Recently it seemed that there was a movement back into the office, now that we're post-Covid (or at least post-Covid-as-a-major-public-concern).
According to this article, the return to office numbers have flatlined and we (or rather the US) is holding steady at a "new normal".
QuoteReturn to office is 'dead,' Stanford economist says. Here's why
KEY POINTS
- The share of days worked from home ballooned in the Covid-19 pandemic's early days, and subsequently declined through 2022.
- However, it has flatlined in 2023, suggesting more companies aren't calling employees back to the office.
- Long-term technological and demographic trends suggest the prevalence of remote work may grow in 2025 and beyond.
The share of workers being called back to the office has flatlined, suggesting the pandemic-era phenomenon of widespread remote work has become a permanent fixture of the U.S. labor market, economists said.
"Return to the office is dead," Nick Bloom, an economics professor at Stanford University and expert on the work-from-home revolution, wrote this week.
In May 2020 — the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic — 61.5% of paid, full workdays were from home, according to the Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes. That share fell by about half through 2022 as companies called employees back to in-person work.
However, the story has changed in 2023.
The share of paid work-from-home days has been "totally flat" this year, hovering around 28%, said Bloom in an interview with CNBC. That's still four times greater than the 7% pre-pandemic level. The U.S. Census Bureau's Household Pulse Survey shows a similar trend, he said.
[GRAPH HERE - go to link to see it (https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/30/return-to-office-is-dead-stanford-economist-says-heres-why.html)]
Meanwhile, Kastle data that measures the frequency of employee office swipe-ins shows that office occupancy in the 10 largest U.S. metro areas has flatlined at around 50% in 2023, Bloom said.
"We are three and a half years in, and we're totally stuck," Bloom said of remote work. "It would take something as extreme as the pandemic to unstick it."
Why remote work has had staying power
The initial surge of remote work was spurred by Covid-19 lockdowns and stay-at-home orders.
But many workers came to like the arrangement. Among the primary benefits: no commute, flexible work schedules and less time getting ready for work, according to WFH Research.
The trend has been reinforced by a hot job market in the U.S. since early 2021, giving workers unprecedented leverage. If a worker didn't like their company benefits, odds were good they could quit and get a job with better work arrangements and pay elsewhere.
Research has shown that the typical worker equates the value of working from home to an 8% pay raise.
However, the work-from-home trend isn't just a perk for workers. It has been a profitable arrangement for many companies, economists said.
Among the potential benefits: reduced costs for real estate, wages and recruitment, better worker retention and an expanded pool from which to recruit talent. Meanwhile, worker productivity hasn't suffered, Bloom said.
"What makes companies money tends to stick," he said.
Remote policies show 'incredible diversity'
These days, most remote work is done as part of a "hybrid" arrangement, with some days at home and the rest in the office. About 47% of employees who can work from home were hybrid as of October 2023, while 19% are full-time remote and 34% are fully on site, according to WFH Research.
About 11% of online job postings today advertise positions as fully remote or hybrid, versus 3% before the pandemic, said Julia Pollak, chief economist at ZipRecruiter.
While remote work is the labor market's new normal, there's significant variety from company to company, Pollak said.
Why remote work will likely increase beyond 2025
While it's unlikely that the prevalence of remote work will ever decline to its pre-pandemic level, it's possible that a U.S. recession — and a weaker job market — may cause it to slide a bit, economists said.
"Employers say the biggest benefit of remote work is retention," Pollak said. In a labor market with more slack, "retention gets much easier."
However, since work-from-home arrangements also save companies money, it's likely a severe recession would be necessary to see a meaningful decline, Bloom said.
Long-term trends suggest the share of employees who work from home is only likely to grow from here, possibly starting in 2025, Bloom said.
For example, improving technology will make remote work easier to facilitate, Bloom said. Younger firms and CEOs also tend to be more enthusiastic about hybrid work arrangements, meaning they'll get more popular over time as existing business heads retire, he added.
Anecdotally, my place of work is staying the course full flexibility on remote work. My wife's place of work seems to have settled on hybrid (with mandatory days in the office).
I few months ago I did hear a Microsoft Executive (in games) opine that the major tech companies were going to push for a return to office in the next little while.
It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.
There's a lot of resistance to this from employers.
Amazon is pressuring its employees to return to the office. No promotions if they don't get back.
Zoom has ordered employees back to the office.
In Quebec, Mouvement Desjardins (biggest financial institution) has ordered most of its staff back to the office 3 days a week.
Like I said, lots of resistance everywhere.
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2023, 12:22:58 AMThere's a lot of resistance to this from employers.
Amazon is pressuring its employees to return to the office. No promotions if they don't get back.
Zoom has ordered employees back to the office.
In Quebec, Mouvement Desjardins (biggest financial institution) has ordered most of its staff back to the office 3 days a week.
Like I said, lots of resistance everywhere.
The article mentions most places offering remote work have gone to a hybrid model. So at least your example from Quebec would be right in line with what the article has said is the new normal.
As I've said before, in office work is "better" absent of all else, however it is also less popular with employees.
Because in office work is less desirable this means in office work loses out when it comes to recruitment. Remote companies have a much bigger pool to recruit from - both locals who prefer remote and people from all around the country.
As such it's no surprise really popular employers that have people queuing up to work for them would be pushing for more in office work however that there would be a general remote trend.
For myself for I currently work for an employer 6 hours+ away. I've never been to the office. Covid has been very good for me in letting me literally double my income (though ja, high inflation means not really) and widen my employment prospects by opening up jobs in the south without having to actually live there.
My team is pure remote though various other teams have different sorts of hybrid
In our company we're three days in the office, with Monday/Friday being WFH. (Though some people do come to the office, esp. on Mondays.)
Over the past year our company owners wanted to get people back 4 days a week, but it caused so much pushback that our CEO kept stalling out the owners.
During a recent team meeting he started with, "OK, from next year on, we really have to move back to four days at the office." There was a very muted reaction before he said, "Sorry, guys, just joking." I don't think anyone found that funny. :lol:
Quote from: Josquius on December 02, 2023, 03:02:18 AMAs I've said before, in office work is "better" absent of all else, however it is also less popular with employees.
Because in office work is less desirable this means in office work loses out when it comes to recruitment. Remote companies have a much bigger pool to recruit from - both locals who prefer remote and people from all around the country.
As such it's no surprise really popular employers that have people queuing up to work for them would be pushing for more in office work however that there would be a general remote trend.
For myself for I currently work for an employer 6 hours+ away. I've never been to the office. Covid has been very good for me in letting me literally double my income (though ja, high inflation means not really) and widen my employment prospects by opening up jobs in the south without having to actually live there.
My team is pure remote though various other teams have different sorts of hybrid
:yes:
I guess if the next recession comes soon enough that might still reverse the trend but I think that's unlikely.
And yeah obviously in office work is much preferred to unemployment, and there could be a high enough difference between offers for me to choose in-office work but it would have to be substantial because having to go to the office absolutely sucks.
My workplace is weird.
We have to go 4 days in the office but they are no hour requirements for R&D members. Therefore, I stay there between 2 to 5h on the days I have to go the office.
I don't mind it as much as I thought I would.
I've been fully remote for going on 3 years now. I can't go back and will riot and act like a big baby if forced.
At this point, I'm not sure I'd even consider a non-remote job unless the pay were close to double.
I think companies have to decide on one or the other. Either everyone has to work at least a hybrid schedule, or almost no one is. It's the worst of both worlds when half the team comes to the office and half the team doesn't: you still have to use remote work tools for everything, and you don't get the intangible benefits of working in the office.
I work from home and it being the equivalent of an 8% pay rise as quoted in the article sounds about right. Certainly when factoring in public transport costs and the time value of money in getting there and back every day, I certainly don't miss the commute.
We went from always in office to never in office to an agreed upon 1 day a week in the office. The reason being that seeing people face-to-face at least some of the time is a better than only seeing everyone via remote meetings.
Nowadays about half the team is between 2 and 4 days in office (depending on weather, kids being sick and direction of the wind as it were), mainly for the social contact. Exceptions are the people working on the other side of the country, and the french team (which is spread out over France)
Friday being the most popular WFH day.
So quite a lot of freedom there, which is a good thing.
That said: going to the office and seeing your collegues every so often is not a bad thing, imho. (dependent on how fun your team is, of course)
Quote from: PJL on December 02, 2023, 12:08:29 PMI work from home and it being the equivalent of an 8% pay rise as quoted in the article sounds about right. Certainly when factoring in public transport costs and the time value of money in getting there and back every day, I certainly don't miss the commute.
This is why I can't go back. Saving ~$50+ on gas each month, no wear and tear on the car, and not having to wake up an hour earlier just to commute 1 hour round-trip each day is an immense savings to me, both in money and sanity.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 02, 2023, 01:30:37 PMQuote from: PJL on December 02, 2023, 12:08:29 PMI work from home and it being the equivalent of an 8% pay rise as quoted in the article sounds about right. Certainly when factoring in public transport costs and the time value of money in getting there and back every day, I certainly don't miss the commute.
This is why I can't go back. Saving ~$50+ on gas each month, no wear and tear on the car, and not having to wake up an hour earlier just to commute 1 hour round-trip each day is an immense savings to me, both in money and sanity.
Yep.
Though I will say that I'm jealous of the young
It was a decade ago that being able to roll out of bed after 8 and live wherever I wanted that would have really saved me.
Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2023, 01:35:07 AMQuote from: viper37 on December 02, 2023, 12:22:58 AMThere's a lot of resistance to this from employers.
Amazon is pressuring its employees to return to the office. No promotions if they don't get back.
Zoom has ordered employees back to the office.
In Quebec, Mouvement Desjardins (biggest financial institution) has ordered most of its staff back to the office 3 days a week.
Like I said, lots of resistance everywhere.
The article mentions most places offering remote work have gone to a hybrid model. So at least your example from Quebec would be right in line with what the article has said is the new normal.
It's problematic for a lot of people who moved far away from the city, escaping the eternal torments of Hell. ;)
What I fear is that this is the first step to a full "back to the office" order. There's a lot of pressure from chambers of commerce on the governments and industry to order such back to work orders because city centers are becoming deserted.
I work at home two days a week. I think I could go to three, but this is kind of enough right now. I would hate to go back to in 5 days a week.
I know people who got the back to the office crap. Three of them go in to a nearly empty building and jump on Teams calls with their team who may be in Europe or Cali or something. Stupid.
Quote from: viper37 on December 02, 2023, 04:09:00 PMQuote from: garbon on December 02, 2023, 01:35:07 AMQuote from: viper37 on December 02, 2023, 12:22:58 AMThere's a lot of resistance to this from employers.
Amazon is pressuring its employees to return to the office. No promotions if they don't get back.
Zoom has ordered employees back to the office.
In Quebec, Mouvement Desjardins (biggest financial institution) has ordered most of its staff back to the office 3 days a week.
Like I said, lots of resistance everywhere.
The article mentions most places offering remote work have gone to a hybrid model. So at least your example from Quebec would be right in line with what the article has said is the new normal.
It's problematic for a lot of people who moved far away from the city, escaping the eternal torments of Hell. ;)
What I fear is that this is the first step to a full "back to the office" order. There's a lot of pressure from chambers of commerce on the governments and industry to order such back to work orders because city centers are becoming deserted.
I've mentioned this before but this is the big problem with remote work becoming such a thing. City centres are necessary for cities to continue to be a place and the footfall of workers is pretty vital to propping up so much of what makes them attractive, especially in these days of online retail.
I do think the trends are that it's business parks suffering more, and good riddance, but I do fear I could be wrong and it's purely a few big local moves making it appear this way.
Turn office blocks into affordable housing for the poor.
In terms of people going into empty offices, in Guardian comment sections over the years I noticed three reasons: no suitable WFH space at home (flatsharing would suck for it to be fair), lack of social life yet desiring one and instead of creating it latching onto colleagues to provide it, and wanting to be away from their own family.
Except for the lack of WFH options I have zero sympathy for these. Fix your own god damn life don't force me to do it for you.
Quote from: Tamas on December 03, 2023, 11:21:23 AMTurn office blocks into affordable housing for the poor.
Some Canadian cities (Calgary, notably) have begun that, but it requires massive investments. They aren't built the same way to begin with.
Quote from: Josquius on December 02, 2023, 03:17:22 PMThough I will say that I'm jealous of the young
It was a decade ago that being able to roll out of bed after 8 and live wherever I wanted that would have really saved me.
Seems like there's a story there. Maybe several.
Quote from: viper37 on December 03, 2023, 11:34:02 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 03, 2023, 11:21:23 AMTurn office blocks into affordable housing for the poor.
Some Canadian cities (Calgary, notably) have begun that, but it requires massive investments. They aren't built the same way to begin with.
Yeah, in a lot of cases it is less expensive to rip it down and construct a purpose built structure. As just on example, installing the necessary plumbing for individual units is a huge cost when retro fitting an office tower for residential.
On the main topic a new survey out for Canada showed a majority of employees liked the full return best. The next most favourable was hybrid and the least favoured was full remote.
It is important to note the full return option included flexibility to WFH on occasion. Something I think is widely done now in Canada.
What annoys me about the whole debate is the bottomless pit of cynicism on the part of those resisting the return to office. The conspiracy theory about RTO being a ploy to stop the slump in commercial real estate prices, the implications that managers want the workers back so that they could justify their existence, and so on...
I really feel sorry for people whose life turned out in a way that makes them so cynical, but my take on the debate has also been colored by that. I think the simple reality is that WFH may be a good deal to some workers, but it's probably a bad deal for the overall productivity of all workers, and it's definitely a bad deal for employees just entering the workforce. When they don't even acknowledge that arguments for RTO can be made, regardless of where you think they fall in the balance of things, it makes me discount everything that they have to say.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2023, 03:18:43 PMI really feel sorry for people whose life turned out in a way that makes them so cynical, but my take on the debate has also been colored by that. I think the simple reality is that WFH may be a good deal to some workers, but it's probably a bad deal for the overall productivity of all workers, and it's definitely a bad deal for employees just entering the workforce. When they don't even acknowledge that arguments for RTO can be made, regardless of where you think they fall in the balance of things, it makes me discount everything that they have to say.
So I really hate my commute. It's 45 minutes of hell each way. Ironically that was the one great thing about the pandemic. After 2 weeks of working from home I said "screw this" and started going back to work - the fact there was no traffic to fight was
amazing.
So my office has gone to a WFH option. If I have court that must be done in person, but you do have the option of working from hom. But I dislike working from home as a general rule (I do take advantage of it on occasion) because I find I really rely on being able to talk to my coworkers and colleagues. I can't possibly imagine being a junior just starting out my career and trying to work from home.
Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2023, 03:18:43 PMWhat annoys me about the whole debate is the bottomless pit of cynicism on the part of those resisting the return to office. The conspiracy theory about RTO being a ploy to stop the slump in commercial real estate prices, the implications that managers want the workers back so that they could justify their existence, and so on...
I really feel sorry for people whose life turned out in a way that makes them so cynical, but my take on the debate has also been colored by that. I think the simple reality is that WFH may be a good deal to some workers, but it's probably a bad deal for the overall productivity of all workers, and it's definitely a bad deal for employees just entering the workforce. When they don't even acknowledge that arguments for RTO can be made, regardless of where you think they fall in the balance of things, it makes me discount everything that they have to say.
Sure arguments can be made for RTO, there are few things in life that arguments can't be made for.
One thing you can be sure of though: there would have been a stronger push for RTO and less inclination for employees to stay in WFH, if productivity across the board slumped the way you claim. Decreased productivity not only shows up as decrease in profit on the employer's side it also manifests as more chaos and frustration on the employee side (in white collar jobs anyhow, but then again blue collar ones will never be WFH). However I suspect, most people, like me and my company, found that productivity does NOT, in fact, suffers.
Government being influenced by commercial real estate investors isn't a very far fetched theory, in the UK at least they are major donors not to mention politicians with actual investments.
Managers being frustrated by having it more difficult to feel in control both in terms of the challenge and the ability to drain some power trips from it isn't far-fetched either.
We're closing down the office in the New Year for six weeks for refurbishment and I'm not looking forward to it at all.
I enjoy being in the office although the cycle in during the winter isn't great. I do tend to be more productive at home though - at least in terms of getting stuff done.
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 03:19:09 AMQuote from: DGuller on December 04, 2023, 03:18:43 PMWhat annoys me about the whole debate is the bottomless pit of cynicism on the part of those resisting the return to office. The conspiracy theory about RTO being a ploy to stop the slump in commercial real estate prices, the implications that managers want the workers back so that they could justify their existence, and so on...
I really feel sorry for people whose life turned out in a way that makes them so cynical, but my take on the debate has also been colored by that. I think the simple reality is that WFH may be a good deal to some workers, but it's probably a bad deal for the overall productivity of all workers, and it's definitely a bad deal for employees just entering the workforce. When they don't even acknowledge that arguments for RTO can be made, regardless of where you think they fall in the balance of things, it makes me discount everything that they have to say.
Sure arguments can be made for RTO, there are few things in life that arguments can't be made for.
One thing you can be sure of though: there would have been a stronger push for RTO and less inclination for employees to stay in WFH, if productivity across the board slumped the way you claim. Decreased productivity not only shows up as decrease in profit on the employer's side it also manifests as more chaos and frustration on the employee side (in white collar jobs anyhow, but then again blue collar ones will never be WFH). However I suspect, most people, like me and my company, found that productivity does NOT, in fact, suffers.
Government being influenced by commercial real estate investors isn't a very far fetched theory, in the UK at least they are major donors not to mention politicians with actual investments.
Managers being frustrated by having it more difficult to feel in control both in terms of the challenge and the ability to drain some power trips from it isn't far-fetched either.
Juniors develop more slowly when based from home as they are less likely to want to 'interrupt' to ask questions.
Quote from: Tamas on December 03, 2023, 11:21:23 AMTurn office blocks into affordable housing for the poor.
In terms of people going into empty offices, in Guardian comment sections over the years I noticed three reasons: no suitable WFH space at home (flatsharing would suck for it to be fair), lack of social life yet desiring one and instead of creating it latching onto colleagues to provide it, and wanting to be away from their own family.
Except for the lack of WFH options I have zero sympathy for these. Fix your own god damn life don't force me to do it for you.
This isn't a solution.
As mentioned a lot of offices don't convert into homes very well.
But even aside from this it's still hollowing out the city and destroying the centre's sense of place. It transforms cities into nothing but a decentralised suburban mess.
Quote from: Josquius on December 05, 2023, 03:55:27 AMThis isn't a solution.
As mentioned a lot of offices don't convert into homes very well.
But even aside from this it's still hollowing out the city and destroying the centre's sense of place. It transforms cities into nothing but a decentralised suburban mess.
I'm not sure I'd describe Oxford street, Picadilly Circus or Leicester Square in London as anything but a mess as is.
Quote from: Gups on December 05, 2023, 03:48:23 AMWe're closing down the office in the New Year for six weeks for refurbishment and I'm not looking forward to it at all.
I enjoy being in the office although the cycle in during the winter isn't great. I do tend to be more productive at home though - at least in terms of getting stuff done.
Way back when I was in a massive open plan office setup but no longer a technical guy, I'd ask my manager for WFH days when I had big and important calls to manage coming up or I had to focus on some challenging documentation to create.
Quote from: Josquius on December 05, 2023, 03:55:27 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 03, 2023, 11:21:23 AMTurn office blocks into affordable housing for the poor.
In terms of people going into empty offices, in Guardian comment sections over the years I noticed three reasons: no suitable WFH space at home (flatsharing would suck for it to be fair), lack of social life yet desiring one and instead of creating it latching onto colleagues to provide it, and wanting to be away from their own family.
Except for the lack of WFH options I have zero sympathy for these. Fix your own god damn life don't force me to do it for you.
This isn't a solution.
As mentioned a lot of offices don't convert into homes very well.
But even aside from this it's still hollowing out the city and destroying the centre's sense of place. It transforms cities into nothing but a decentralised suburban mess.
You are such a conservative. :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 03:59:03 AMQuote from: Josquius on December 05, 2023, 03:55:27 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 03, 2023, 11:21:23 AMTurn office blocks into affordable housing for the poor.
In terms of people going into empty offices, in Guardian comment sections over the years I noticed three reasons: no suitable WFH space at home (flatsharing would suck for it to be fair), lack of social life yet desiring one and instead of creating it latching onto colleagues to provide it, and wanting to be away from their own family.
Except for the lack of WFH options I have zero sympathy for these. Fix your own god damn life don't force me to do it for you.
This isn't a solution.
As mentioned a lot of offices don't convert into homes very well.
But even aside from this it's still hollowing out the city and destroying the centre's sense of place. It transforms cities into nothing but a decentralised suburban mess.
You are such a conservative. :lol:
:blink:
The conservatives are the ones happy with the country just consisting of faceless car centric sprawl where nobody needs to interact with anybody else and people just appear aged 50+ ready-made, completely skipping that horrible stage of being young.
Conservatives are anti-change. You are anti-change.
City centres developed to address limitations to making a living/prosper by the need to be in physical contact. Socialising norms developed from there. There is no universal truth and value to crowded city centres. To the extent they actually want to, people will continue to get together and the infrastructure to facilitate that (such as city areas full of clubs/other entertainment which we already have) will remain/emerge.
Also, this might shock you, but "decentralised" places such as towns and villages have social life as well.
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 04:15:35 AMConservatives are anti-change. You are anti-change.
No, I'm anti THAT change.
I'm for change for the better. :contract:
QuoteCity centres developed to address limitations to making a living/prosper by the need to be in physical contact. Socialising norms developed from there. There is no universal truth and value to crowded city centres.
Loads of research has shown the value of third places. Eliminate these and you're creating a whole host of problems for society.
QuoteTo the extent they actually want to, people will continue to get together and the infrastructure to facilitate that (such as city areas full of clubs/other entertainment which we already have) will remain/emerge.
Except they won't. Without footfall centres decline massively, this has been seen time and again around the world. You do get fringe car-centric spaces emerging but these are not clustered and as such tend to be fewer and number and a lot shitter.
QuoteAlso, this might shock you, but "decentralised" places such as towns and villages have social life as well.
I'm from a small town.
They do not.
So what's the solution? Make it illegal to work from private residences? How else do you want to prevent what is a natural process thanks to the benefits of modern technology?
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 04:15:35 AMConservatives are anti-change. You are anti-change.
City centres developed to address limitations to making a living/prosper by the need to be in physical contact. Socialising norms developed from there. There is no universal truth and value to crowded city centres. To the extent they actually want to, people will continue to get together and the infrastructure to facilitate that (such as city areas full of clubs/other entertainment which we already have) will remain/emerge.
Also, this might shock you, but "decentralised" places such as towns and villages have social life as well.
Without a dense hellscape he can't force people not to drive. That's his end goal, all other considerations are just for that goal :P
Yeah...dense hellscape. Barcelona, Vienna, Amsterdam... No no no. What you need to be replicating is St Louis.
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 04:55:29 AMSo what's the solution? Make it illegal to work from private residences? How else do you want to prevent what is a natural process thanks to the benefits of modern technology?
The solution to what?
The whole situation? I wish I knew.
I suspect its not one single policy and rather a whole collection of small ones. A reform in business rates would be a key for instance.
They drive in Barcelona, so not dense enough for your dreams :D
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 03:19:09 AMQuote from: DGuller on December 04, 2023, 03:18:43 PMWhat annoys me about the whole debate is the bottomless pit of cynicism on the part of those resisting the return to office. The conspiracy theory about RTO being a ploy to stop the slump in commercial real estate prices, the implications that managers want the workers back so that they could justify their existence, and so on...
I really feel sorry for people whose life turned out in a way that makes them so cynical, but my take on the debate has also been colored by that. I think the simple reality is that WFH may be a good deal to some workers, but it's probably a bad deal for the overall productivity of all workers, and it's definitely a bad deal for employees just entering the workforce. When they don't even acknowledge that arguments for RTO can be made, regardless of where you think they fall in the balance of things, it makes me discount everything that they have to say.
Sure arguments can be made for RTO, there are few things in life that arguments can't be made for.
One thing you can be sure of though: there would have been a stronger push for RTO and less inclination for employees to stay in WFH, if productivity across the board slumped the way you claim. Decreased productivity not only shows up as decrease in profit on the employer's side it also manifests as more chaos and frustration on the employee side (in white collar jobs anyhow, but then again blue collar ones will never be WFH). However I suspect, most people, like me and my company, found that productivity does NOT, in fact, suffers.
Government being influenced by commercial real estate investors isn't a very far fetched theory, in the UK at least they are major donors not to mention politicians with actual investments.
Managers being frustrated by having it more difficult to feel in control both in terms of the challenge and the ability to drain some power trips from it isn't far-fetched either.
What Government policies have been made that require RTW?
Looking at company donors to the Tories, I couldn't find a single commercial real estate investor. The biggest donor (JS Bloor) is a house builder.
https://www.datasmoothie.com/@datasmoothie/who-funds-the-conservative-party/
I'm with Jos on this. City centres are important. I prefer London to LA
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 04:55:29 AMSo what's the solution? Make it illegal to work from private residences? How else do you want to prevent what is a natural process thanks to the benefits of modern technology?
The balance is fine at the moment IMO. Commercial space is doing fine in terms of rent. I don't know about other cities but Central London is constantly busy. It's down to companies to decide how often their staff need to be in the office. If staff don't like it, they can vote with their feet.
Quote from: Gups on December 05, 2023, 05:23:30 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 04:55:29 AMSo what's the solution? Make it illegal to work from private residences? How else do you want to prevent what is a natural process thanks to the benefits of modern technology?
The balance is fine at the moment IMO. Commercial space is doing fine in terms of rent. I don't know about other cities but Central London is constantly busy. It's down to companies to decide how often their staff need to be in the office. If staff don't like it, they can vote with their feet.
You have to convince Josqs that cities are fine, not me.
Quote from: Gups on December 05, 2023, 03:48:23 AMWe're closing down the office in the New Year for six weeks for refurbishment and I'm not looking forward to it at all.
I enjoy being in the office although the cycle in during the winter isn't great. I do tend to be more productive at home though - at least in terms of getting stuff done.
My short-run productivity is better at home. If there is shit that needs to be done, and full accountability on me getting it done, it gets done quicker when I'm at home.
In the long run, though, the intangibles that eventually contribute to productivity are much better in the office. That chance conversation that would never happen by text may point me to a different and much more productive direction 6 months later on a project that hasn't been a thing yet, or a human connection will be established that will come in handy later.
I suspect that this dynamic is also responsible for productivity figures not unambiguously supporting RTO just yet. If you're already worked in the company for years and have all the social relationships established, you're drawing down on that capital, but over the years, as more and more employees have started their employment as remote employees and continued it, the drag on productivity would only get worse and worse.
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2023, 03:54:30 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 03:19:09 AMQuote from: DGuller on December 04, 2023, 03:18:43 PMWhat annoys me about the whole debate is the bottomless pit of cynicism on the part of those resisting the return to office. The conspiracy theory about RTO being a ploy to stop the slump in commercial real estate prices, the implications that managers want the workers back so that they could justify their existence, and so on...
I really feel sorry for people whose life turned out in a way that makes them so cynical, but my take on the debate has also been colored by that. I think the simple reality is that WFH may be a good deal to some workers, but it's probably a bad deal for the overall productivity of all workers, and it's definitely a bad deal for employees just entering the workforce. When they don't even acknowledge that arguments for RTO can be made, regardless of where you think they fall in the balance of things, it makes me discount everything that they have to say.
Sure arguments can be made for RTO, there are few things in life that arguments can't be made for.
One thing you can be sure of though: there would have been a stronger push for RTO and less inclination for employees to stay in WFH, if productivity across the board slumped the way you claim. Decreased productivity not only shows up as decrease in profit on the employer's side it also manifests as more chaos and frustration on the employee side (in white collar jobs anyhow, but then again blue collar ones will never be WFH). However I suspect, most people, like me and my company, found that productivity does NOT, in fact, suffers.
Government being influenced by commercial real estate investors isn't a very far fetched theory, in the UK at least they are major donors not to mention politicians with actual investments.
Managers being frustrated by having it more difficult to feel in control both in terms of the challenge and the ability to drain some power trips from it isn't far-fetched either.
Juniors develop more slowly when based from home as they are less likely to want to 'interrupt' to ask questions.
Yep, and turnover increases when there is nothing attaching a junior person to the workplace other than a laptop. It's easy just to switch laptops. Much better to develop personal connections and that only occurs in the office.
Employers are not requiring people to return to the office for shits and giggles. It's more expensive to have people in the office and so why do it?
Because of all the intangibles that make good business sense to bring people together in one place.
When was the last time in history when it was possible (within practical limitations) to build remote teams?
Oh wait, never before. So perhaps not put too much weight into the fact that it's how it used to be done.
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 10:00:25 AMWhen was the last time in history when it was possible (within practical limitations) to build remote teams?
Oh wait, never before. So perhaps not put too much weight into the fact that it's how it used to be done.
I'm not sure anybody is putting weight on how it used to be done. Rather there's a lot of good data about what happened when everybody went work from home and the extreme turnover that occurred during that period of time.
Also, employers have had ample opportunity to make judgements about whether it is worthwhile keeping costly overhead in offices or have everybody work from home. The results are overwhelmingly in favour of having people in the workplace.
As we've discussed before, I think a lot of folks on languish are in niche areas where work from home might make more sense, but we are talking about the workplace in general here not folks who mostly do coding work that seems to be more conducive to a solitary workday. Not much in the modern workplace occurs that way.
Think about it another way, most of our educational system, both in high school and in universities teaches people to work collaboratively. There's a reason for that.
As I've said previously my experience is completely the opposite. Personal productivity is up and I can control when I respond to people's requests. It's been easier to get in touch with people through messages rather than interrupting them when they are doing something else. As long as the managerial/experienced members make sure to check in on and guide newer members of the team it hasn't been a problem for their development.
It's about establishing a working environment outside of the office environment rather than pining for what isn't there. People can adapt if they want to rather than treating it like they are in an isolation booth.
I think it likely your anecdotal experience is shared by many here but Languish is not exactly a representative sample
Quote from: frunk on December 05, 2023, 10:10:54 AMAs long as the managerial/experienced members make sure to check in on and guide newer members of the team it hasn't been a problem for their development.
It's about establishing a working environment outside of the office environment rather than pining for what isn't there. People can adapt if they want to rather than treating it like they are in an isolation booth.
I personally tried very hard in my last role with the juniors with repeatedly reminding them of my availability, virtually always being available when they reached out to ask questions, highlighting to them about how great it was when one of them reached out to me...and still I saw a lot of them not asking me questions and had stunted development vs what I'd previously seen with juniors when we'd been in the office.
Something I find relevant but rarely, if ever, mentioned is the policy of cameras.
Anecdotally, my work place, a camera less remote work environment (ironic considering what we sell), has trouble with ambience and communication. My SO's workplace is a mandatory camera remote work environment and their ambience & communication is miles better. There are of course other factors but I find it interesting how it's usually not mentioned.
Quote from: frunk on December 05, 2023, 10:10:54 AMAs I've said previously my experience is completely the opposite. Personal productivity is up and I can control when I respond to people's requests. It's been easier to get in touch with people through messages rather than interrupting them when they are doing something else. As long as the managerial/experienced members make sure to check in on and guide newer members of the team it hasn't been a problem for their development.
It's about establishing a working environment outside of the office environment rather than pining for what isn't there. People can adapt if they want to rather than treating it like they are in an isolation booth.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/5xtDarmwsuR9sDRObyU/200.gif?cid=82a1493bxvdd1qm6ah8n5ml5hu7d02ghvhspxhh25c5kfxj1&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.gif&ct=g)
Quote from: garbon on December 05, 2023, 11:12:39 AMQuote from: frunk on December 05, 2023, 10:10:54 AMAs long as the managerial/experienced members make sure to check in on and guide newer members of the team it hasn't been a problem for their development.
It's about establishing a working environment outside of the office environment rather than pining for what isn't there. People can adapt if they want to rather than treating it like they are in an isolation booth.
I personally tried very hard in my last role with the juniors with repeatedly reminding them of my availability, virtually always being available when they reached out to ask questions, highlighting to them about how great it was when one of them reached out to me...and still I saw a lot of them not asking me questions and had stunted development vs what I'd previously seen with juniors when we'd been in the office.
Same, and now if I miss a day in the office and WFH, nobody calls. And the next day there is a steady stream of people coming to see me, and I always get the comment - "glad you are here, there is something I need to ask you". I have long since given up telling people to just call me.
I will give you one thing: I am more comfortable approacing somebody in person than calling them without checking with them on text chat if they are available.
There is something to be said for being able to go up and talk to someone directly. There is also a lot to like about two fewer days a week spent driving into work.
Today at lunch break, I went down from my "office" to the kitchen to switch the washing from the washing machine to the tumble dryer, spent a few minutes with my son, ate lunch then went back to work. This was well worth having to catch up with colleagues via chat and phone. If my current job goes away, I will be willing to take a cut in money, prestige and career prospects if that'll be the price to stay in a WFH position, because the improvement on my mental health has been hard to overstate.
I certainly don't get the reticence of colleagues (especially from other departments) not contacting me about something they want to query with or ask about while I am WFH. I get plenty of emails and messages from them about it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2023, 11:27:34 AMSomething I find relevant but rarely, if ever, mentioned is the policy of cameras.
Anecdotally, my work place, a camera less remote work environment (ironic considering what we sell), has trouble with ambience and communication. My SO's workplace is a mandatory camera remote work environment and their ambience & communication is miles better. There are of course other factors but I find it interesting how it's usually not mentioned.
No cameras here, though I occasionally use one on team calls. Totally optional otherwise.
Quote from: Tamas on December 05, 2023, 03:27:19 PMToday at lunch break, I went down from my "office" to the kitchen to switch the washing from the washing machine to the tumble dryer, spent a few minutes with my son, ate lunch then went back to work. This was well worth having to catch up with colleagues via chat and phone. If my current job goes away, I will be willing to take a cut in money, prestige and career prospects if that'll be the price to stay in a WFH position, because the improvement on my mental health has been hard to overstate.
:yes: I'd probably be willing to give up ~25% of my current pay to stay fully remote. Not that I'm admitting that to anyone else. :lol:
Quote from: Habbaku on December 05, 2023, 11:25:15 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on December 05, 2023, 11:27:34 AMSomething I find relevant but rarely, if ever, mentioned is the policy of cameras.
Anecdotally, my work place, a camera less remote work environment (ironic considering what we sell), has trouble with ambience and communication. My SO's workplace is a mandatory camera remote work environment and their ambience & communication is miles better. There are of course other factors but I find it interesting how it's usually not mentioned.
No cameras here, though I occasionally use one on team calls. Totally optional otherwise.
I have to admit despite my opposition to it, the "camera must be on" policy was a good idea. Many/most of the technical people ignore it, though, but I am not pushing them on calls I chair.
Quote from: Josquius on December 05, 2023, 05:10:26 AMYeah...dense hellscape. Barcelona, Vienna, Amsterdam... No no no. What you need to be replicating is St Louis.
Can't speak for the others, but Barcelona is indeed pretty bad.
Yes, it's lively. It's also incredibly expensive. Most working folk live quite far away and might need up to an hour to get to the center to enjoy any of that leisure, in addition to the time they wasted commuting.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 06, 2023, 02:34:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 05, 2023, 05:10:26 AMYeah...dense hellscape. Barcelona, Vienna, Amsterdam... No no no. What you need to be replicating is St Louis.
Can't speak for the others, but Barcelona is indeed pretty bad.
Yes, it's lively. It's also incredibly expensive. Most working folk live quite far away and might need up to an hour to get to the center to enjoy any of that leisure, in addition to the time they wasted commuting.
It's curious that these dense and walkable places end up being very expensive.
Almost like... People want to live in such places? :contract:
Quote from: Josquius on December 06, 2023, 02:35:04 PMQuote from: Iormlund on December 06, 2023, 02:34:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 05, 2023, 05:10:26 AMYeah...dense hellscape. Barcelona, Vienna, Amsterdam... No no no. What you need to be replicating is St Louis.
Can't speak for the others, but Barcelona is indeed pretty bad.
Yes, it's lively. It's also incredibly expensive. Most working folk live quite far away and might need up to an hour to get to the center to enjoy any of that leisure, in addition to the time they wasted commuting.
It's curious that these dense and walkable places end up being very expensive.
Almost like... People want to live in such places? :contract:
So your urban planning ideal is a city only well-off people can enjoy?
Quote from: Iormlund on December 06, 2023, 02:38:07 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 06, 2023, 02:35:04 PMQuote from: Iormlund on December 06, 2023, 02:34:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on December 05, 2023, 05:10:26 AMYeah...dense hellscape. Barcelona, Vienna, Amsterdam... No no no. What you need to be replicating is St Louis.
Can't speak for the others, but Barcelona is indeed pretty bad.
Yes, it's lively. It's also incredibly expensive. Most working folk live quite far away and might need up to an hour to get to the center to enjoy any of that leisure, in addition to the time they wasted commuting.
It's curious that these dense and walkable places end up being very expensive.
Almost like... People want to live in such places? :contract:
So your urban planning ideal is a city only well-off people can enjoy?
How on earth do you get that?
No. Its learn from these places that are obviously popular and copy it elsewhere.
There's nothing special about them. People moved there looking for jobs.
And if working from home became commonplace, instead of an empty landscape and a gargantuan urban hellscape, you'd have decentralized amenities (bars, pubs, clubs of all sorts) and the same cities hosting major events (concerts, opera, etc).
Working remotely doesn't even mean you have to remain home all day. You can go to a café, a local co-working space, etc.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 06, 2023, 03:05:04 PMThere's nothing special about them. People moved there looking for jobs.
This is untrue. There definitely are features of these desirable cities that many cities lack.
Decent transit, walkability, vibrancy, etc...
In Barcelonas case for instance one of its big features that gets a lot of plaudits are super blocks.
QuoteAnd if working from home became commonplace, instead of an empty landscape and a gargantuan urban hellscape, you'd have decentralized amenities (bars, pubs, clubs of all sorts) and the same cities hosting major events (concerts, opera, etc).
Except these things tend to operate heavily based on network effects.
In Japan I saw in many places a situation where car centric design was pursued and things were left decentralised. It was...not good. It meant there was a lot less overall, discoverability was low, casual outings eliminated for most, and the general place feeling very lifeless.
If this wasnt Japan social cohesion would have totally gone.
QuoteWorking remotely doesn't even mean you have to remain home all day. You can go to a café, a local co-working space, etc.
This isn't true for a majority of people. Most towns don't really have Co working spaces or decent cafes. Especially one in easy reach of everyone.
You are putting the cart before the horse here. These cities have infrastructure because there's people there. Not the other way around. If Valladolid had remained the capital, that's where all the people now in Madrid would be (and museums, public transit, etc).
I don't know how it is in Japan or the UK, but over here we have sporting clubs, bars and restaurants in every neighbourhood. Just like we have them in smaller cities, towns and even villages.
Because that's who we are. And if offices were closed, I'm sure some of those would evolve into co-working spaces, and some other would be created.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 06, 2023, 03:25:15 PMYou are putting the cart before the horse here. These cities have infrastructure because there's people there. Not the other way around. If Valladolid had remained the capital, that's where all the people now in Madrid would be (and museums, public transit, etc).
I don't know how it is in Japan or the UK, but over here we have sporting clubs, bars and restaurants in every neighbourhood. Just like we have them in smaller cities, towns and even villages.
Because that's who we are. And if offices were closed, I'm sure some of those would evolve into co-working spaces, and some other would be created.
I'm not comparing to other towns in Spain here. I was speaking globally. The cities I mentioned are examples of major cities that are well regarded for having good features of human centred design.
Plenty of large, rich, powerful cities in the world that don't have this.
I have no idea how small Spanish towns are. But that sounds quite unique if life continues to survive in them. In Switzerland too I've noticed small towns tend to be dead these days though have a history where they were not.
The problem with the idea that stuff will just naturally emerge in small towns is.. Why hasn't it already? Sure many people may be commuting to the nearby big city but they're still home on the weekend... Yet they choose to take their weekends to the city too.
I can't see this changing. Only without the weekday footfall the amount to be found in the city will be considerably less - is the idea then this will allow small towns to compete, via making cities worse rather than the towns directly better?
I'm not saying remote work is bad here. Merely that we should be aware of its down sides as well as its positives - and hopefully figure out how to counter balance those.
Smaller towns already have places to go. They always had. If anything, they have less now, since most young people emigrate.
No matter how small, I have never been in a place in Spain without access to several bars and at least one good restaurant. That just doesn't happen.
Mid-sized and big cities have other, less frequent amenities (big museums, concerts, etc). Major dance clubs are not always downtown (eg. one of the best clubs in the Northeast is in a tiny town between Barcelona and Zaragoza).
For more normal stuff on weekends though, many people I know will usually stay closer to their homes.
(https://i.postimg.cc/6qMJtGq3/image.png)
:o
And this is different from today's office worker how? :p
Presumably you walk around your office and talk to people in person rather than staring at a screen all day?
I'm very fortunate in that the same reason that prevents me from WFH also means I don't sit at a desk all day. It's especially great for my back.
I typically spend at least half my day on the shop floor either fixing shit or trying to break it in new, creative ways.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2023, 07:11:35 PMPresumably you walk around your office and talk to people in person rather than staring at a screen all day?
Not if I have work to do.
Certainly I basically don't exercise these days vs the mile or two of walking when commuting.
I bought an under desk bike.... Didn't consider my knees would smack the underside of the desk.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2023, 07:11:35 PMPresumably you walk around your office and talk to people in person rather than staring at a screen all day?
You are clearly not in IT.
This morning I opened the door to the postman still in my PJs. The time was 7:45, about the same time I used to roll into the office parking lot following a 40 minutes drive, now it was 15 minutes before my wake-up alarm would go off.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2023, 07:11:35 PMPresumably you walk around your office and talk to people in person rather than staring at a screen all day?
Ah also it looks much better than the drawing they once showed us on some training about how you shouldn't be sitting constantly during your work in the office.
Quote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 07:39:07 AMThis morning I opened the door to the postman still in my PJs. The time was 7:45, about the same time I used to roll into the office parking lot following a 40 minutes drive, now it was 15 minutes before my wake-up alarm would go off.
:hug: I rolled out of bed at 8:51, a full hour after I'd have to normally wake up, then drive 25-40 minutes to get to the office at 9, then turn around and drive 25-50 back, day after day.
Never again. :D
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2023, 09:56:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2023, 07:11:35 PMPresumably you walk around your office and talk to people in person rather than staring at a screen all day?
Not if I have work to do.
Most of what my work entails is walking around the office, talking to people about what they need to do, how they need to do it, and answering their questions.
For the people who view work as working in solitude and just staring at a screen, I can understand why work from home works for them.
As I've said repeatedly, I think the cross-section of people we have here at languish are the latter and not the former and that is why there are so many people here who support work from home. The reality though is that for the vast majority of the workforce that is not how it's done.
I rolled out of bed at 5h45, did 40 minutes of weight lifting & stretching & was ready to go by 6h45.
You're all lazy bums.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2023, 10:52:09 AMAs I've said repeatedly, I think the cross-section of people we have here at languish are the latter and not the former and that is why there are so many people here who support work from home. The reality though is that for the vast majority of the workforce that is not how it's done.
There's also a reactionary element at play here. Even our colleagues who could work from home are in the office again. They don't need to (and we have data from the pandemic to prove it), but the general manager (and others) are firmly against WFH.
My job requires me to spend many hours at the shop floor. However, I have enough meetings, conference calls and other desk work that I could easily spend a couple days at home every week. Or a couple hours each workday. But its
verboten.
They say I need to be ready to assist if something happens ... which is silly, since we work 3 shifts. And I'm certainly not on call at 3 AM. That's why we have a Maintenance department.
I actually like going to the office and socializing, so some kind of hybrid setup would be great for me (and much less likely for me to jump ship).
I have no problem with more flexible hybrid models. But I would not employ someone who refused to come to the office at all.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2023, 10:52:09 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 07, 2023, 09:56:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2023, 07:11:35 PMPresumably you walk around your office and talk to people in person rather than staring at a screen all day?
Not if I have work to do.
Most of what my work entails is walking around the office, talking to people about what they need to do, how they need to do it, and answering their questions.
For the people who view work as working in solitude and just staring at a screen, I can understand why work from home works for them.
As I've said repeatedly, I think the cross-section of people we have here at languish are the latter and not the former and that is why there are so many people here who support work from home. The reality though is that for the vast majority of the workforce that is not how it's done.
I manage projects. I literally do nothing else than talk to people (and create documentation based on what they say), answer their question, and make sure conversation between others happen. It IS possible to do that remotely efficiently. Yes there are situations which would work better in person, but so are situations that work better online. And company surveys always have work-life balance scored very highly (only thing that is, really).
I am not saying every and all working places would work WFH, but so what? But I do think almost all white collar ones would.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 08, 2023, 11:30:21 AMI rolled out of bed at 5h45, did 40 minutes of weight lifting & stretching & was ready to go by 6h45.
You're all lazy bums.
Morning people are weird.
Quote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 01:33:10 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2023, 10:52:09 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 07, 2023, 09:56:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2023, 07:11:35 PMPresumably you walk around your office and talk to people in person rather than staring at a screen all day?
Not if I have work to do.
Most of what my work entails is walking around the office, talking to people about what they need to do, how they need to do it, and answering their questions.
For the people who view work as working in solitude and just staring at a screen, I can understand why work from home works for them.
As I've said repeatedly, I think the cross-section of people we have here at languish are the latter and not the former and that is why there are so many people here who support work from home. The reality though is that for the vast majority of the workforce that is not how it's done.
I manage projects. I literally do nothing else than talk to people (and create documentation based on what they say), answer their question, and make sure conversation between others happen. It IS possible to do that remotely efficiently. Yes there are situations which would work better in person, but so are situations that work better online. And company surveys always have work-life balance scored very highly (only thing that is, really).
I am not saying every and all working places would work WFH, but so what? But I do think almost all white collar ones would.
So you agree with me that talking to people is part of work. A point Valmy seemed to dismiss. The difference between us is you will end up looking like the picture posted upstream as you sit on your ass and star at a screen all day :P
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2023, 01:34:44 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 01:33:10 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2023, 10:52:09 AMQuote from: Valmy on December 07, 2023, 09:56:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on December 07, 2023, 07:11:35 PMPresumably you walk around your office and talk to people in person rather than staring at a screen all day?
Not if I have work to do.
Most of what my work entails is walking around the office, talking to people about what they need to do, how they need to do it, and answering their questions.
For the people who view work as working in solitude and just staring at a screen, I can understand why work from home works for them.
As I've said repeatedly, I think the cross-section of people we have here at languish are the latter and not the former and that is why there are so many people here who support work from home. The reality though is that for the vast majority of the workforce that is not how it's done.
I manage projects. I literally do nothing else than talk to people (and create documentation based on what they say), answer their question, and make sure conversation between others happen. It IS possible to do that remotely efficiently. Yes there are situations which would work better in person, but so are situations that work better online. And company surveys always have work-life balance scored very highly (only thing that is, really).
I am not saying every and all working places would work WFH, but so what? But I do think almost all white collar ones would.
So you agree with me that talking to people is part of work. A point Valmy seemed to dismiss. The difference between us is you will end up looking like the picture posted upstream as you sit on your ass and star at a screen all day :P
I am happy the Canadian legal profession is still paper-based and you and your guys can still shuffle paper files around in your briefcases the whole day, but the rest of the world moved to digital. Even during meetings you are often staring into screens or at the very least one big screen. Old man. :P
Quote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 01:40:27 PMI am happy the Canadian legal profession is still paper-based and you and your guys can still shuffle paper files around in your briefcases the whole day, but the rest of the world moved to digital. Even during meetings you are often staring into screens or at the very least one big screen. Old man. :P
I am sorry to make you unhappy then. My practice is entirely digital and has been since 2020. Sorry :Embarrass:
And I hate to break it to you, being digital does not mean you cannot also talk to people in person.
Our Project Manager could (and has) definitely work from home. His role is basically one conf. call after another, with many if not most of the attendees being in Germany, Slovakia, etc. The only moments where he needs to be at the plant are the launch milestones.
Which reminds me of one benefit of being at the office (or technically not at home): One of our senior C-Levels was presenting when he had what seemed like a stroke/seizure. Thankfully one of the other attendees lives nearby and the emergency services got there in time. But had he been just working alone at home instead of presenting ...
CC, have you surveyed your workforce how they'd feel about the option to WFH?
I work from home since 2020, switching from retail pharmacy to a pharmaceutical company.
I am never going back. I make about 10% less and I could not care less.
Quote from: Maladict on December 08, 2023, 01:34:27 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on December 08, 2023, 11:30:21 AMI rolled out of bed at 5h45, did 40 minutes of weight lifting & stretching & was ready to go by 6h45.
You're all lazy bums.
Morning people are weird.
Sure but I haven't work after 3pm in years.
People need to recognise there are advantages and disadvantages for both.
Remote work pros:
* recruitment. It's popular and you have a broader choice of people to begin with than in any one place.
* commute elimination
* easier for self organised exercise and interaction.
* more sleep.
* more flexibility
* opens up a broader array of jobs to people all over the country.
* much better for those with accessibility needs.
* no facilities costs for the company.
* privacy/being treat like an adult.
Remote work cons :
* miss out on incidental learning and colab.
* innovation workshops are much harder. I organised and ran one for Indian unis last year and it was just nowhere near as good as in person. So much lost without the physical space and face to face
* broader societal effects bode poorly (several here)
* less enforced exercise and interaction. Which some need.
* favours the already rich who have a home work space and don't care about the extra bills.
* puts company more out of reach of customers without a physical address where everyone is.
* potential retention suffering vs other remote jobs.
Quote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 02:29:00 PMCC, have you surveyed your workforce how they'd feel about the option to WFH?
Yes, that was the first thing we did when our Provincial Health Officer removed her order restricting working in the office.
I personally would have liked to have downsided our office space. I would have made a lot more money not having to pay that overhead cost. But the staff and junior lawyers, and many partners, wanted to return in a large percentage.
That goes to a point Garbon has made. It is detrimental to younger folks to just be at home.
Quote from: Josquius on December 08, 2023, 02:53:54 PMPeople need to recognise there are advantages and disadvantages for both.
Remote work pros:
* recruitment. It's popular and you have a broader choice of people to begin with in any one place.
* commute elimination
* easier for self organised exercise and interaction.
* more sleep.
* more flexibility
* opens up a broader array of jobs to people all over the country.
* much better for those with accessibility needs.
* no facilities costs for the company.
* privacy/being treat like an adult.
Remote work cons :
* miss out on incidental learning and colab.
* innovation workshops are much harder. I organised and ran one for Indian unis last year and it was just nowhere near as good as in person. So much lost without the physical space and face to face
* broader societal effects bode poorly (several here)
* less enforced exercise and interaction. Which some need.
* favours the already rich who have a home work space and don't care about the extra bills.
* puts company more out of reach of customers without a physical address where everyone is.
* potential retention suffering vs other remote jobs.
You are assuming WFH helps with recruitment I think because of your preferences. It is actually not that great for younger people, who are the ones we are trying to recruit.
Also, the accessibility issue is hard for WFH. It is just not feasible to have the same sort of accommodated work space area in a home environment. A number of our clients had challenges in that regard and when their employees who had accommodations could return to the office, they did.
Why do you think that people are not treated like an adult in an office?
Introverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
Quote from: HVC on December 08, 2023, 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
No
Quote from: HVC on December 08, 2023, 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
I'm not so certain there actually.
Extroverts are more likely to have a lot of shit going on outside work. They don't rely on the office for the evolutionarily dictated social interaction to keep their sanity. They have a much easier time casually calling colleagues.
I think there's examples of both who prefer each.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2023, 02:58:59 PMYou are assuming WFH helps with recruitment I think because of your preferences. It is actually not that great for younger people, who are the ones we are trying to recruit.
Colour me skeptical. You are in a very big city so it is maybe less obvious there. But I'm doubtful you'd get more people applying when they have to go to any one particular location vs. The entire country.
But then you're in a kind of job with the in person part of court fairly baked in.
QuoteAlso, the accessibility issue is hard for WFH. It is just not feasible to have the same sort of accommodated work space area in a home environment. A number of our clients had challenges in that regard and when their employees who had accommodations could return to the office, they did.
As said a disadvantage of wfh is it favours the rich. For a poor person who needs an adapted workspace I imagine it could suck - but then are there not grants and such.
I have spoke to people who are really active in the accessibility community in the UK around this point and they have said for disabled people the rise of wfh is absolutely fantastic.
QuoteWhy do you think that people are not treated like an adult in an office?
It ultimately depends on your boss. But even the coolest of bosses can only get away with so much when everyone else is watching - indeed they're watching you even if you don't report to them.
An awful lot of clock watchers out there in the work force, and locked down corporate Internet and policies that don't let you listen to Spotify or the like while you work
QuoteAs said a disadvantage of wfh is it favours the rich. For a poor person who needs an adapted workspace I imagine it could suck - but then are there not grants and such.
I have spoke to people who are really active in the accessibility community in the UK around this point and they have said for disabled people the rise of wfh is absolutely fantastic
Ok, I you have spoken to people, wonderful.
But do they have a good understanding of just how hard it is to work from home for a disabled person? Anecdotally, we spend a lot as a firm to buy office equipment and furniture to accomodate disabilities. Most people don't have the space in their homes for that sort of thing even if we were to replace all of that material into their home environment.
QuoteIt ultimately depends on your boss.
Right, you could have a dick as a boss either way.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2023, 03:20:46 PMQuoteAs said a disadvantage of wfh is it favours the rich. For a poor person who needs an adapted workspace I imagine it could suck - but then are there not grants and such.
I have spoke to people who are really active in the accessibility community in the UK around this point and they have said for disabled people the rise of wfh is absolutely fantastic
Ok, I you have spoken to people, wonderful.
But do they have a good understanding of just how hard it is to work from home for a disabled person? Anecdotally, we spend a lot as a firm to buy office equipment and furniture to accomodate disabilities. Most people don't have the space in their homes for that sort of thing even if we were to replace all of that material into their home environment.
They're disabled as are many of the people in the accessability space. Understanding how things work for people with a range of challenges is literally their job (also an area where I'm not quite a stand alone expert but have dabbled professionally).
I'm surprised in Canada people don't have this space. I thought your homes were much bigger then here.
QuoteRight, you could have a dick as a boss either way.
And if remote that's just one person you have to hope about. Maybe their boss and any others you interact with too.
In person it's every boss in the company.
Quote from: Josquius on December 08, 2023, 03:27:31 PMI'm surprised in Canada people don't have this space. I thought your homes were much bigger then here.
No need to be surprised. We do. And they advocate effectively for the need for workplace accommodations.
Quote from: HVC on December 08, 2023, 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
I don't think it's that simple at all. I'm very introverted but I can't stand working at home. Introversion doesn't meant that you don't like dealing with all people, but rather that you desire few deep connections rather than many superficial ones. Working from home actually prevents you from forming deep connections with your co-workers.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2023, 04:15:28 PMQuote from: HVC on December 08, 2023, 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
I don't think it's that simple at all. I'm very introverted but I can't stand working at home. Introversion doesn't meant that you don't like dealing with all people, but rather that you desire few deep connections rather than many superficial ones. Working from home actually prevents you from forming deep connections with your co-workers.
My problem with that is that a workplace should be a place of business. Developing personal connections with coworkers is great but if you feel the need to have personal connections with people, you should NOT be limiting yourself to coworkers. Work from home and spend your commuting time in maintaining your relationships with old friends or to seek out new ones in your hobby areas etc.
Proponents of back-to-office often acts like the only possible way to spend the extra time freed up by WFH is to sit in a torpor. Open up your life outside of work, people.
Quote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 04:18:35 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 08, 2023, 04:15:28 PMQuote from: HVC on December 08, 2023, 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
I don't think it's that simple at all. I'm very introverted but I can't stand working at home. Introversion doesn't meant that you don't like dealing with all people, but rather that you desire few deep connections rather than many superficial ones. Working from home actually prevents you from forming deep connections with your co-workers.
My problem with that is that a workplace should be a place of business. Developing personal connections with coworkers is great but if you feel the need to have personal connections with people, you should NOT be limiting yourself to coworkers. Work from home and spend your commuting time in maintaining your relationships with old friends or to seek out new ones in your hobby areas etc.
Proponents of back-to-office often acts like the only possible way to spend the extra time freed up by WFH is to sit in a torpor. Open up your life outside of work, people.
I was not talking about personal connections, I was talking about getting to know people to build chemistry with them.
Quote from: DGuller on December 08, 2023, 04:19:50 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 04:18:35 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 08, 2023, 04:15:28 PMQuote from: HVC on December 08, 2023, 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
I don't think it's that simple at all. I'm very introverted but I can't stand working at home. Introversion doesn't meant that you don't like dealing with all people, but rather that you desire few deep connections rather than many superficial ones. Working from home actually prevents you from forming deep connections with your co-workers.
My problem with that is that a workplace should be a place of business. Developing personal connections with coworkers is great but if you feel the need to have personal connections with people, you should NOT be limiting yourself to coworkers. Work from home and spend your commuting time in maintaining your relationships with old friends or to seek out new ones in your hobby areas etc.
Proponents of back-to-office often acts like the only possible way to spend the extra time freed up by WFH is to sit in a torpor. Open up your life outside of work, people.
I was not talking about personal connections, I was talking about getting to know people to build chemistry with them.
No you were not. You were talking about developing deep connections.
Quote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 04:21:33 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 08, 2023, 04:19:50 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 04:18:35 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 08, 2023, 04:15:28 PMQuote from: HVC on December 08, 2023, 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
I don't think it's that simple at all. I'm very introverted but I can't stand working at home. Introversion doesn't meant that you don't like dealing with all people, but rather that you desire few deep connections rather than many superficial ones. Working from home actually prevents you from forming deep connections with your co-workers.
My problem with that is that a workplace should be a place of business. Developing personal connections with coworkers is great but if you feel the need to have personal connections with people, you should NOT be limiting yourself to coworkers. Work from home and spend your commuting time in maintaining your relationships with old friends or to seek out new ones in your hobby areas etc.
Proponents of back-to-office often acts like the only possible way to spend the extra time freed up by WFH is to sit in a torpor. Open up your life outside of work, people.
I was not talking about personal connections, I was talking about getting to know people to build chemistry with them.
No you were not. You were talking about developing deep connections.
You don't develop deep professional connections with your colleagues? Must be because you work from home. :P
I haven't seen a significant difference in work connections between the company I worked in person at for 20 years versus the other company I've worked remotely for for 2 1/2. I certainly communicate more with people about work stuff working remotely versus in person which had a lot of non-work related distractions (sometimes with people that were rather unpleasant). Only having to deal with work personalities is much better.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 08, 2023, 04:36:24 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 04:21:33 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 08, 2023, 04:19:50 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 04:18:35 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 08, 2023, 04:15:28 PMQuote from: HVC on December 08, 2023, 03:00:18 PMIntroverts like working at home, extroverts in the office. I think it's really that simple.
I don't think it's that simple at all. I'm very introverted but I can't stand working at home. Introversion doesn't meant that you don't like dealing with all people, but rather that you desire few deep connections rather than many superficial ones. Working from home actually prevents you from forming deep connections with your co-workers.
My problem with that is that a workplace should be a place of business. Developing personal connections with coworkers is great but if you feel the need to have personal connections with people, you should NOT be limiting yourself to coworkers. Work from home and spend your commuting time in maintaining your relationships with old friends or to seek out new ones in your hobby areas etc.
Proponents of back-to-office often acts like the only possible way to spend the extra time freed up by WFH is to sit in a torpor. Open up your life outside of work, people.
I was not talking about personal connections, I was talking about getting to know people to build chemistry with them.
No you were not. You were talking about developing deep connections.
You don't develop deep professional connections with your colleagues? Must be because you work from home. :P
So the distinction between introverts and extroverts is that introverts are looking for deep
professional connections while extroverts do not? Blimey. Misunderstood DGuller's post entirely.
Quote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 04:21:33 PMNo you were not. You were talking about developing deep connections.
You don't have to be a distant transactional sociopath in the workplace. Sometimes developing deep connections with co-workers doesn't give a social life, but rather it gives you a productive working relationship that may span over multiple employers.
Quote from: Tamas on December 08, 2023, 05:06:04 PMSo the distinction between introverts and extroverts is that introverts are looking for deep professional connections while extroverts do not? Blimey. Misunderstood DGuller's post entirely.
Wouldn't be the first time it happened.
There are many kinds of connections possible between human beings: professional, social, romantic, to name a few. All of these kinds of connections can be shallow or deep. Given the context of the conversation, you wouldn't need to have a deep romantic connection with me to know that I was talking about professional connections.
If a personal connection remains on professional grounds it cannot be deep. If you become friends that is not a professions relationship. If you don't become friends that is not a close relationship.
Quote from: Tamas on December 09, 2023, 02:50:54 AMIf a personal connection remains on professional grounds it cannot be deep. If you become friends that is not a professions relationship. If you don't become friends that is not a close relationship.
Disagree. You can have deep/close professional relationships with co-workers without being friends.
My last boss I consider a mentor and I learned a lot from him. I'd say we had a deep business relationship, but he wasn't a friend. Wouldn't have learned half of what I did working remote.
Quote from: Zanza on December 09, 2023, 04:25:43 AMQuote from: Tamas on December 09, 2023, 02:50:54 AMIf a personal connection remains on professional grounds it cannot be deep. If you become friends that is not a professions relationship. If you don't become friends that is not a close relationship.
Disagree. You can have deep/close professional relationships with co-workers without being friends.
OK I see what you and HVC mean but then that is definitely not reliant on being in the office although it does help. And it is absolutely not an introvert/extrovert thing whether you wish for or indeed capable of establishing them.
Apart from the fact that if you know how to handle a given person then it is easier to establish.
In the course of my career I've trained a lot of people remote, and been remote support in general, I've also flown in for training. I admit it could be my style, but I always found it much easier to train in person. From my experience people caught on much faster in a week or two in person then even a few months remote (lots of I've forgotten how to do this type questions).
One of the weird things I found is that older people seem better in remote learning than younger people. Could be past experience, but a lot of the stuff I trained was new to people so I don't think that's it. They just seemed more comfortable asking questions remotely.
Quote from: HVC on December 09, 2023, 04:39:00 AMIn the course of my career I've trained a lot of people remote, and been remote support in general, I've also flown in for training. I admit it could be my style, but I always found it much easier to train in person. From my experience people caught on much faster in a week or two in person then even a few months remote (lots of I've forgotten how to do this type questions).
One of the weird things I found is that older people seem better in remote learning than younger people. Could be past experience, but a lot of the stuff I trained was new to people so I don't think that's it. They just seemed more comfortable asking questions remotely.
For sure. Older people with more experience have been more comfortable asking questions than youth in training I've done.
Quote from: Tamas on December 09, 2023, 02:50:54 AMIf a personal connection remains on professional grounds it cannot be deep. If you become friends that is not a professions relationship. If you don't become friends that is not a close relationship.
I wonder if this kind of mindset is a key differentiator between WFH people and office people. If you can't even imagine a professional relationship being deep without becoming a different kind of relationship, then of course you don't see what you're giving up by being a hermit.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2023, 12:46:39 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 09, 2023, 02:50:54 AMIf a personal connection remains on professional grounds it cannot be deep. If you become friends that is not a professions relationship. If you don't become friends that is not a close relationship.
I wonder if this kind of mindset is a key differentiator between WFH people and office people. If you can't even imagine a professional relationship being deep without becoming a different kind of relationship, then of course you don't see what you're giving up by being a hermit.
Before you think too much into it: it's semantics. Probably a non-primary language thing. Zanza and HVC cleared it up.
But what has been revealing is you and CC considering preference of WFH (i.e. a work-life balance tilted toward life) as some weirdo behaviour.
Quote from: Tamas on December 09, 2023, 12:53:04 PMBut what has been revealing is you and CC considering preference of WFH (i.e. a work-life balance tilted toward life) as some weirdo behaviour.
I don't view preference for WFH for work-life balance as a weirdo behavior at all. If you say that you prefer WFH to hit a different balance on that scale, then you're in fact admitting that you're giving up on the work part of the equation to do better on the life part. Nothing wrong with that as long as that works for both parties.
Where it gets into weirdo territory is when WFH people try to make a case that they're not giving up on anything important by their choice to work from home (deeper connections with co-workers in particular, given that this is what we're discussing). That's when they start giving off the transactional sociopath vibe. They're not saying it directly, but whether they realize it or not, they're indirectly saying that there is nothing to be gained by getting to know people as people in the workplace. In my book, that is definitely a behavior that nudges you closer to the "weirdo" category.
Quote from: DGuller on December 09, 2023, 01:09:02 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 09, 2023, 12:53:04 PMBut what has been revealing is you and CC considering preference of WFH (i.e. a work-life balance tilted toward life) as some weirdo behaviour.
I don't view preference for WFH for work-life balance as a weirdo behavior at all. If you say that you prefer WFH to hit a different balance on that scale, then you're in fact admitting that you're giving up on the work part of the equation to do better on the life part. Nothing wrong with that as long as that works for both parties.
Where it gets into weirdo territory is when WFH people try to make a case that they're not giving up on anything important by their choice to work from home (deeper connections with co-workers in particular, given that this is what we're discussing). That's when they start giving off the transactional sociopath vibe. They're not saying it directly, but whether they realize it or not, they're indirectly saying that there is nothing to be gained by getting to know people as people in the workplace. In my book, that is definitely a behavior that nudges you closer to the "weirdo" category.
We discussed this earlier and its obvious there are plusses and minuses to both approaches. But you are misrepresenting my opinion on relationships - I never said there is nothing to be gained from professional relationships (my very role at work depends on being able to build such relationships), I said you can build them remotely as well, even though -as I have already wrote- they are easier to build in person indeed.
What I have been saying is that the disadvantages of WFH (less efficiency in some aspects) is more than offset by the advantages (which not just personal, but also professional in more efficiency in areas not covered by "walking around the office"). And while granting that there are fields of work which simply require or do work noticably better in an office environment, the vast majority of white collar work does not get less efficient by default from WFH, and the opposition to it is from people unable or unwilling to make adjustments that make WFH work efficiently (and thus making it overall better for them than office-based work).
QuoteI don't view preference for WFH for work-life balance as a weirdo behavior at all. If you say that you prefer WFH to hit a different balance on that scale, then you're in fact admitting that you're giving up on the work part of the equation to do better on the life part. Nothing wrong with that as long as that works for both parties.
Its layered though.
Very arguable that looking after yourself and having a better work life balance actually makes you a more productive worker than someone who just puts in the mandated time.
It's not for nothing afterall that upper management often talks up work life balance.
As mentioned the best teams I've been part of are ones where the boss treats you like an adult and doesn't keep attendance and all that shit. Best both in terms of my enjoyment of the work and in terms of outputs.
Quote from: Tamas on December 09, 2023, 12:53:04 PMQuote from: DGuller on December 09, 2023, 12:46:39 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 09, 2023, 02:50:54 AMIf a personal connection remains on professional grounds it cannot be deep. If you become friends that is not a professions relationship. If you don't become friends that is not a close relationship.
I wonder if this kind of mindset is a key differentiator between WFH people and office people. If you can't even imagine a professional relationship being deep without becoming a different kind of relationship, then of course you don't see what you're giving up by being a hermit.
Before you think too much into it: it's semantics. Probably a non-primary language thing. Zanza and HVC cleared it up.
But what has been revealing is you and CC considering preference of WFH (i.e. a work-life balance tilted toward life) as some weirdo behaviour.
I am not sure anyone has said it is wierdo behaviour. But it is something that is career limiting and not optimal, particularly for younger people looking to develop their knowledge and further their careers.
It is also not very popular outside of particular types of work. Maybe that is what you are referring to as wierdo. If so, stop self labelling yourself that way :P
Yeah totally the vibe I am getting, grossly unpopular to work from home. You made the right choice with your company.
Quote from: Tamas on December 14, 2023, 01:55:54 PMYeah totally the vibe I am getting, grossly unpopular to work from home. You made the right choice with your company.
Ok, then yes, although I am not sure why you added the emotive "grossly" to modify the word unpopular. This seems to be very triggering for you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on December 14, 2023, 02:04:32 PMQuote from: Tamas on December 14, 2023, 01:55:54 PMYeah totally the vibe I am getting, grossly unpopular to work from home. You made the right choice with your company.
Ok, then yes, although I am not sure why you added the emotive "grossly" to modify the word unpopular. This seems to be very triggering for you.
I was being sarcastic.
Grossly sarcastic?
https://www.hrgrapevine.com/us/content/article/2024-03-18-you-can-stay-remote-but-you-wont-get-promoted-dell-warns-employees
QuoteRTO U-turn | You can stay remote but you won't get promoted, Dell warns employees
Dell has informed its employees via a memo that career progression is only available to employees who meet its classification for hybrid or remote work.
The memo reads: "For remote team members, it is important to understand the trade-offs: Career advancement, including applying to new roles in the company, will require a team member to reclassify as hybrid onsite."
To qualify as a hybrid worker, Dell employees must work from an "approved" office for a minimum of 39 days per quarter, working out at around three days per week.
Excluding remote workers from promotion opportunities is a major U-turn from Dell's previous flexible working policy.
Having told staff about a three-day-per-week in-office mandate in February, a long-time remote worker stated to Business Insider that previously, "Dell cared about the work, not the location."
The memo confirms intel from an employee who confidentially spoke to the Register about punitive measures for remote workers. "Choosing to be remote does indeed put career advancement at a standstill," they said.
Another employee says that further to limiting career progress, remote workers will also receive no funding for team onsite meetings and their remote status will be considered when planning organizational or structural changes such as workforce reductions.
In February, Dell said in a statement that "we believe in-person connections paired with a flexible approach are critical to drive innovation and value differentiation."
Dell's new hybrid working model has not gone down well with its employees. "The entire company has been complaining about this behind closed doors," one employee told Business Insider.
It is a significant departure from the company's previous commitment to flexible working. CEO Michael Dell said in a 2021 interview with CRN that remote working is "absolutely here to stay."
He also provided a hypothetical scenario of two companies, one where workers are mandated to work in the office and another that offers flexibility to its workforce. "Which company do you think is a more attractive place to work? This is not really a hard test," he noted.
Dell's CEO also criticized in-office mandates in a LinkedIn post from September 2022. "If you are counting on forced hours spent in a traditional office to create collaboration and provide a feeling of belonging within your organization, you're doing it wrong," he wrote. "At Dell, we found no meaningful differences for team members working remotely or office-based even before the pandemic forced everyone home."
His post also reiterated Dell's commitment "to allow team members around the globe to choose the work style that best fits their lifestyle – whether that is remote or in an office or a blend of the two."
Dell employees: RTO policy is 'anti-women' and 'quiet firing'
Employees are unhappy with the new policy and its impact on their careers and lifestyle.
"We're being forced into a position where either we're going to be staying as the low man on the totem pole, first on the chopping block when it comes to workforce reduction, or we can be hybrid and go in multiple days a week, which really affects a lot of us," an employee tells Business Insider.
The new policy presents a difficult decision to employees who are unable or unwilling to travel to an office three days per week.
It also raises concerns for employees who are not located near one of Dell's "approved" list of offices, of which there are 17 in the U.S. and 26 globally.
"I now know I have no office. So I am remote, or I move if I want to stay," says one employee who has been working remotely for many years.
According to Business Insider, the employee was sent a promotion offer in February around the time the return-to-office (RTO) mandate was launched, stipulating that to receive the promotion, they would need to relocate much nearer to an approved site and travel to the office at least three times per week.
Employees are also critical of Dell's statement that in-office work will drive in-person connection. Many of Dell's teams are nationally or globally distributed. "Every team has people in at least two states, some in three or four. I can't think of one team where everyone is in one location," a worker explains.
Another says they would support the mandate if their team was based locally, but the distribution of employees means they would "be in a room with a bunch of people who don't know how to do my job or how to help me."
A further senior employee believes the new policy will negatively impact women in particular. "Every team I work with has at least one person if not two or three affected by this policy. They are overwhelmingly women. This new policy on its face appears to be anti-remote, but in practice will be anti-woman."
Plenty of Dell workers believe the move to limit progression and enforce in-office work is a form of quiet firing. "There are headcount cuts that need to happen and we are suffering," the senior worker explains. "If people leave on their own, they don't have to pay out severance."
Dell has not publicly responded to the criticism over its RTO and career progression policy.
(https://media.licdn.com/dms/image/D4E22AQFSuDIyj91DmQ/feedshare-shrink_800/0/1711113107432?e=1714003200&v=beta&t=OGF-H8BrA6q3Km-1E8JBvpeleX7VBcYNlSLp7JRrtg4)
All those parents who thought they could now have a career while being able to be there for their kids are getting a rude awakening.
And then parents realized that being there, every second of the day of their child's life might actually be harmful to their child's development.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2024, 08:28:46 AMAll those parents who thought they could now have a career while being able to be there for their kids are getting a rude awakening.
The real dumb ones bought a house 2 plus hours away from work :P
I am happy to sacrifice all chances of future promotion in exchange for permanent remote work. :lol:
My company has seemingly fully dropped the idea of canceling WFH on Mondays (we're in office Tue-Thu). :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 09:07:55 AMAnd then parents realized that being there, every second of the day of their child's life might actually be harmful to their child's development.
In my experience it's more about having the flexibility to pick the kids up from school and manage the occasional sick day and other curveballs, than about being there every second of every day.
How are you there when you're working? Simply being present in the same building doesn't count as parenting.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2024, 08:28:46 AMAll those parents who thought they could now have a career while being able to be there for their kids are getting a rude awakening.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2024, 09:58:23 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 09:07:55 AMAnd then parents realized that being there, every second of the day of their child's life might actually be harmful to their child's development.
In my experience it's more about having the flexibility to pick the kids up from school and manage the occasional sick day and other curveballs, than about being there every second of every day.
Yeah hopefully not many parents thought they can take care of their children and work from home, that seemed impossible even before I have become a parent.
But nursery/school runs eventually, and for now just being able to go down a couple flight of stairs to be back with my kid is a huge thing for me.
If CC meant helicopter parenting, that predates whf by decades.
Quote from: Habbaku on March 25, 2024, 09:49:49 AMI am happy to sacrifice all chances of future promotion in exchange for permanent remote work. :lol:
Hells yeah.
Quote from: The Brain on March 25, 2024, 10:15:33 AMHow are you there when you're working? Simply being present in the same building doesn't count as parenting.
In my observation, the advantages of working from home as a parent typically are:
- More flexibility around pick up and drop off for school and extracurricular activities.
- Ability to keep sick kids at home without unduly impacting work or burning vacation days.
- Ability to spot-help with a home going partner with diaper changes and whatever else during the infant stage.
- Option to use short breaks or lunch to get chores done, making it easier to manage the household (this also applies to non-parents as well, obviously, but IMEX the ability to keep shit together is under more pressure as a parent).
It may not sound like much, but it makes a pretty big difference - especially for folks who don't have extended family to help them out and who can't afford nannies or otherwise just throw money at logistical problems.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2024, 09:58:23 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 09:07:55 AMAnd then parents realized that being there, every second of the day of their child's life might actually be harmful to their child's development.
In my experience it's more about having the flexibility to pick the kids up from school and manage the occasional sick day and other curveballs, than about being there every second of every day.
I agree. All of which can occur in a full work from office job.
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2024, 11:17:59 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 25, 2024, 08:28:46 AMAll those parents who thought they could now have a career while being able to be there for their kids are getting a rude awakening.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2024, 09:58:23 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 09:07:55 AMAnd then parents realized that being there, every second of the day of their child's life might actually be harmful to their child's development.
In my experience it's more about having the flexibility to pick the kids up from school and manage the occasional sick day and other curveballs, than about being there every second of every day.
Yeah hopefully not many parents thought they can take care of their children and work from home, that seemed impossible even before I have become a parent.
But nursery/school runs eventually, and for now just being able to go down a couple flight of stairs to be back with my kid is a huge thing for me.
If CC meant helicopter parenting, that predates whf by decades.
Well, helicopter parents were the last two decades. Not really before that - although I am sure there were outliers.
Keep in mind I was responding to a post which implied that parents who work away from home can't "be there" for their kids. Nonsense.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 09:07:55 AMAnd then parents realized that being there, every second of the day of their child's life might actually be harmful to their child's development.
You just can't say anything about parenting these days without somebody swooping in and saying you are harming them in some way :lol:
Bro, working from home so you are available if something happens is not the same as following your child around 24/7.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 11:37:00 AMWell, helicopter parents were the last two decades. Not really before that - although I am sure there were outliers.
Keep in mind I was responding to a post which implied that parents who work away from home can't "be there" for their kids. Nonsense.
Dude stop. I am not shaming anybody. It is just we had decades of latch key kids and a lot of people liked being able to be there in the house. I don't see how that harms the kids, that is psychotic. People who do work outside the home can be great and present parents. Stop being weird.
It is just a lot of people really liked that feature. FFS.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 11:34:10 AMI agree. All of which can occur in a full work from office job.
In theory yes, but IMEX there's a significant difference in how it works out between WFH and WFO - not the least because people's homes are typically closer to the other activity nodes involved compared to the office, lowering the logistical impact.
To give a personal example - working from home, I can take 30 to 45 minutes out of my workflow to pick up my kid from school and bring him home, then continue to work until dinner time while he minds his own business elsewhere at home.
If I'm at the office, it takes somewhere between 90 minutes to two hours to pick my kid up, drop him off at home, and return to the office. I'll also \have to leave earlier too, to get home in time for dinner. It also means my boy will be at home by himself, which isn't really appropriate at his age. It basically kills productivity for the entire afternoon.
In practical terms it means that if I must be in the office, I'm only able to pick him up in special circumstances in a way that obviously impacts my workday and my team; while if I'm working from home, I can make picking him up part of my routine in a way that's low impact to my work and my team.
While it's anecdotal and personal, I think this represents the situation of many working parents with kids younger than teenagers.
EDIT: if it's about being a good parent, I agree there's no implication that parents WFH/WFO are better or worse than others because of that. IMO it's about the fact that the option to work from home provides significant and valuable flexibility to parents, which many of us value highly.
Quote from: Valmy on March 25, 2024, 11:46:43 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 09:07:55 AMAnd then parents realized that being there, every second of the day of their child's life might actually be harmful to their child's development.
You just can't say anything about parenting these days without somebody swooping in and saying you are harming them in some way :lol:
Bro, working from home so you are available if something happens is not the same as following your child around 24/7.
Sure, but working from home is also not necessary to "be there" for your children.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2024, 12:27:41 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 11:34:10 AMI agree. All of which can occur in a full work from office job.
In theory yes, but IMEX there's a significant difference in how it works out between WFH and WFO - not the least because people's homes are typically closer to the other activity nodes involved compared to the office, lowering the logistical impact.
To give a personal example - working from home, I can take 30 to 45 minutes out of my workflow to pick up my kid from school and bring him home, then continue to work until dinner time while he minds his own business elsewhere at home.
If I'm at the office, it takes somewhere between 90 minutes to two hours to pick my kid up, drop him off at home, and return to the office. I'll also \have to leave earlier too, to get home in time for dinner. It also means my boy will be at home by himself, which isn't really appropriate at his age. It basically kills productivity for the entire afternoon.
In practical terms it means that if I must be in the office, I'm only able to pick him up in special circumstances in a way that obviously impacts my workday and my team; while if I'm working from home, I can make picking him up part of my routine in a way that's low impact to my work and my team.
While it's anecdotal and personal, I think this represents the situation of many working parents with kids younger than teenagers.
EDIT: if it's about being a good parent, I agree there's no implication that parents WFH/WFO are better or worse than others because of that. IMO it's about the fact that the option to work from home provides significant and valuable flexibility to parents, which many of us value highly.
Why do you include going back to the office in the time it takes to pick up your kid from school? If you are doing that on a regular basis, go to the office earlier so you can put work a full day before you pick up your child.
When I used to have to go into the office I would have to drop off and pick up my daughter from preschool each day. That would mean not getting into the office until 9:15 at the earliest and leaving by 5:30. WFH I typically first check into work around 8 and will sometimes work after 5:30, and there isn't an hour chunk of my day chewed up by driving.
I like my job and I like working, but I don't like having extra risk and time attached to it that has nothing to do with my job.
CC I think you are too used to running your own office. :) Some of us are employees, not employers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 12:56:16 PMWhy do you include going back to the office in the time it takes to pick up your kid from school? If you are doing that on a regular basis, go to the office earlier so you can put work a full day before you pick up your child.
The scenarios being compared was "pick up your kid up from school during the work day, then continue working with minimal impact to your day."
Starting three hours earlier so you can cut out earlier doesn't match the scenario being considered. Additionally, it wouldn't work in this particular case because then I can't drop him off in the morning, since I'll be working then. The challenge is that the school day doesn't line up with the work day. Working from home gives greater flexibility and less stress with making those misaligned schedules fit.
Another example - this week and last is spring break (they get TWO weeks?!?! WTF!?!?!?). My wife and I have options to WFH, so the default is that my son hangs out at home while at least one of us works from home. If we didn't, we'd have to find some other solution (that'd probably cost a bunch of money and present logistical challenges).
Additionally, last week (first week of spring break) he was in weekly swimming lessons for one hour at lunch. WFH gave me and my wife the flexibility to bring him and pick him in the time surrounding lunch (taking an early and late lunch hour respectively - or add an extre 30 minutes on lunch that is made up during the same day for one person to do both pickup and drop off). This week he's in a half-day camp where one of us drops him off before work and picks him up during lunch. There's basically zero real impact to my work day from this. WFO neither of those arrangements would've been possible.
There's a significant impact on quality of life to have flexibility around WFH for parents (and, I imagine non-parents as well - but I think the schedule demands are less intense and potentially more negotiable).
CC, when did you stop being a advocate for WFH?
Quote from: Tamas on March 25, 2024, 01:18:41 PMCC I think you are too used to running your own office. :) Some of us are employees, not employers.
I think that is a fair bust.
Also, my views are likely influenced by what we allow our employees to do.
Quote from: Grey Fox on March 25, 2024, 01:36:54 PMCC, when did you stop being a advocate for WFH?
When I saw the detrimental effects it had on our less senior employees.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 03:37:21 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on March 25, 2024, 01:36:54 PMCC, when did you stop being a advocate for WFH?
When I saw the detrimental effects it had on our less senior employees.
I wonder if that could be accounted for if we onboarded people differently. Not a cajoling but really come to me when you have questions, I won't bite - but rather you will struggle and you will fall behind if you don't regularly reach out to people.
Quote from: garbon on March 25, 2024, 03:49:19 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 03:37:21 PMQuote from: Grey Fox on March 25, 2024, 01:36:54 PMCC, when did you stop being a advocate for WFH?
When I saw the detrimental effects it had on our less senior employees.
I wonder if that could be accounted for if we onboarded people differently. Not a cajoling but really come to me when you have questions, I won't bite - but rather you will struggle and you will fall behind if you don't regularly reach out to people.
I have often wondered about that. But I think there is a fundamental generational difference at play. And especially now that the Gen Zers are entering the work force. Getting them to call to discuss matters is very difficult. But they think nothing of coming into my office and sitting down to have a chat. It is the main reason I went back to the office. I could easily do all that I need to do from home now that I have made a shift in my practice. But none (or very little) of the teaching and mentoring I do on a day to day basis would happen.
Teaching and mentoring is great. Even greater if it can be done in a way that preserves some of the benefits that come with flexibility around working from home.
Quote from: Jacob on March 25, 2024, 11:24:57 AMQuote from: The Brain on March 25, 2024, 10:15:33 AMHow are you there when you're working? Simply being present in the same building doesn't count as parenting.
In my observation, the advantages of working from home as a parent typically are:
- More flexibility around pick up and drop off for school and extracurricular activities.
- Ability to keep sick kids at home without unduly impacting work or burning vacation days.
- Ability to spot-help with a home going partner with diaper changes and whatever else during the infant stage.
- Option to use short breaks or lunch to get chores done, making it easier to manage the household (this also applies to non-parents as well, obviously, but IMEX the ability to keep shit together is under more pressure as a parent).
It may not sound like much, but it makes a pretty big difference - especially for folks who don't have extended family to help them out and who can't afford nannies or otherwise just throw money at logistical problems.
This has been very true for us BTW.
And that is actually what I've been afraid of when people say they're working from home. They're not actually working the full workday from home. They're doing spot chores at their house.
That's where work from home actually falls down. If people are going to work from home then work.
If you want time off to take care of family chores, take time off.
But don't do both. The people who are actually working at the office take an unfair burden..
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 10:45:40 PMAnd that is actually what I've been afraid of when people say they're working from home. They're not actually working the full workday from home. They're doing spot chores at their house.
That's where work from home actually falls down. If people are going to work from home then work.
If you want time off to take care of family chores, take time off.
But don't do both. The people who are actually working at the office take an unfair burden.
Do you assume that all office workers actually work productively the entire time they are in the office? May be true for your context, certainly isn't true where I work.
Yeah, as if office workers give you 8 hours of productivity :lol:
Sorry to burst any bosses' bubbles, but most employees work for you for the paycheck and can't wait to get home. Most jobs also involve menial tasks and can get repetitive, hence why no one is productive for 8 hours.
To think there were such high hopes for the future of work some time ago. :(
(https://i.postimg.cc/LXMn0bMx/image.png)
They were dead right regarding using leisure meaningfully though :D
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2024, 11:00:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 10:45:40 PMAnd that is actually what I've been afraid of when people say they're working from home. They're not actually working the full workday from home. They're doing spot chores at their house.
That's where work from home actually falls down. If people are going to work from home then work.
If you want time off to take care of family chores, take time off.
But don't do both. The people who are actually working at the office take an unfair burden.
Do you assume that all office workers actually work productively the entire time they are in the office? May be true for your context, certainly isn't true where I work.
In my experience working in 3 different offices in two different countries, you do not need to be wfh to avoid working. If somebody wants to slack off that is eminently possible in the office.
As said before there's definitely pros and cons to WFH and in-office work, much like there is for anything in existence.
The big pro that stands out for me is how it drastically increases equality. It makes it so much easier for people with disabilities or those who live in areas without many jobs to get by in life. Plus the mentioned parents part.
If WFH had been the norm back when I was starting my career then my life would have taken a very different path with my 20s being far more productive and comfortable. I remember back then a huge problem was affording to go to job interviews and uncertainty on whether I could even afford to take roles- the seeming need for an unpaid internship based in London to get my foot on the ladder was a huge blocker.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 02:44:53 AMIn my experience working in 3 different offices in two different countries, you do not need to be wfh to avoid working. If somebody wants to slack off that is eminently possible in the office.
Moreso IMO.
WFH you've got your teams online status but other than that your work is your only marker of actually working.
In the office.... Much easier to make it look like you're busy without actually doing anything. Presenteeism can be a big problem.
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2024, 11:00:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 10:45:40 PMAnd that is actually what I've been afraid of when people say they're working from home. They're not actually working the full workday from home. They're doing spot chores at their house.
That's where work from home actually falls down. If people are going to work from home then work.
If you want time off to take care of family chores, take time off.
But don't do both. The people who are actually working at the office take an unfair burden.
Do you assume that all office workers actually work productively the entire time they are in the office? May be true for your context, certainly isn't true where I work.
I dunno...all of our administrative assistants no longer come to the office; they work at home. Now, as a
hybridnista, I don't mind shouldering their duties of receiving office supplies, servicing printers, going to the loading dock to find shipments for the department on top of the rest of my duties that, quite frankly have nothing to do with being an ESS LAN engineer--but if the people that used to do that aren't doing that anymore, and I'm required to assume their duties because they're not there, then what, exactly, are they doing now?
I mean, other than calling me to let someone in the building, because the door intercom that used to go to their desk when they managed the entrance now rolls over to their phones at home. :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 02:44:53 AMIn my experience working in 3 different offices in two different countries, you do not need to be wfh to avoid working. If somebody wants to slack off that is eminently possible in the office.
Shhh - don't tell the bosses :ph34r:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 26, 2024, 10:14:46 AMQuote from: Zanza on March 25, 2024, 11:00:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 10:45:40 PMAnd that is actually what I've been afraid of when people say they're working from home. They're not actually working the full workday from home. They're doing spot chores at their house.
That's where work from home actually falls down. If people are going to work from home then work.
If you want time off to take care of family chores, take time off.
But don't do both. The people who are actually working at the office take an unfair burden.
Do you assume that all office workers actually work productively the entire time they are in the office? May be true for your context, certainly isn't true where I work.
I dunno...all of our administrative assistants no longer come to the office; they work at home. Now, as a hybridnista, I don't mind shouldering their duties of receiving office supplies, servicing printers, going to the loading dock to find shipments for the department on top of the rest of my duties that, quite frankly have nothing to do with being an ESS LAN engineer--but if the people that used to do that aren't doing that anymore, and I'm required to assume their duties because they're not there, then what, exactly, are they doing now?
I mean, other than calling me to let someone in the building, because the door intercom that used to go to their desk when they managed the entrance now rolls over to their phones at home. :lol:
:lol: Don't blame a terribly organised situation on the overall concept.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 10:21:35 AM:lol: Don't blame a terribly organised situation on the overall concept.
Oh believe me, I have no problem pacing myself, especially at this
age salary grade. :D
Quote from: Zanza on March 25, 2024, 11:00:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 10:45:40 PMAnd that is actually what I've been afraid of when people say they're working from home. They're not actually working the full workday from home. They're doing spot chores at their house.
That's where work from home actually falls down. If people are going to work from home then work.
If you want time off to take care of family chores, take time off.
But don't do both. The people who are actually working at the office take an unfair burden.
Do you assume that all office workers actually work productively the entire time they are in the office? May be true for your context, certainly isn't true where I work.
No, but employers do expect them to be avail
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 02:44:53 AMQuote from: Zanza on March 25, 2024, 11:00:08 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 25, 2024, 10:45:40 PMAnd that is actually what I've been afraid of when people say they're working from home. They're not actually working the full workday from home. They're doing spot chores at their house.
That's where work from home actually falls down. If people are going to work from home then work.
If you want time off to take care of family chores, take time off.
But don't do both. The people who are actually working at the office take an unfair burden.
Do you assume that all office workers actually work productively the entire time they are in the office? May be true for your context, certainly isn't true where I work.
In my experience working in 3 different offices in two different countries, you do not need to be wfh to avoid working. If somebody wants to slack off that is eminently possible in the office.
It is true. And in this country that is called time theft. Employees get fired for cause for that.
Employees get fired for slacking too much anywhere. But you need to get caught first and second it needs to be serious enough to worth thr trouble of hiring another slacker.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 12:18:18 PMEmployees get fired for slacking too much anywhere. But you need to get caught first and second it needs to be serious enough to worth thr trouble of hiring another slacker.
Right, and it is for the first reason that employers are dubious about WFH. Since the W bit often goes missing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 12:21:13 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 12:18:18 PMEmployees get fired for slacking too much anywhere. But you need to get caught first and second it needs to be serious enough to worth thr trouble of hiring another slacker.
Right, and it is for the first reason that employers are dubious about WFH. Since the W bit often goes missing.
But we already saw that productivity hadn't declined...
I cannot micromanage or control my globally distributed team anyway, so whether they are in the office or not does not matter for whether they do work or not.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2024, 12:23:00 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 12:21:13 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 12:18:18 PMEmployees get fired for slacking too much anywhere. But you need to get caught first and second it needs to be serious enough to worth thr trouble of hiring another slacker.
Right, and it is for the first reason that employers are dubious about WFH. Since the W bit often goes missing.
But we already saw that productivity hadn't declined...
During the pandemic no, it increased. But that is when people didn't have anything else to do.
We don't have any productivity reports for the most recent periods, but anecdotally I can tell you a number of employers are concerned about a perceived drop now that people who are working from home are able to do a number of things outside their homes while they are notionally working.
Of course, because they have always been worried.
Quote from: garbon on March 26, 2024, 03:00:28 PMOf course, because they have always been worried.
Fair,
But I think employers generally now have good reason to be. During the Pandemic when they called an employee, the employee was typically easy to reach. But anecdotally that is no longer the case. Some employees are even becoming quite blatant about their attitude that their time is their own, and if they choose to do things like walk the dog, run errands, etc. the employer just has to live with that.
I think employees forget that employers who live in jurisdictions that have strict employment standards laws, cannot be flexible about hours of work. And so for every hour the employee decides is theirs, there is a lost hour of work. The employee cannot, by law, work longer to make up for their personal time during the day.
Doesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2024, 03:44:55 PMDoesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.
Exactly the point. So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.
While employers don't expect work or availability outside of contracted hours?
My experience is the jobs most able to WFH tend to have those expectations.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 04:10:11 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2024, 03:44:55 PMDoesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.
Exactly the point. So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.
So what is the problem? If the employee is obliged contractually and legally for exact hours of work and they don't do them, they can be fired. If they are not fired then I assume the employer is still getting good value out of them or at least is unable to replace their skills, in the latter case they employee just de facto enforcing their better bargaining position, something no employer would hesitate to do (like enforcing strict working hours for a sense of control).
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 04:34:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 04:10:11 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2024, 03:44:55 PMDoesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.
Exactly the point. So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.
So what is the problem? If the employee is obliged contractually and legally for exact hours of work and they don't do them, they can be fired. If they are not fired then I assume the employer is still getting good value out of them or at least is unable to replace their skills, in the latter case they employee just de facto enforcing their better bargaining position, something no employer would hesitate to do (like enforcing strict working hours for a sense of control).
You are assuming employers can monitor time left in WFH environments as well as they do in the office. That assumption is not correct.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 11:45:17 AMQuote from: Zanza on March 25, 2024, 11:00:08 PMIn my experience working in 3 different offices in two different countries, you do not need to be wfh to avoid working. If somebody wants to slack off that is eminently possible in the office.
It is true. And in this country that is called time theft. Employees get fired for cause for that.
What does WFH have to do with that? Do you any comparative data on "time-theft" of in-office versus WFH?
This feels like a generational divide.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 04:35:56 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 04:34:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 04:10:11 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2024, 03:44:55 PMDoesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.
Exactly the point. So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.
So what is the problem? If the employee is obliged contractually and legally for exact hours of work and they don't do them, they can be fired. If they are not fired then I assume the employer is still getting good value out of them or at least is unable to replace their skills, in the latter case they employee just de facto enforcing their better bargaining position, something no employer would hesitate to do (like enforcing strict working hours for a sense of control).
You are assuming employers can monitor time left in WFH environments as well as they do in the office. That assumption is not correct.
"Productivity is identical or better but I don't get to justify all the project managers spying on you guys so we're gonna go back to in-office"
Quote from: Zoupa on March 26, 2024, 04:38:16 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 11:45:17 AMQuote from: Zanza on March 25, 2024, 11:00:08 PMIn my experience working in 3 different offices in two different countries, you do not need to be wfh to avoid working. If somebody wants to slack off that is eminently possible in the office.
It is true. And in this country that is called time theft. Employees get fired for cause for that.
What does WFH have to do with that? Do you any comparative data on "time-theft" of in-office versus WFH?
This feels like a generational divide.
I don't follow. Tamas made the point that effectively time theft also occurs in offices. That doesn't make it right in either situation.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 26, 2024, 04:40:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 04:35:56 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 04:34:17 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 04:10:11 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 26, 2024, 03:44:55 PMDoesn't that go both ways? Employers should, presumably, only expect employees to be conduct work within their contracted hours.
Exactly the point. So if an employer has set hours of work (which all employers must have here in BC), it's not great that employees decided that part of those hours belong to them for their personal needs.
So what is the problem? If the employee is obliged contractually and legally for exact hours of work and they don't do them, they can be fired. If they are not fired then I assume the employer is still getting good value out of them or at least is unable to replace their skills, in the latter case they employee just de facto enforcing their better bargaining position, something no employer would hesitate to do (like enforcing strict working hours for a sense of control).
You are assuming employers can monitor time left in WFH environments as well as they do in the office. That assumption is not correct.
"Productivity is identical or better but I don't get to justify all the project managers spying on you guys so we're gonna go back to in-office"
What does productivity have to do with time theft? are you justifying it on the basis that so long as an employee maintains a minimum productivity level, it's ok? That defence has been tried and rejected by the courts. At least here.
So if they can't monitor how do they know they are not working?
And Zoupa I am a PM and "spying" is not the reason I am kept around. :p
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 04:57:44 PMSo if they can't monitor how do they know they are not working?
And Zoupa I am a PM and "spying" is not the reason I am kept around. :p
pissing off purchasing has to take up a large part of your day :D
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 04:56:37 PMQuote from: Zoupa on March 26, 2024, 04:40:03 PM"Productivity is identical or better but I don't get to justify all the project managers spying on you guys so we're gonna go back to in-office"
What does productivity have to do with time theft?
:wacko:
Quoteare you justifying it on the basis that so long as an employee maintains a minimum productivity level, it's ok?
Of course it is. Why on Earth would a company want my time? What's valuable to them is what I produce.
QuoteThat defence has been tried and rejected by the courts. At least here.
And a hundred years ago you could beat your wife to death with a broomstick. I don't really care what the law says.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 04:57:44 PMSo if they can't monitor how do they know they are not working?
And Zoupa I am a PM and "spying" is not the reason I am kept around. :p
I was making a general comment in no way directed towards anybody on this forum :sleep:
Quote from: HVC on March 26, 2024, 05:05:48 PMQuote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 04:57:44 PMSo if they can't monitor how do they know they are not working?
And Zoupa I am a PM and "spying" is not the reason I am kept around. :p
pissing off purchasing has to take up a large part of your day :D
More like them pissing me off. :mad:
:P
Quote from: Zoupa on March 26, 2024, 05:09:01 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 04:56:37 PMQuote from: Zoupa on March 26, 2024, 04:40:03 PM"Productivity is identical or better but I don't get to justify all the project managers spying on you guys so we're gonna go back to in-office"
What does productivity have to do with time theft?
:wacko:
Quoteare you justifying it on the basis that so long as an employee maintains a minimum productivity level, it's ok?
Of course it is. Why on Earth would a company want my time? What's valuable to them is what I produce.
QuoteThat defence has been tried and rejected by the courts. At least here.
And a hundred years ago you could beat your wife to death with a broomstick. I don't really care what the law says.
So basic contract law, the company is paying you x amount of wages for y amount of hours. An employee doesn't get to mess with the y variable according to their individual whims. Maybe it works differently in Germany?
What does the law define as punishment? Right to terminate the contract, damages, prison?
I *think* they can come back at you for excess wages, but not worth it lawyer fees wise. Can definitely terminate you for cause. We fired a tech for time theft. Last straw really, but it was something even the union couldn't fight so it worked out.
Quote from: Zoupa on March 26, 2024, 05:09:01 PMAnd a hundred years ago you could beat your wife to death with a broomstick. I don't really care what the law says.
Really? Quebec is fucking weird.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 06:27:31 PMSo basic contract law, the company is paying you x amount of wages for y amount of hours. An employee doesn't get to mess with the y variable according to their individual whims. Maybe it works differently in Germany?
In German contact law, the core stipulation of an employment contract is that the employee owes a service and the employer directs the employee about this service and that this contractual relation is meant for a longer, typically indefinite term. How renumeration is structured, e.g. by the hour, is not defined contract law.
Of course labour law and a plethora of regulations or industry-wide collective bargaining will limit what you can actually put into an employment contract, but contract law itself is very free. Maybe different in other jurisdictions.
On renumeration, one option is of course by the hour, but a lot of people are paid differently, e.g. salary is the same every month regardless of working days in that month, based on revenue they generate for sales people or lawyers/consultants, based on discrete pieces of work they deliver etc.
Also while defining a time for which the service is owed by the employee per time period is extremely common and regulated heavily, that is not necessary from pure contract law.
PS: Are you mixing me (reference to Germany) and Zoupa (post you answer to) here?
Thinking about things the only time since Japan I worked somewhere that took the contractual hours seriously it was when I worked at an absolutely dire company with a shit manager where bullying and other problems were rife.
This covers a lot of jobs that were officially 100% in office.
I don't think this is a wfh thing.
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2024, 10:41:29 PMOf course labour law and a plethora of regulations or industry-wide collective bargaining will limit what you can actually put into an employment contract, but contract law itself is very free. Maybe different in other jurisdictions.
Having worked with German lawyers on commercial contracts I have very serious doubts about whether contract law is very free :lol: :P
But you're right employment law is entirely separate and distinct. In the UK it's not collective bargaining but there's lots of regulations - and in a way it's not unlike consumer law. In theory it's a free contract between two parties, in practice there is a massive imbalance of power so it's very heavily regulated to try and level the playing field a bit/make it fair.
I'd say I've never really heard any talk about "time theft" anywhere I've worked. I've also never really seen this be an issue - when I've sen problems in a workplace it's because of the way that person works/if what they're producing is good rather than are they doing their hours.
Having said that I think I've also never seen anyone be fired outside of a probation period - except for the serious misconduct sort of issue wherer someone doesn't turn up one day and you get an email saying "x no longer works here" :ph34r: So my experience may be unusual.
Only place I've seen the fairly casual hiring firing was when I worked for an employment agency when I was a student - and that's kind of the way that works.
Quote from: Tamas on March 26, 2024, 06:33:59 PMWhat does the law define as punishment? Right to terminate the contract, damages, prison?
Both the right to terminate the contract without payment of any severance and a potential claim for damages, but damages is hard to prove. Depending on the fact pattern, there could also be the potential of a criminal fraud charges but those are very rare.
Quote from: Zanza on March 26, 2024, 10:41:29 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 26, 2024, 06:27:31 PMSo basic contract law, the company is paying you x amount of wages for y amount of hours. An employee doesn't get to mess with the y variable according to their individual whims. Maybe it works differently in Germany?
In German contact law, the core stipulation of an employment contract is that the employee owes a service and the employer directs the employee about this service and that this contractual relation is meant for a longer, typically indefinite term. How renumeration is structured, e.g. by the hour, is not defined contract law.
Of course labour law and a plethora of regulations or industry-wide collective bargaining will limit what you can actually put into an employment contract, but contract law itself is very free. Maybe different in other jurisdictions.
On renumeration, one option is of course by the hour, but a lot of people are paid differently, e.g. salary is the same every month regardless of working days in that month, based on revenue they generate for sales people or lawyers/consultants, based on discrete pieces of work they deliver etc.
Also while defining a time for which the service is owed by the employee per time period is extremely common and regulated heavily, that is not necessary from pure contract law.
PS: Are you mixing me (reference to Germany) and Zoupa (post you answer to) here?
Here the requirement for salaried workers to devote their full-time and energy is even more enforcible in our contract law than an hourly page worker.
I fail to see the significance for the WFH/office question though: The place were you do not fulfill your obligation seems irrelevant.
I have staff who are off on a building Easter egg hunt. I guess CC would have them up on charges.
Quote from: Zanza on March 27, 2024, 10:54:10 AMI fail to see the significance for the WFH/office question though: The place were you do not fulfill your obligation seems irrelevant.
I think CC's original point was that the employees he heard about may be unawares that their absences from in front of their laptops can be legal grounds for termination.
And I guess the way this feeds into the topic is that the boss can see the employee sitting in front of the laptop pretending to be busy, so won't be thinking about unleashing the law on them.
I think such bosses need to judge their employees work by its end results, not by the punch clock. And instead of trying to make the punch-clock system somehow work in the 2020, introduce systems that can verify employee performance in the new environment.
Yeah, I'm very much of the "end results" school of management, though I'm aware it's not a universal attitude.
In my particular field of work there's also real value in being able to call on staff to go the extra mile at critical times, and to nurture and support those who are highly motivated and passionate about what we do. Neither of those are facilitated by applying concepts like "time theft" or micro-managing behaviour and attendance.
That said, it's true that there are some folks who are more effective and happier in office, some who are more effective and happier working remotely, and some for whom hybrid works best. From my point of view that's best handled by flexibility that suits individual needs (and to be clear, that's not just "what the employee prefers" but also "what generates the best results for that employee). One size fits all usually doesn't.
Quote from: Zanza on March 27, 2024, 10:54:10 AMI fail to see the significance for the WFH/office question though: The place were you do not fulfill your obligation seems irrelevant.
I agree, except for the detrimental effect it has on junior people, and the caveat that some work functions cannot be done from home.
But we got off on this tangent when people said one of the benefits of working from home is not actually devoting their full time and energy to their work while they are working from home.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2024, 12:01:43 PMBut we got off on this tangent when people said one of the benefits of working from home is not actually devoting their full time and energy to their work while they are working from home.
Since I'm the one who brought it up: In the context of my workplace, we allow similar flexibility for people working in the office. If you need to go to a doctor's appointment, pick up a kid, drop off your car, take an extra long coffee break to clear your mind, go to the gym for an hour, or whatever that's totally cool while you're working in the office.
Our basic assumption is that you're an adult who's taking your job responsibilities seriously and are committed to meeting your deliverables. If you are not, we'll work with you to get there. But typically we trust people to manage their own time. Presenteeism is basically an anti-value.
In that sense, there's basically no difference between WFH and WFO, though for some people the value of that flexibility is greatly enhanced in a WFH context.
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 12:00:01 PMYeah, I'm very much of the "end results" school of management, though I'm aware it's not a universal attitude.
In my particular field of work there's also real value in being able to call on staff to go the extra mile at critical times, and to nurture and support those who are highly motivated and passionate about what we do. Neither of those are facilitated by applying concepts like "time theft" or micro-managing behaviour and attendance.
That said, it's true that there are some folks who are more effective and happier in office, some who are more effective and happier working remotely, and some for whom hybrid works best. From my point of view that's best handled by flexibility that suits individual needs (and to be clear, that's not just "what the employee prefers" but also "what generates the best results for that employee). One size fits all usually doesn't.
I guess the problem with this let people decide way though is that if everyone isn't the office it essentially means remote work for all- even for those coming into the office they're still on teams calls and don't get most of the actual benefits of in-office work.
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 12:10:29 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2024, 12:01:43 PMBut we got off on this tangent when people said one of the benefits of working from home is not actually devoting their full time and energy to their work while they are working from home.
Since I'm the one who brought it up: In the context of my workplace, we allow similar flexibility for people working in the office. If you need to go to a doctor's appointment, pick up a kid, drop off your car, take an extra long coffee break to clear your mind, go to the gym for an hour, or whatever that's totally cool while you're working in the office.
Our basic assumption is that you're an adult who's taking your job responsibilities seriously and are committed to meeting your deliverables. If you are not, we'll work with you to get there. But typically we trust people to manage their own time. Presenteeism is basically an anti-value.
In that sense, there's basically no difference between WFH and WFO, though for some people the value of that flexibility is greatly enhanced in a WFH context.
Sure, but you also brought up changing diapers and doing errands.
The concept of judging people only on their deliverables makes good sense for people who are contractors. Contractors do not owe a legal duty to work set hours, or in the case of salaried people, to devote all of their "time and energy" - that is the phrase that comes from the cases - to their work during working hours.
The fact that employees seem to be want to be treated like contractors in terms of flexibility but also get all the benefit of being an employee is legally problematic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2024, 01:56:40 PMQuote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 12:10:29 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2024, 12:01:43 PMBut we got off on this tangent when people said one of the benefits of working from home is not actually devoting their full time and energy to their work while they are working from home.
Since I'm the one who brought it up: In the context of my workplace, we allow similar flexibility for people working in the office. If you need to go to a doctor's appointment, pick up a kid, drop off your car, take an extra long coffee break to clear your mind, go to the gym for an hour, or whatever that's totally cool while you're working in the office.
Our basic assumption is that you're an adult who's taking your job responsibilities seriously and are committed to meeting your deliverables. If you are not, we'll work with you to get there. But typically we trust people to manage their own time. Presenteeism is basically an anti-value.
In that sense, there's basically no difference between WFH and WFO, though for some people the value of that flexibility is greatly enhanced in a WFH context.
Sure, but you also brought up changing diapers and doing errands.
The concept of judging people only on their deliverables makes good sense for people who are contractors. Contractors do not owe a legal duty to work set hours, or in the case of salaried people, to devote all of their "time and energy" - that is the phrase that comes from the cases - to their work during working hours.
The fact that employees seem to be want to be treated like contractors in terms of flexibility but also get all the benefit of being an employee is legally problematic.
Maybe it depends on industry as in my project based world, evals have always been on did you get assigned tasks done or not. You aren't punished by being given more work if you are efficient.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2024, 02:08:46 PMMaybe it depends on industry as in my project based world, evals have always been on did you get assigned tasks done or not. You aren't punished by being given more work if you are efficient.
Yeah - similar in my experience (and broadly, being efficient is good), not sure it's just project based. And the other side is that you're expected to work beyond your hours, or maybe you need to work over lunch if necessary - if that's always happening, or if you've always got loads of time there's probably a problem.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2024, 02:19:52 PMQuote from: garbon on March 27, 2024, 02:08:46 PMMaybe it depends on industry as in my project based world, evals have always been on did you get assigned tasks done or not. You aren't punished by being given more work if you are efficient.
Yeah - similar in my experience (and broadly, being efficient is good), not sure it's just project based. And the other side is that you're expected to work beyond your hours, or maybe you need to work over lunch if necessary - if that's always happening, or if you've always got loads of time there's probably a problem.
:yes:
Apparently Amazon has 34% empty office space and expect to save 1.3 billion by reducing office space.
Quote from: Tamas on March 27, 2024, 02:24:19 PMApparently Amazon has 34% empty office space and expect to save 1.3 billion by reducing office space.
My "favourite" on this was Jacob Rees-Mogg walking round Whitehall leaving notes to civil servants who weren't at their desks as a culture war issue. But government has been at the very front of WFH since way before the pandemic. Not least because they've sold off large parts of the government estate (and needless to say are, broadly speaking, not building new departmental buildings) so there's literally not enough desk space for the number of civil servants.
Edit: But I've heard anecdotally of a few law firms making big savings from cutting their floorspace. I imagine they also used the extended break from the office/"how we use our space" to radically re-jig some of the more traditionalist departments.
Yes, even dating back to pre covid the big mega Corp I worked for at the time, was going through a big office rebuild where there'd be less (hot) desks than workers as they accepted remote work to at least some degree was the future.
Covid didn't completely upend things. It merely moved things forward a decade or two overnight.. And then post covid we've pulled back half of that.
Quote from: garbon on March 27, 2024, 02:23:28 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on March 27, 2024, 02:19:52 PMQuote from: garbon on March 27, 2024, 02:08:46 PMMaybe it depends on industry as in my project based world, evals have always been on did you get assigned tasks done or not. You aren't punished by being given more work if you are efficient.
Yeah - similar in my experience (and broadly, being efficient is good), not sure it's just project based. And the other side is that you're expected to work beyond your hours, or maybe you need to work over lunch if necessary - if that's always happening, or if you've always got loads of time there's probably a problem.
:yes:
I agree with all of that, and I'm not sure what I said that is different.
One thing that is important to differentiate is that employment standards laws apply to different types of employment differently. so for example, lawyers are excluded from the protection of employment standards, and so it would be very usual to expect a lawyer, who is an employee to work as many hours as needed without any additional pay.
That is also true in some high-tech sectors, as well as other sectors, consult your local employment standard law, for all of the exceptions to the general protections given to employees.
My point is related to employees who are protected by employment standards, and for whom employers have no flexibility to require employees to work as many hours in a day as is required to meet their objectives.
In those circumstances, time theft becomes an issue, because productivity will necessarily drop as the employee is working less than anticipated by the employer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2024, 01:56:40 PMSure, but you also brought up changing diapers and doing errands.
Yup. And what I'm saying is that doing occasional errands is thought to be fine, whether you're WFH or WFO. And if you take 15 minutes to change a diaper or 15 minutes to go grab a coffee across the way, both are fine.
Because conversely, sometimes the work greatly benefits from people deciding to put in some extra hours to meet a deadline or to unblock someone or something critical - meaning the employer is looking for flexibility from the employee. In my experience, that works best long term when it's a two-way street.
QuoteThe concept of judging people only on their deliverables makes good sense for people who are contractors. Contractors do not owe a legal duty to work set hours, or in the case of salaried people, to devote all of their "time and energy" - that is the phrase that comes from the cases - to their work during working hours.
The fact that employees seem to be want to be treated like contractors in terms of flexibility but also get all the benefit of being an employee is legally problematic.
Thank you for the legal insight :cheers:
If things break down, it's good to know what the legal baseline is.
One note though - you seem to assume the flexibility is driven by employee demand. It is not really, it is applied by the employer based on what appears to provide the best results for us in our business. That we legally could be much stricter is good to know, I suppose, but isn't super relevant.
You seem to be framing the conversation in terms of who is entitled to what and guarding against one side taking advantage of the other. For us, if we're engaging with our employees in that framework that's already a failure state.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 26, 2024, 08:54:51 PMQuote from: Zoupa on March 26, 2024, 05:09:01 PMAnd a hundred years ago you could beat your wife to death with a broomstick. I don't really care what the law says.
Really? Quebec is fucking weird.
One hundred years ago, Zoupa's ancestors were living in France. 1924 France was a weird place. :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on March 27, 2024, 04:35:21 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on March 27, 2024, 01:56:40 PMSure, but you also brought up changing diapers and doing errands.
Yup. And what I'm saying is that doing occasional errands is thought to be fine, whether you're WFH or WFO. And if you take 15 minutes to change a diaper or 15 minutes to go grab a coffee across the way, both are fine.
Because conversely, sometimes the work greatly benefits from people deciding to put in some extra hours to meet a deadline or to unblock someone or something critical - meaning the employer is looking for flexibility from the employee. In my experience, that works best long term when it's a two-way street.
QuoteThe concept of judging people only on their deliverables makes good sense for people who are contractors. Contractors do not owe a legal duty to work set hours, or in the case of salaried people, to devote all of their "time and energy" - that is the phrase that comes from the cases - to their work during working hours.
The fact that employees seem to be want to be treated like contractors in terms of flexibility but also get all the benefit of being an employee is legally problematic.
Thank you for the legal insight :cheers:
If things break down, it's good to know what the legal baseline is.
One note though - you seem to assume the flexibility is driven by employee demand. It is not really, it is applied by the employer based on what appears to provide the best results for us in our business. That we legally could be much stricter is good to know, I suppose, but isn't super relevant.
You seem to be framing the conversation in terms of who is entitled to what and guarding against one side taking advantage of the other. For us, if we're engaging with our employees in that framework that's already a failure state.
Nope I'm not assuming the basis upon which flexibility is given.
I think you might be misunderstanding the point I've been trying to make. It is perfectly fine, and I would argue good business for some employers to provide flexibility. My firm certainly does it. my assistant works from home 2 to 3 days a week and I find that her work is unaffected.
The point I am trying to make is that employees cannot determine that flexibility for themselves. Employers must first agree to it. If employers don't agree to it, then that is where the angst over work from home comes from. For employers, who demand a workday with only the the minimums required by the employment, standards, act, employees who decide on their own, that they are going to have flexible workday, or in fact, in the eyes of the law, committing time theft.
The second point I've been trying to make is that the employers that are in that position are ones that have work, which requires employees to work a full workday. Many of the people here work in a very different environment.
That is why I always object here to broad generalizations that employers that don't allow work from home are misguided or evil. For a lot of employers, it really doesn't make any sense to allow employees to do it.
In my experience employers who are sticklers for time "served" at one's desk inevitably breed employees who are sticklers for leaving right on time, whether the company is on fire or not.
Quote from: Iormlund on March 28, 2024, 02:15:56 PMIn my experience employers who are sticklers for time "served" at one's desk inevitably breed employees who are sticklers for leaving right on time, whether the company is on fire or not.
There is a couple of retorts to that. You haven't spent much time in an actual workforce. If you haven't noticed that people do actually leave on time. You also haven't spent much time in a unionized workforce where it's mandatory to leave on time. And you haven't spent much time in a workforce heavily regulated with strict overtime rules where it is. Also mandatory to leave on time.
A lot of people here, working in the tech related to industry worker protections are few or nonexistent and I think that is what is impacting much of the discussion in this thread.
https://www.yourtango.com/career/study-reveals-remote-workers-lose-22k-from-paychecks-staying-home
QuoteStudy Reveals How Remote Workers Lose $22,000 Of Their Paychecks Each Year By Staying Home
There are definite trade-offs to going back to the office.
By Alexandra Blogier
Written on Apr 08, 2024
Working from home has provided major benefits for employees' work-life balance. Remote workers save time and money by not having to commute. They can eat lunch in their kitchen instead of going out and throw a laundry load in if needed. There's an overall sense of simplicity and peace of mind that comes with remote work.
Yet, many companies have issued return-to-office mandates, forcing workers to go back to an antiquated way of working, one they thought had gone by the wayside.
While working from home offers a lot of flexibility, the decision to stay remote can cost people a significant chunk of their income.
A study revealed that remote workers lose $22,000 of their paychecks each year.
Data collected by ZipRecruiter showed how salaries have shifted since 2023, according to whether a worker is remote or in-office.
In 2023, the average in-office salary advertised in job postings was $59,085. A year later, American companies are offering higher paychecks to people willing to come to the office, advertising an average of $82,037 for in-person positions, a 33% increase in income.
Data from 2024 shows that, on average, fully remote workers are paid $75,327.
Some employees prefer working on a hybrid model, going into the office a few days a week, yet data shows that their income also takes a hit for that decision: A hybrid worker's average wage is $59,992, which is about $22,000 lower than someone who has an in-person role.
Workers who've moved from fully remote work to being in-office full-time got a 29.2% pay bump.
Employers are offering more money to in-office workers as a way to compensate for the loss of flexibility that comes from giving up remote work.
The chief economist at ZipRecruiter, Julia Pollak, offered her take on the reasons behind such drastic changes in pay.
"Employers who cannot compete on flexibility will have to compete more aggressively on pay," Pollak stated.
Because employees would rather stick with remote work, bosses have to sweeten the deal to get them back in the office.
"The conclusion is that people demand higher pay increases for fully in-office jobs," Pollak said.
Workers have placed a premium on the flexibility that working from home provides, while employers seem to be stuck in an outdated mindset that people are more productive when they're physically in an office.
"Among some employers, there can be a perception that remote workers are less productive," Pollak said, adding that many bosses want people back in the office because they're "psychologically and financially invested in their corporate real estate."
There seems to be an ever-widening gap between what employers want versus what their employees want. It's not surprising that most workers want to avoid the office, especially since they've seen how beneficial working from home can be.
Offering an increase in pay is one way to smooth over workers' discontent at being required to go into the office, though one has to wonder if the money is worth the trade-off for the ease that remote work provides.
Weird framing there. Surely its the people moving back to in office getting a pay rise rather than the people working from home losing?
I have to question the assumptions being made here too. If you switch from remote in city A to in office in city A then fair enough - but one of the big advantages of remote work is being able to live in different, often much cheaper, places.
From switching to 100% remote my income has doubled- southern rates, northern living.
Yeah clickbait title. Well done to those able to demand more money for commuting into the office. They will need it for travel costs. ;)
I just switched job to an employment where I'll have the opportunity to work from home a bit less than 50%. It's a soft policy and not something outlined in the contract, but I have no reason to suspect any shenanigans.
As an embedded developer there's plenty of jobs, but they are mostly located in the big city (Gothenburg) an hour away, more locally there are very few employers and my new one is 35 min away instead of 45 min. I interviewed for a few places and most of them seem to have a 49% work from home policy. In practice I interpret it to mean that I can do whatever I want, but I need to be present when presence is needed so to speak.
With Covid I had hoped that work from home would take over and that it would mean that big city wages could be had for me in the countryside. In practice it rather seems that work from home has increased and countryside employers have taken to it, most notably in my field Husqvarna (lawn mowers and stuff) that seems to employ all over Sweden with full work from home, which is something of a rarity in the embedded world. It also seems that wages have gone down to countryside levels in the cities rather than the other way around.
So some new opportunities, but not as good as could have been hoped for.
If the study is described accurately in that article, then it doesn't sound like a high quality study. No controls for anything, just calculating the averages. Then again, the tone of that article doesn't make it sound like a high quality article, so maybe the study is more nuanced than what is described.