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

Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 409 posts

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#171

Post by mjburgess »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #150
protonimitate wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the outsourcing FUD train is ramping up. Remote work has been a possibility for employers for a few decades now. Nothing has drastically changed since the new wave of WFH to change that, other than its more widely discussed. > 50%(and sometimes as much as 80%) is there a source for this? I'm not convinced that the only reason "everything gets outsourced" hasn't happened yet is because employers are lazy.

I have an anecdata. I work for a fortune 500 financial company. I am personally acquainted with someone who transitioned from our offshore (India) team to the US. His salary went up 3x doing the same job with the same title, and all he changed was geography.

He also changed his cost of living.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#172

Post by maurys »

Loughla wrote: post #5

Meanwhile, my employer has said zero remote work once the state transitions into the next phase. They want to be "fair" to everyone, including those who have positions that cannot be performed remotely. So, you have a co-morbidity? Nope. You have no childcare suddenly? Nope. It's startling how stuck in the 1980's some people are. Just absolutely astonishing.

Depressingly, the easiest tactic is to keep piling on work, especially on remote workers.

The manager won't be able to tell if you're genuinely stuck or slacking off, and the benefit of doubt is likely to go against you if offices have reopened.

So unless you truly can't make it to work, you'll likely go back once the majority have, regardless of your apprehensions.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#173

Post by jkaptur »

Ask HN: do you make any distinction between "working from home" and "working from home during a pandemic"? I see a lot of people arguing that WFH is the new normal, citing long reopening timelines, their own preferences, increased productivity, Twitter's policy change, etc.

But just a few years ago, IBM and Yahoo radically curtailed their WFH policies, and they made (what seemed to me to be) pretty credible arguments that the policies were being abused (WFH employees not getting on VPN for days at a time, for example).

I wonder if what we've seen since March isn't really "working from home", it's "working from home during a pandemic", and there just isn't anything else to do (with the critical exceptions of housework and child, elder, and sick-person care).

The current situation has actually been good/neutral for my personal productivity, since I'm more able to easily chat with my colleagues across the country... but why exactly is that easier now? Are they more available because they're working from home, or because they're stuck at home?

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#174

Post by k__ »

staysaasy wrote: post #164

Remote work is such a fascinating leadership challenge given how dogmatic both sides have become. The tone of the debate is verging on a religious argument (on both sides), but it's all centered on work-related topics which typically don't engender such extreme responses.

"religious argument (on both sides)"

Care to elaborate?

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#175

Post by ineedasername »

My workplace is pushing aggressively to eliminate remote work, with 50% off remote work in the next couple of weeks. I'm in one of the biggest hotspots, and as the last few months have shown, a significant amount of work has been perfectly viable from home. But before this shutdown, my workplace had a hard ban on WFH. It's the "the workers will be lazy if they're not in the office" mentality. As though you couldn't be lazy at work as well.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#176

Post by Shoreleave »

jkaptur wrote: post #166
spyspy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's surprisingly quiet actually. It's not a trading floor with people screaming at each other. Source: am a former NYT and worked in that exact room.

FYI, most trading floors are very quiet as well, for mostly the same reasons.

Seconding. Other than 10 minutes surrounding 9:30 and 4, the trading floors I've worked on have been quieter than any tech company I've worked for.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#177

Post by jschwartzi »

deevolution wrote: post #170
nicoburns wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it's not a realistic option for most people. If we're talking about "shoulds", then we should have a welfare state that covers these scenarios rather than putting the burden on individuals, many of whom will not have the means to implement it even if they wanted to.

A welfare state isn't necessary if people save aggressively like in Singapore. People are actually required to save something like 35% of their income and their employers have to contribute an additional 15%. Some welfare exists but only for special circumstances like for the needy or disabled. Simply telling people to save more wouldn't cut it in America. If we end welfare like the Republicans want, I think we would…

You're basically replacing an insurance program that everyone pays into with safety guarantees with a savings account that each individual pays into with zero guarantees and each individual now has to know how to save enough for themselves, oh and the government will take some of your money if you don't save enough of it. I can't imagine anything more regressive.

The entire purpose of the Federal Reserve is to ensure our economy devalues our savings at about 5% a year. So every year those of us required to save are losing money to the people who have easy access to credit. And like every "plan" in this country it will be 100% based on W-2 income meaning the extremely rich won't ever be affected by it, just like they're not affected by insurance costs or social security insurance.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#179

Post by riffraff »

jkaptur wrote: post #173

Ask HN: do you make any distinction between "working from home" and "working from home during a pandemic"? I see a lot of people arguing that WFH is the new normal, citing long reopening timelines, their own preferences, increased productivity, Twitter's policy change, etc. But just a few years ago, IBM and Yahoo radically curtailed their WFH policies, and they made (what seemed to me to be) pretty credible arguments…

I am unsure this is the answer you were looking for but I do make a distinction. I've been working remotely for 10+ years, and the 3 months of lockdown were the worst I've had, for the simple reason that _my family was locked in with me_.

I am sure remote working is not for everyone, but I like it.

Yet, I live in an apartment, my kids can't go out to play and can't be expected to behave all the time, me and my spouse have to sync up call times so one of us can be on top of the occasional emergency etc.

We're lucky compared to people who lost their job or had reduced income, but I'm not looking forward to more work-during-lockdown.

Re: Most employees of NYT won’t be required back in physical offices until 2021

#180

Post by chipgap98 »

jkaptur wrote: post #173

Ask HN: do you make any distinction between "working from home" and "working from home during a pandemic"? I see a lot of people arguing that WFH is the new normal, citing long reopening timelines, their own preferences, increased productivity, Twitter's policy change, etc. But just a few years ago, IBM and Yahoo radically curtailed their WFH policies, and they made (what seemed to me to be) pretty credible arguments…

> But just a few years ago, IBM and Yahoo radically curtailed their WFH policies

I don't really think those are the companies I would be trying to model my business on in 2020.

> why exactly is that easier now?

I do think there is something to be said for going from WFH being the exception to the rule. As someone who worked remotely for a year, I felt like more more of an after thought then. Now everyone is doing it and understands/are learning how to engage remote teammates.

I agree the pandemic is tainting the results in a variety of ways, but I do think that companies were holding on to outdated practices out of stubbornness.

Post reply on HN