of productivity to be 100% remote. While it is a huge increase in my general well being and happiness, the highly productive workers are going to be highly productive either way and not that much more productive remote. It is everyone else that causes remote to not work as well at the margin. Then if a competitor does RTO, the company almost has to hedge and RTO as well.

lr1970 1y ago
It basically boils down to the dichotomy -- "live to work" or "work to live". We want "work to be able to live" while the employers want us "live to be able to work".
- bagacrap 1y ago
  That is not at all what the comment you responded to said. Rather, if you are of the mindset that you want to work the bare minimum to get by in life, then what constitutes the bare minimum is probably more when you're in an office. To cast those who enjoy their work as having no meaningful life outside of work is small minded and jealous.
nopelynopington 1y ago
A lot to unpack here. I have children. I work from home. I don't look after them at the same time. This is true for every parent in my company who works from home. > A company can't demand a remote worker pay for child care so the kid isn't at home like in an office. A company can't demand an in office worker pay for childcare either. But if they don't have arrangements, they can't come to work. You seem to be implying that every parent who works from home is only doing so in order to secretly mind their kids and not pay childcare which is a very unfair and unrealistic generalisation.

ultimafan 1y ago

I see a lot of people on HN claiming to be more productive at home and honestly think they are the exception rather than the norm. Maybe there is a bias here because the kind of person who is "locked-in" enough to their career field to browse and discuss work-related articles and threads outside of work hours happens to be the same kind of person who cares enough about what they do at their job to be productive even at home. I suspect for the majority of people though, working from home lacks the mixture of accountability and shame that comes from having to work side by side alongside your coworkers/managers/bosses and at least have to do some level of work to appear minimally productive. If no one is watching you and you feel that work is just a means to an end you might be tempted to goof off or drag your feet. I personally noticed that my productivity plummeted during work from home and skyrocketed when return to office was mandated. Probably it is at least somewhat related to the above. If I'm at home I might be tempted to go on a walk / do some chores / read a few chapters of a book / go workout / take a nap because I don't feel shame for it and no one can tell me otherwise. I would feel significantly more uncomfortable doing any of those things in the office and will more likely than not actually be forced to get some work done out of boredom and with no other options or distractions.

op00to 1y ago
What’s wrong with doing chores or going for a walk? Doing such things increases my productivity. At a certain point you hit a cliff where further effort doesn’t increase productivity. When I worked in an office, I would often go on walks by myself or with colleagues, explore the campus, etc. It’s hilarious to believe you can’t fuck off and play hooky when you’re in an office.
- ultimafan 1y ago
  Nothing is inherently wrong with that if you still get your work done. And I agree that you can find ways to slack off in the office just the same. I'm not saying everyone needs to be glued in butt in seat 8 hours a day 5 days a week to be productive. I'm saying I suspect that for a large and noticeable enough amount of people it is more shameful to slack off in office when they have to spend all day sitting next to / passing by / talking to the people they are accountable to than when they spend their whole day at home with no worry that they're being judged by anyone. It's no doubt much easier to justify goofing off all day instead of working when your boss and coworkers aren't in constant visual range of you. Companies probably noticed this (I don't think a degree in psychology is needed to acknowledge that most people act differently alone vs in social settings) and are making people go back.

stuaxo 1y ago

An authoritarian streak amongst management. Something funny about dealing with AWS tech is that it's so full of bureaucracy, it feels like dealing with a soviet government department at times.