Remote Only • Hacker News Board

Re: Remote Only

#131

Post by buvanshak » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 4:58 AM UTC

varenc wrote: post #114

buvanshak wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still believe that face-to-face communication is the most efficient way to transfer information ... Why do people think this. For one thing, and I think it is most important, face to face communication does not give either parties time to think. It ends up with awkward, unproductive pauses. Face to face communication is great for small talk, chit chat and rumors. Not for communication backed by actual thought...

I’ve found face to face communication effective for resolving contentious disagreements and, as the parent said, difficult conclusions. I’ve seen things get a bit out of hand over email that then get resolved quite efficiently after a face to face. Live video chat is a good alternative, but I think more natural human empthay comes out in face to face experiences. People seem to understand the other side’s perspective…

>I’ve found face to face communication effective for resolving contentious disagreements...

I have observed the same. But 9 out of 10 times, it was because the losing party couldn't spend much time thinking about counter arguments.

So again, it cures the symptom, but it benefits only the person with the loudest voice in the room, and not the one with sound reason.

>People seem to understand the other side’s perspective more fully and confusions that can show up in email from things like poor word choice can be resolved...

Don't buy this either. As I said before, the "seem to understand" bit might come from the fact that people often does not express disagreement in face to face communication that often, because they didn't have time to think it through.

EDIT: This is assuming that the both parties in the discussion are more or less on the same level of competence. If the communication is going to be mostly one sided, then face to face communication (Like a teacher in a class room) is fine.

Re: Remote Only

#132

Post by ehnto » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:00 AM UTC

sushisource wrote: post #28

allday wrote: post #18

> Save on compensation due to hiring in lower cost regions Pay people what they're worth regardless of where they live. If you have a developer in Nigeria or Ukraine or Vietnam that is as equally capable as a developer in the Bay Area, they should be paid the same. Doing otherwise, at best, perpetuates Western hegemony, and at worst is simply racism.

This is a bit ridiculous. It's not hegemony or racism. It's how markets work. People in those markets have fewer opportunities for highly paid employment. As a result, employers have more leverage in negotiations. It's as simple as that.

Ah yes, the ever ethical and humanist market. I don't think it's wise to look for cues on how to be ethical from the market.

You're right about the mechanisms at play though.

Re: Remote Only

#133

Post by buvanshak » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:02 AM UTC

BallinBige wrote: post #78

buvanshak wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I still believe that face-to-face communication is the most efficient way to transfer information ... Why do people think this. For one thing, and I think it is most important, face to face communication does not give either parties time to think. It ends up with awkward, unproductive pauses. Face to face communication is great for small talk, chit chat and rumors. Not for communication backed by actual thought...

"Face to face communication is great for small talk, chit chat and rumors. Not for communication backed by actual thought..." wat.

You know, face to face communication is good if you are repeating stuff you heard from somewhere or stuff like "Hi there, how was your weekend" type of talk.

When you want productive communication, you want thought backing content and framing of every one of your sentences...

Re: Remote Only

#134

Post by jv22222 » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:26 AM UTC

hartator wrote: post #6

> Disadvantages > Scares investors - Scares some partners - Scares some customers - Scares some potential employees, mostly senior non-technical hires - Onboarding is harder, first month feels lonely We do a full remote policy at SerpApi.com, however I found this disadvantages list a bit dishonest, they are more way numerous and important, the most obvious are missing real human contacts (and it doesn't get easier wi…

> missing real human contacts

For me, personally, working from home has amplified the good parts of working with people and human contact and removed the bad parts.

When we do meet in person (4-5 times a year) we have a blast.

When we communicate via video the communication is a lot of fun and very purposeful at the same time. Sometimes it feels like I speak to remote co-workers by video more than family and people in real life! So, lot's of human interaction there.

At the same time, there is now no interruptions when someone gets bored and wanders over for a chat.

There is no need to instantly answer questions when overly eager bosses have a brain... idea.

There is no need to watch the clock and make it look like I'm staying late just cos everyone else is.

And I can work on stuff anytime I like, like if I wake up at 5am by accident I can knock out the current sprint board and have a break during the day.

So, in my case at least, saying "the most obvious are missing real human contacts" is simply not true.

I do think that remote working is a bit difficult to pull off well and I've found the key is to really get to know people well when in person and on video chat.

Re: Remote Only

#135

Post by mmt » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:32 AM UTC

existencebox wrote: post #41

nemothekid wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't mean to be dismissive, but "that seems like a personal problem." This is incredibly dismissive. Almost all the "advantages for employees" are personal. How is "No commuting time or stress" not a personal benefit? The advantages for remote work are almost entirely being sold that they are better for people . If someone has a personal problem with an aspect of it, then it should be taken seriously. Imagine if…

Where do we draw the line though? Do we draw the line? At what point do my personal preferences/issues (and trust me I have plenty of my own) become my team's/workplace's problem? I certainly fall closer to the side of "it's my job as a professional to find a situation that doesn't drive me nuts", which is probably where our disagreement might arise. (Candidly, and unfortunately, it's probably born out of the pragmat…

> to paint these often personally-aligned preferences as generic pros/cons, we muddy the waters.

I'm not sure that listing pros/cons paints them as anything (or vice-versa), though maybe I haven't quite gotten your point (and I've read all your edits).

I've never had an opportunity to work anywhere all-remote, remote-first, or even truly remote-friendly, and I harbor an interest in the discussions, including anecdata, primarily because so many of these things are personal. I, as a reader, am pretty capable of figuring out which personal preferences don't actually match up to my own and which pros/cons may not actually apply to my situation or profession. The water isn't muddied for me by more information.

As such, I very much would prefer to hear a more complete [1] and expansive list of both advantages and disadvantages to a remote-only culture. I find it's even important to include what you describe as "isomorphisms of in-office problems" if only to point how they're easier/harder to deal with when working remote.

[1] I think a grandparent comment used the adjective "honest", but I think that's only relevant as maybe a jab at the article itself, which is clearly promoting an agenda.

Re: Remote Only

#136

Post by sytse » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:33 AM UTC

hartator wrote: post #6

> Disadvantages > Scares investors - Scares some partners - Scares some customers - Scares some potential employees, mostly senior non-technical hires - Onboarding is harder, first month feels lonely We do a full remote policy at SerpApi.com, however I found this disadvantages list a bit dishonest, they are more way numerous and important, the most obvious are missing real human contacts (and it doesn't get easier wi…

I merged https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-remoteonly-org/merge_reque... which added a lot of advantages and disadvantages. Looking forward to more MRs to improve the list.

Re: Remote Only

#137

Post by sologoub » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:36 AM UTC

rwbcxrz wrote: post #66

> Fast internet everywhere - 100Mb/s+ cable, 5GHz Wifi, 4G cellular I used to say that. Now I live in a rural area, and the fastest speed that's even available is 5Mbps (and the uptime isn't great). My house also has zero cell service from any provider. It's also a bit presumptive that everyone can afford a 100Mbps connection. The last place I lived, it was like $120/month for 100Mbps. Not everybody can afford that.…

The sad part is that in many developing countries 100mbps is now quite common. Meanwhile, even in LA it’s not very consistent when you have this speed advertised on your contract.

Only place where I reliably saw 100mbps down was in SFO on tmobile LTE by one very specific window. Go figure...

EDIT: consumer grade connections - if you have a business, gigabit is easy to get in the office.

Re: Remote Only

#138

Post by spraak » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:38 AM UTC

JamyDev wrote: post #62

Didn't see anyone top level mention it, but: Disadvantages -> Timezones Timezones make scheduling team meetings hard, and if your organization ever becomes big enough to warrant a physical office people far away will start working late hours to keep up with the main office. YMMV, but it's 3 AM here in Berlin and until 10 minutes ago I was still actively working.

> YMMV, but it's 3 AM here in Berlin and until 10 minutes ago I was still actively working.

Sounds like an unhealthy implementation. I've worked 12 hours apart from a main office for 3 years and never worked past my local business hours.

Re: Remote Only

#139

Post by toomanybeersies » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:42 AM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #128

toomanybeersies wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Salary should be scaled in part by cost of living, otherwise it's unfair to people in high COL countries. Gitlab does this when calculating salary [1] for their employees. It seems only fair to me. [1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...

Why is it fair to subsidize people to live in high cost of living locations?

Because otherwise, after COL, you might only save $10k per year in a developed country, and $30k per year in a developing country.

That would be just as lopsided and unfair to your remote workers as paying them all market rate, so that your employees in developed countries get paid $80k per year and your employees in India get paid $8k per year.

Or do you expect your developers in America to relocate to India?

Re: Remote Only

#140

Post by mmt » Thu, Jun 07, 2018, 5:44 AM UTC

eanzenberg wrote: post #129

ASalazarMX wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, coworkers who use the bathroom and just rinse their hands. That is worse for my psyche than working from home.

Is there something filthy on your junk? Better get it clean than keep dirtying your hands

But, see, the way to get it "clean" is by washing ones hands regularly with soap and warm water (ideally before touching it [1]).

Really, though, you're making the (likely false) assumption that ones "junk" is the only thing touched in the restroom. You're also ignoring the potential for aeresolized bits of feces sprayed by commercial flush mechanisms.

None of this adds up to "filthy" per se, but hand washing is one of the best disease spreading preventions we know of.

Personally, if they're not going to wash I'd rather someone not go anywhere near the sink after using the restroom instead of also touching the fixtures and giving the bacteria on their hands a drink of water.

[1] I once worked in a building with a dentist who washed both before and after.