3 ms·
Am I the only one who isn't that outraged by this? I'm as big of a proponent for remote workers as anyone (I basically quit my last job over it), but it makes
by joelrunyon 14y ago
Am I the only one who isn't that outraged by this?
I'm as big of a proponent for remote workers as anyone (I basically quit my last job over it), but it makes a lot of sense for yahoo in this case.
1. They're regrouping, reorganizing and refocusing their vision. All of which are much easier to do in person.
2. The group buy-in that she needs to shift Yahoo's culture, product and focus is much easier to get when they're all in one centralized location.
3. Remote workers count for a fraction of their workforce? It's not like it's going to be a massive change for 50%+ of their workforce. They're just getting the few remoters back in house.
Like I said, I'm a big proponent of remote working, but this seems a little overblown to me.
- mc32 14y agoWell, just look at the headline. Someone just wants to stand out with their 'assessment'. It's an attempt at journalism which ends up yellow.
- josourcing 14y agoMy beef with the move is its hypocrisy. Disregarding remote workers in a remote world? At a company peddling tools that facilitate... (get ready for it)... remote work!? Sometimes this ish doesn't even seem real.
- joelrunyon 14y agoIt facilitates (read: enables) remote working. Their tools don't require it. Yahoo's not in a place right now where remote working makes sense for them. Prescribing remote work arrangements across the board for all companies in all situations makes as little sense as prescribing required in-office hours for all companies in all situations.
- josourcing 14y agoAgreed, however it's worth noting that remote work is (usually) cheaper. I don't know where Yahoo is right now, but if history has a say, the company could use a little cost-cutting. In-house employees cost more, and the CEO should know that.