3 ms·

The question is whether enough of the other people around you have the same characteristic you describe that it's reasonable to require it for everyone, includi

by saghm 11mo ago

The question is whether enough of the other people around you have the same characteristic you describe that it's reasonable to require it for everyone, including the ones that don't. For those of us who don't work better that way, being required to go into an office in person to provide ambience for our coworkers is extremely dehumanizing.

fluoridation 11mo ago
How is that dehumanizing when (by the parameters you've set) you're required to do it because you're human?
- kaffekaka 11mo ago
  Because you are used as a tool for other people.
  - fluoridation 11mo ago
    Is that any more dehumanizing than just working a job in general?
    - saghm 11mo ago
      Not all jobs are equally dehumanizing, and not everyone finds the same things equally dehumanizing, especially in the context of what one's job is described as is part of the overall experience. If I'm hired with the expectation of writing software, I don't want to be expected to run out and get coffee for my coworkers so that they can write software better. That doesn't mean that I think everyone will find going on coffee runs dehumanizing, or that writing software can't be dehumanizing for some people; the point is that I value my autonomy in deciding to accept a job with the parameters that work for me, and I happen to find that I'm most happy when I can proactively contribute things that help my coworkers rather than passively being a part of their environment or having expectations change without my consent (e.g. being told after multiple years working remotely that I need to start going into an office or "voluntarily" leave).
      - fluoridation 11mo ago
        I really think those are bad examples. I don't see how someone making what you consider to be an unreasonable request can make one feel dehumanized. Insulted or demeaned? Maybe, sure. But dehumanized? What does that say about your opinion of people who do do coffee runs or who like to work in offices? Nevertheless, I'll roll with it. I would say it comes down to common practices. Commonly, engineers don't do coffee runs. Commonly, office jobs have always been done in an office, and this status quo has only changed fairly recently (let's say in the last 20 years). History could have played out such that it became common practice for coffee run duty to cycle over everyone in the office, regardless of role, in which case asking you to do it would have been perfectly reasonable, and someone would be right to ask what makes you so special than you can't do something everyone else does. Likewise for remote work. Some places allow it, some don't, and some may transition from one to the other. Since this is known to be the case (no one will believe you if you try to feign ignorance on this), it is reasonable to require to come to the office, no matter how many years you've been doing remote work. >having expectations change without my consent (e.g. being told after multiple years working remotely that I need to start going into an office or "voluntarily" leave). When expectations change unilaterally, that usually calls for a renegotiation. The correct response to "we want you to start coming to the office every day" is "okay, then I want $x more every year to cover my additional expenses". Now, it could be that either or neither party is willing to negotiate on such terms, or even that they do negotiate but no consensus is reached, in which case you just have to dissolve the business relationship. What else can you do?
        saghm 11mo ago
        > I really think those are bad examples. I don't see how someone making what you consider to be an unreasonable request can make one feel dehumanized. Insulted or demeaned? Maybe, sure. But dehumanized? What does that say about your opinion of people who do do coffee runs or who like to work in offices? Being asked to do the exact thing you've signed up for isn't inherently dehumanizing (although it certainly can be; I don't have any trouble imagining that people agree to do jobs that are dehumanizing because they need income and don't have any stronger prospects, but that's an entirely different topic of discussion). I feel like you've missed the context I gave about the initial job one is hired for being different from what they're tasked with doing; I didn't say that having to do coffee runs is inherently going to be dehumanizing, but that it's dehumanizing when you're hired to do something entirely different. Treating people as interchangeable units of labor is pretty much a textbook example of dehumanization in my opinion; we're not cogs who should be freely reassigned by authorities based on their whims, but individuals deserving of some semblance of autonomy and self-determination. > Some places allow it, some don't, and some may transition from one to the other. Since this is known to be the case (no one will believe you if you try to feign ignorance on this), it is reasonable to require to come to the office, no matter how many years you've been doing remote work. This is honestly a pretty absurd conclusion. Because I'm aware that some companies have certain policies, I'm implicitly agreeing to literally any of those policies by agreeing to employment to any single one? Plenty of companies require their employees to be clean-shaven, but someone who has worked for a company for years is told they need to either shave their beard or quit without severance, I can't imagine any argument I would find compelling about why that would be reasonable. I'm sure you'll be able to come up with plenty of arguments about why you also think this example is absurd, but so far everything you've described is extremely abstract, so it's not clear to me whether there are any real-world examples you wouldn't reject based on not being an exact match to the hypothetical you've described. > The correct response to "we want you to start coming to the office every day" is "okay, then I want $x more every year to cover my additional expenses". Now, it could be that either or neither party is willing to negotiate on such terms, or even that they do negotiate but no consensus is reached, in which case you just have to dissolve the business relationship. What else can you do? In some societies (but not the United States), a company unilaterally trying to change the terms of employment in a way that the employee disagrees with is grounds for the employee to receive severance. There are examples even in American society of companies being forced to restore positions to people who were terminated for reasons found to be unlawful. I fundamentally disagree with the presumption that I need to be willing to present a company with an amount of money for them to force me to change my circumstances; if they're the ones who want to change things, the onus should be on them to convince me, or else they should be required to compensate me for their unwillingness to continue with the previous agreement. This isn't how things work with "at-will" employment though, and the number of software companies in the United States that offer anything other than at-will employment beyond finite length contracts are at most a rounding error above zero. This doesn't mean I have to think this is fair or reasonable; quite a lot of things in life are unfair or unreasonable without being within our individual abilities to influence, and it's not hypocritical to be willing to point those out even if I'm not willing to risk the livelihood of myself or my family to make a point about it that will in all likelihood change nothing.
redhale 11mo ago
You've brought in "require" from nowhere. Neither the parent comment nor OP's article mentioned _requiring_ in-office attendance for everyone on earth. Many people make this leap, so I don't mean to single you out. I think this is one reason this topic is so touchy -- it's hard to even express an opinion without someone assuming you mean to impose that opinion on everyone else (e.g. mandatory RTO), and then taking offense to that imagined imposition. Perhaps in the long run we can self-organize into companies or groups within companies that universally prefer in-office or remote work. I prefer at least some % (e.g. 50%) of my work to be in person. But I also don't like working with people who don't want to be there, or for whom being there is a huge burden. So I personally really hate RTO. Instead, I'll choose a team or company that is open about requiring in-office time (and has been open about it for years), and is therefore staffed by people who also like that environment. It would be ludicrous to join a remote-first or remote-only company and then try to start imposing my in-person preference on others.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- saghm 11mo ago
  OP's article didn't explicitly state requiring, but it did claim make the claim that I'm objectively worse at my job by working remotely than I am in person: > Remote work eliminates a lot of problems with office work: commutes, inefficient use of real estate, and land value distortion. But software development is better when you breathe the same air as the folks you work with. Even with a camera-on policy, video calls are a low-bandwidth medium. You lose ambient awareness of coworkers’ problems, and asking for help is a bigger burden. Pair programming is less fruitful. Attempts to represent ideas spatially get mutilated by online whiteboard and sticky note software. Even conflict gets worse: it’s easy to form an enemy image of somebody at the end of video call, but difficult to keep that image when you share a room with them and sense their pain. None of that is phrased as personal opinion or their own subjective experience. I don't think it's hard to express an experience about personal preference, but it's hard to express an opinion about how other people's experiences without them having something to say about it if they disagree.

by saghm 11mo ago

fluoridation 11mo ago

How is that dehumanizing when (by the parameters you've set) you're required to do it because you're human?

kaffekaka 11mo ago
Because you are used as a tool for other people.
- fluoridation 11mo ago
  Is that any more dehumanizing than just working a job in general?
  - saghm 11mo ago
    Not all jobs are equally dehumanizing, and not everyone finds the same things equally dehumanizing, especially in the context of what one's job is described as is part of the overall experience. If I'm hired with the expectation of writing software, I don't want to be expected to run out and get coffee for my coworkers so that they can write software better. That doesn't mean that I think everyone will find going on coffee runs dehumanizing, or that writing software can't be dehumanizing for some people; the point is that I value my autonomy in deciding to accept a job with the parameters that work for me, and I happen to find that I'm most happy when I can proactively contribute things that help my coworkers rather than passively being a part of their environment or having expectations change without my consent (e.g. being told after multiple years working remotely that I need to start going into an office or "voluntarily" leave).
    - fluoridation 11mo ago
      I really think those are bad examples. I don't see how someone making what you consider to be an unreasonable request can make one feel dehumanized. Insulted or demeaned? Maybe, sure. But dehumanized? What does that say about your opinion of people who do do coffee runs or who like to work in offices? Nevertheless, I'll roll with it. I would say it comes down to common practices. Commonly, engineers don't do coffee runs. Commonly, office jobs have always been done in an office, and this status quo has only changed fairly recently (let's say in the last 20 years). History could have played out such that it became common practice for coffee run duty to cycle over everyone in the office, regardless of role, in which case asking you to do it would have been perfectly reasonable, and someone would be right to ask what makes you so special than you can't do something everyone else does. Likewise for remote work. Some places allow it, some don't, and some may transition from one to the other. Since this is known to be the case (no one will believe you if you try to feign ignorance on this), it is reasonable to require to come to the office, no matter how many years you've been doing remote work. >having expectations change without my consent (e.g. being told after multiple years working remotely that I need to start going into an office or "voluntarily" leave). When expectations change unilaterally, that usually calls for a renegotiation. The correct response to "we want you to start coming to the office every day" is "okay, then I want $x more every year to cover my additional expenses". Now, it could be that either or neither party is willing to negotiate on such terms, or even that they do negotiate but no consensus is reached, in which case you just have to dissolve the business relationship. What else can you do?
      - saghm 11mo ago
        > I really think those are bad examples. I don't see how someone making what you consider to be an unreasonable request can make one feel dehumanized. Insulted or demeaned? Maybe, sure. But dehumanized? What does that say about your opinion of people who do do coffee runs or who like to work in offices? Being asked to do the exact thing you've signed up for isn't inherently dehumanizing (although it certainly can be; I don't have any trouble imagining that people agree to do jobs that are dehumanizing because they need income and don't have any stronger prospects, but that's an entirely different topic of discussion). I feel like you've missed the context I gave about the initial job one is hired for being different from what they're tasked with doing; I didn't say that having to do coffee runs is inherently going to be dehumanizing, but that it's dehumanizing when you're hired to do something entirely different. Treating people as interchangeable units of labor is pretty much a textbook example of dehumanization in my opinion; we're not cogs who should be freely reassigned by authorities based on their whims, but individuals deserving of some semblance of autonomy and self-determination. > Some places allow it, some don't, and some may transition from one to the other. Since this is known to be the case (no one will believe you if you try to feign ignorance on this), it is reasonable to require to come to the office, no matter how many years you've been doing remote work. This is honestly a pretty absurd conclusion. Because I'm aware that some companies have certain policies, I'm implicitly agreeing to literally any of those policies by agreeing to employment to any single one? Plenty of companies require their employees to be clean-shaven, but someone who has worked for a company for years is told they need to either shave their beard or quit without severance, I can't imagine any argument I would find compelling about why that would be reasonable. I'm sure you'll be able to come up with plenty of arguments about why you also think this example is absurd, but so far everything you've described is extremely abstract, so it's not clear to me whether there are any real-world examples you wouldn't reject based on not being an exact match to the hypothetical you've described. > The correct response to "we want you to start coming to the office every day" is "okay, then I want $x more every year to cover my additional expenses". Now, it could be that either or neither party is willing to negotiate on such terms, or even that they do negotiate but no consensus is reached, in which case you just have to dissolve the business relationship. What else can you do? In some societies (but not the United States), a company unilaterally trying to change the terms of employment in a way that the employee disagrees with is grounds for the employee to receive severance. There are examples even in American society of companies being forced to restore positions to people who were terminated for reasons found to be unlawful. I fundamentally disagree with the presumption that I need to be willing to present a company with an amount of money for them to force me to change my circumstances; if they're the ones who want to change things, the onus should be on them to convince me, or else they should be required to compensate me for their unwillingness to continue with the previous agreement. This isn't how things work with "at-will" employment though, and the number of software companies in the United States that offer anything other than at-will employment beyond finite length contracts are at most a rounding error above zero. This doesn't mean I have to think this is fair or reasonable; quite a lot of things in life are unfair or unreasonable without being within our individual abilities to influence, and it's not hypocritical to be willing to point those out even if I'm not willing to risk the livelihood of myself or my family to make a point about it that will in all likelihood change nothing.

redhale 11mo ago

You've brought in "require" from nowhere. Neither the parent comment nor OP's article mentioned _requiring_ in-office attendance for everyone on earth. Many people make this leap, so I don't mean to single you out. I think this is one reason this topic is so touchy -- it's hard to even express an opinion without someone assuming you mean to impose that opinion on everyone else (e.g. mandatory RTO), and then taking offense to that imagined imposition. Perhaps in the long run we can self-organize into companies or groups within companies that universally prefer in-office or remote work. I prefer at least some % (e.g. 50%) of my work to be in person. But I also don't like working with people who don't want to be there, or for whom being there is a huge burden. So I personally really hate RTO. Instead, I'll choose a team or company that is open about requiring in-office time (and has been open about it for years), and is therefore staffed by people who also like that environment. It would be ludicrous to join a remote-first or remote-only company and then try to start imposing my in-person preference on others.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
saghm 11mo ago
OP's article didn't explicitly state requiring, but it did claim make the claim that I'm objectively worse at my job by working remotely than I am in person: > Remote work eliminates a lot of problems with office work: commutes, inefficient use of real estate, and land value distortion. But software development is better when you breathe the same air as the folks you work with. Even with a camera-on policy, video calls are a low-bandwidth medium. You lose ambient awareness of coworkers’ problems, and asking for help is a bigger burden. Pair programming is less fruitful. Attempts to represent ideas spatially get mutilated by online whiteboard and sticky note software. Even conflict gets worse: it’s easy to form an enemy image of somebody at the end of video call, but difficult to keep that image when you share a room with them and sense their pain. None of that is phrased as personal opinion or their own subjective experience. I don't think it's hard to express an experience about personal preference, but it's hard to express an opinion about how other people's experiences without them having something to say about it if they disagree.