4 ms·

Worse for the employee, better for the company. Companies draw the line between these conflicting goals at various places.

ryanSrich 12y ago
How is it better for the company? That's my whole point. I feel like people produce better work as remote employees.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- jordanb 12y ago
  Probably better for the investors who own SF property, that's why I assume VC are always so anxious for companies to relocate.
  - saumil07 12y ago
    "Investors who own SF property?" I would be hard-pressed to name a venture investor that also finds themselves in the real estate business to such an extent that they want their investments to relocate? Investors do not own SF property for their companies and even the traditional ones on Sand Hill Road are leasing (expensive) office space like the rest of us. It is possible that the investment and the board had influence on the decision but that could be for reasons independent of real estate ownership.
- funkyy 12y ago
  It is better for company, because it can control workers. There is a reason companies give all those perks to employees - their (employees) loyalty grows. Employees get addicted to all the great stuff large corpo have to offer. Its like small startups getting office dog. People get emotionally connected to it so they wont leave the company... Cheap trick but it works. Free snack bar, transport and gym anyone?
  - drewg123 12y ago
    That doesn't always work. Working remotely is worth far more to me than free food, massages, free flu shots, laundry, etc. I worked remotely for a small company that was acquired by Google & I had to relocate with my family to the SF Bay area against my will, similar to the Reddit folks. I had 10x the loyalty to the small company that I will ever have to Google, mostly because of the forced relocation. I can't wait for the retention bonuses to run out & to move back home.
    - funkyy 12y ago
      You dont get it. I said its better for company. Ofc its worse for you, but why those large companies should bother? They are interested in results and royalty. No explanation from you is worth as much as having employee in-house for them.
      - lutusp 12y ago
        > You dont [sic] get it. I said its [sic] better for company. Ofc its [sic] worse for you ... Only explanation -- a broken apostrophe key.
- terravion 12y ago
  Many, many business leaders feel that real collaboration takes place in person. Google and Yahoo seem to be two prominent examples. Remote productivity may be wildly different for different roles. MIT tech review just published a piece about Eric Schmidt's view on remote work and leadership: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531056/google-execs-have-ideas-on-how-to-run-your-business/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531056/google-execs-hav...
  - judk 12y ago
    Places with giant piles of bad code require maintenance coders to sit with the original authors. Linux Kernel is 100% remote workers.
    - chrisbennet 12y ago
      And look how badly Linux turned out. ;-) (sarcasm in case it wasn't obvious)
gkoberger 12y ago
It's a trade off. You gain raw code output but lose a lot of the culture and serendipitous communication that leads to awesome breakthroughs. So many great things have come from random talks or drunken brainstorming. As an employee, I always tried to work from home 2-3 days and then work from the office 2-3. Was a great happy medium.
- prawn 12y ago
  This sounds like it could work well but unless there was desk sharing, companies would end up paying for floorspace lying idle half the time.

ryanSrich 12y ago

How is it better for the company? That's my whole point. I feel like people produce better work as remote employees.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jordanb 12y ago
Probably better for the investors who own SF property, that's why I assume VC are always so anxious for companies to relocate.
- saumil07 12y ago
  "Investors who own SF property?" I would be hard-pressed to name a venture investor that also finds themselves in the real estate business to such an extent that they want their investments to relocate? Investors do not own SF property for their companies and even the traditional ones on Sand Hill Road are leasing (expensive) office space like the rest of us. It is possible that the investment and the board had influence on the decision but that could be for reasons independent of real estate ownership.
funkyy 12y ago
It is better for company, because it can control workers. There is a reason companies give all those perks to employees - their (employees) loyalty grows. Employees get addicted to all the great stuff large corpo have to offer. Its like small startups getting office dog. People get emotionally connected to it so they wont leave the company... Cheap trick but it works. Free snack bar, transport and gym anyone?
- drewg123 12y ago
  That doesn't always work. Working remotely is worth far more to me than free food, massages, free flu shots, laundry, etc. I worked remotely for a small company that was acquired by Google & I had to relocate with my family to the SF Bay area against my will, similar to the Reddit folks. I had 10x the loyalty to the small company that I will ever have to Google, mostly because of the forced relocation. I can't wait for the retention bonuses to run out & to move back home.
  - funkyy 12y ago
    You dont get it. I said its better for company. Ofc its worse for you, but why those large companies should bother? They are interested in results and royalty. No explanation from you is worth as much as having employee in-house for them.
    - lutusp 12y ago
      > You dont [sic] get it. I said its [sic] better for company. Ofc its [sic] worse for you ... Only explanation -- a broken apostrophe key.
terravion 12y ago
Many, many business leaders feel that real collaboration takes place in person. Google and Yahoo seem to be two prominent examples. Remote productivity may be wildly different for different roles. MIT tech review just published a piece about Eric Schmidt's view on remote work and leadership: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531056/google-execs-have-ideas-on-how-to-run-your-business/ http://www.technologyreview.com/news/531056/google-execs-hav...
- judk 12y ago
  Places with giant piles of bad code require maintenance coders to sit with the original authors. Linux Kernel is 100% remote workers.
  - chrisbennet 12y ago
    And look how badly Linux turned out. ;-) (sarcasm in case it wasn't obvious)

gkoberger 12y ago

It's a trade off. You gain raw code output but lose a lot of the culture and serendipitous communication that leads to awesome breakthroughs. So many great things have come from random talks or drunken brainstorming. As an employee, I always tried to work from home 2-3 days and then work from the office 2-3. Was a great happy medium.

prawn 12y ago
This sounds like it could work well but unless there was desk sharing, companies would end up paying for floorspace lying idle half the time.