3 ms·
I would argue that many managers may not trust that every employee would be more productive remotely. I can tell you from my personal experience that many peopl
by themartorana 12y ago
I would argue that many managers may not trust that every employee would be more productive remotely. I can tell you from my personal experience that many people are less productive from home - whether there are more distractions, it's easier to be lazy, etc... I don't know.
If I'm paying for a person's productive power, working from home even part time is ok only if that person is equally or more productive at home as they are at work (on average). If their remote productivity is weak, then I would most certainly value their physical presence.
(Not everyone who fits this bill needs to be fired, either. It takes a certain amount of personal discipline to work remotely, and not everyone has that ability. That doesn't always mean the person isn't a valuable team member.)
- sombremesa 12y agoI think it is important to be physically present at least some of the time, as a team building exercise if nothing else. The kind of presence I am talking about is presence only of body and not of mind, the kind that is valued in Japanese culture where what you do at work is not nearly as important as how much time you spend there.
- venomsnake 12y agoAnd I will bill you for the commute time and upkeep time if presence is required.
- VLM 12y agoWith the obvious correction factor that remote lifestyle is inherently far superior and financially rewarding, so you'll get better employees cheaper, on average. I took a $5K paycut (at a new job) to get flex time and limited work at home, but I ended up saving something ridiculous like $10K after tax, on child care and commute related costs by being able to swing shift start and end times and avoid rush hour whenever possible. My kids are grown-ish now and I've been thinking about going back to 9-5 M-F but it just sounds like a nightmare, a living hell, after having a superior lifestyle for so long.