Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 508 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#131

Post by jondeval »

deepGem wrote: post #79

Two main problems 1. Middle and senior management who don't want to lose control or be rendered less effective. 2. Engineers who are not trained in written communication and largely cannot autonomously move a group towards a goal without a lot of supervision. If you solve for no 2, then that acts counter to no 1 - because middle management will be questioned - why do we need you ? If a group of engineers can function…

It think this is mostly right. Within your point number (1), I see the problem as more to do with senior management.

Specifically I think the major disconnect is not so much between middle managers and IC's, it's between executives and the rest of the org.

Unfortunately I'm beginning to think that this is truly a case of misaligned incentives that may prove hard to fix. What I mean is that executives are directly incentivized to be in the office. Almost all of their career capital is tied up in relationships and patterns of decision making with other executives.

Good day for a manager or IC - 'Wow, I really got a lot done today and I'm moving the team goals forward.'

Good day for an executive - 'That conversation with Dan and Steve went really well.'

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#132

Post by beachtaxidriver »

deepGem wrote: post #79

Two main problems 1. Middle and senior management who don't want to lose control or be rendered less effective. 2. Engineers who are not trained in written communication and largely cannot autonomously move a group towards a goal without a lot of supervision. If you solve for no 2, then that acts counter to no 1 - because middle management will be questioned - why do we need you ? If a group of engineers can function…

I also think that junior new engineers are less productive remote, because they can't absorb the context and experience of their more senior coworkers.

Probably the only group made more productive are senior independent engineers.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#133

Post by raxxorraxor »

blululu wrote: post #84
onion2k wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm reading this correctly, you choose to live in a small apartment, suffer the commute on a train, and work in an office you'd prefer not to be in, just so you don't have to move to a big house in the suburbs with your kids.

You are reading a lot into the OP's statement. A dense city has a much smaller environmental footprint than a sprawling suburb. The statement is just about the relative environmental impact of the two options nothing more.

I doubt the footprint difference would be in any way significant. Depends on the city layout maybe, even with the additional logistical difficulties. For many it is well worth it to escape the noise of high-density residential areas, especially with kids or for people that just like nature.

Your footprint is probably > 95% consumption anyway. I don't understand how high-density living seems to be so attractive to many here.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#134

Post by UnpossibleJim »

rr888 wrote: post #26

I live in a small apartment a short train ride from the office. It isn't big enough to work from home. If I worked from home I'd get a big house in the suburbs, and buy a car to get around. My environmental footprint would be much bigger. Edit - if I didn't have kids I'd totally have a beach house and a mountain house to live in. Maybe in different countries too.

And that's fantastic for you, and I'm happy for you, but your WFH footprint will remain small and on average the total environmental footprint will go down because you aren't the average person. You happen to be an anomaly and we can't throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#135

Post by crypot »

bilbo0s wrote: post #127
Someone1234 wrote: post #46

Because corporations are doing the majority of that pro-environmental advertising. I mean that both in terms of companies making changes (both real and greenwashing) and the News/Media corporations reporting on it. Telecommuting could be absolutely massive for reduced emissions, could bring down urban house prices, improve inter-family relationships, and revitalized suburban neighborhoods (e.g. more walkable areas).…

This. We need to learn that corporations care even less about the environment than they care about remote work. Invoking the environment to gain their support of remote work is just misunderstanding their priorities. The game is to make remote work attractive to them. You think Elon Musk wants to hear your spiel about the environment? Or does he want you to get back into your office and work a 16 hour day? If we want…

Even the environmentalists don't care about the environment. 45000 people went to cop27.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#136

Post by lizknope »

We used to spend $400 a month on gasoline because we both commuted 25 minutes each way. During the pandemic that was down to about $100 a month. And when we did have to go somewhere the traffic was so much lower so less wasting gas in stop and go traffic. I'm supposed to go in 3 days a week. In reality I go in once a week for a few hours and no one cares as 90% of the people on my project are in other offices. I told my manager "What is the point of driving in to put on my headset and disturb everyone with my meetings while trying to block out the noise of everyone else on their meetings?" He couldn't argue with that so he hasn't pushed the in office thing.

When I had an office with a door and window I liked going in. It was a good mix of seeing people and privacy. I hate the 1 year of cubicle stuff after 15 years in an office with a door. Then the pandemic hit and I really hate cubicles even more.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#137

Post by ivan_gammel »

randomdata wrote: post #108
ivan_gammel wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your alternative sounds a little bit weird, given that you only need 5-8 sq.m. of extra space to work from home, maybe one more room. It doesn’t sound like a small apartment vs big house plus car alternative, instead it sounds like „WFH is a privilege and I want to live like privileged class then“.

It does not seem that weird. He is saying the bigger home away from the hustle and bustle is his preference, but accepts a smaller home in the city because he is prioritizing his career in that location. If the career was mobile, there would be no reason to make that tradeoff.

If you can work from home, you have plenty of lifestyle choices that do not lead to a higher environmental impact.

Choosing the one that will damage environment more is a luxury choice. It does sound weird to me that this is considered as the only alternative.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#138

Post by osigurdson »

thedangler wrote: post #129
osigurdson wrote: post #122

There is nothing more illogical in modern society than commuting to an office every day. Employees waste 2 of their 16 available waking hours in the non-productive commute while incurring significant financial costs (lease/insurance/fuel/energy) in order to support this patently absurd activity. Employers waste time and energy negotiating leases, re-arranging offices, purchasing AV equipment for meeting rooms, etc.,…

Very true. And I did some rough estimations on why my employer wants us in the office. They make $115k a month of employees buying coffee. That is only coffee, and that was a very conservative estimate of only 40% of employees buying only a coffee on an average of $2. This doesn't take into account parking we have to pay for, or lunch, or snacks.

I can't imagine a dev shop not providing free coffee. The ROI has to be positive!

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#139

Post by baxtr »

crypot wrote: post #135
bilbo0s wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. We need to learn that corporations care even less about the environment than they care about remote work. Invoking the environment to gain their support of remote work is just misunderstanding their priorities. The game is to make remote work attractive to them. You think Elon Musk wants to hear your spiel about the environment? Or does he want you to get back into your office and work a 16 hour day? If we want…

Even the environmentalists don't care about the environment. 45000 people went to cop27.

Which happened to be in a desert. They cooled the venue down so that people were freezing inside. What a joke.

Re: Ask HN: Why isn't remote work advertised as a pro environment initiative?

#140

Post by rchaud »

Zoom's customers aren't the WFH people, but rather the IT and procurement managers that decide which tool to spend their 5-figure budgets on. Presumably their marketing efforts will be specific to that audience.

It may be risky to throw up billboards talking about the evironmental benefit of WFH if your customer's CEO thinks that they should be back in the office.

Post reply on HN