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

261–270 of 409 posts

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

#261

Post by treis »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #238
chrisco255 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but if you actually look at the death count, it has dropped in the past month and a half, despite re-openings: https://ga-covid19.ondemand.sas.com/ Georgia being one of the earliest states to re-open, continue to see their deaths plummet even as their case count increases. What's the reason for this? I don't know. Better testing, maybe. Maybe a less deadly version of the virus is propagating now. Not sure.

The Georgia death rate graph that you link to is sort of an odd case; there's apparently a variable lag between the occurrence and reporting of a death, sometimes up to a month - When a death is reported, they place it on its occurrence date on the graph, not on the reported date. As a result, it will appear from this graph that deaths are always declining whether they are or not - the more recent deaths have not yet…

>As a result, it will appear from this graph that deaths are always declining whether they are or not

Most deaths are reported relatively quickly. If there were, as an example, a 2x increase in deaths it would show on the graph within a few days. It would show as something like a 1.8x increase before trickling up to the full 2x over the following weeks.

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

#262

Post by Klinky »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #249
Klinky wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obamacare was huge for pre-existing conditions and the marketplace, you actually had options now, instead of zero. Also Obamacare was watered down to appease Republican interests at the time. There was no interest in building bridges during it's building, Republicans were laying out the dynamite, and spent a hell of a lot of wasted effort after Trump took office trying to trigger that dynamite. It is hard to meet in…

> There was no interest in building bridges during it's building, Republicans were laying out the dynamite, and spent a hell of a lot of wasted effort after Trump took office trying to trigger that dynamite. So what's the point? One could argue that Republicans were responding in kind. You would disagree (as would I, but that doesn't matter). This kind of endless litigation only polarizes us--we each permit our own e…

Obamacare didn't actually need Republican support, but Obama did try to reach out an olive branch to the right, and it was stomped on repeatedly.

It is very hard to empathize with conservative capitalists, libertarians or the alt right, when much of their policies seem to be based on a lack of empathy.

It's also kind of sad that rioting, protests and raw anger over recent social issues has been more effective at moving the needle than decades of political handwringing. I don't think this is going to help with any "see it from both sides and meet in the middle" arguments.

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

#263

Post by asdfman123 »

jes5199 wrote: post #12
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.

companies who ask their employees to take risks with their health, without a compelling reason, are destroying any sense of goodwill or morale. In the short term, that change might be invisible, but over the long-term it destroys businesses

I feel like American society is obsessed with safety and the value of individual lives, which has never made sense to me but I go along with it out of respect.

However, when your actions have a x% chance of killing someone, and you can mitigate it with reasonable precautions... ad what value of X do you go along with?

There's a disconnect there. Either people are really bad at math and science, or they do not care about other people's lives nearly as much as they think.

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

#264

Post by noir_lord »

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.

My employer is the same over here in the UK.

So I’m voting with my feet and actively looking for a fully remote job, it’s fucking insane to pretend an extra 2ft and alcohol gel will work when no one is following the rules properly.

I’d have been moving on at some point anyway since I don’t particularly like my job but it pays well so I have time to look for something that is a better fit.

So they’ll drain the good staff, I’m not the only one planning to bugger off.

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

#265

Post by TigeriusKirk »

BurningFrog wrote: post #51
levesque wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have strong feelings against permanently remote. I feel like this hasn't been fully thought out. Face to face interaction is much more high bandwidth than remote video calls (in other words, it conveys more information). Not to mention that this transfers the costs of office space to the employee, maybe this is why all employers are quick to jump on this bandwagon. Curious to see where this new trend will fall in 2…

For some of people, probably more than you'd expect, work is pretty much the only social contact.

I see this comment in every one of these discussions, but finding new venues for social contact is a fairly simple adjustment to make once you accept that it's necessary.

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

#266

Post by aphextron »

I've been trying recently to wrap my head around what life is going to be like from here on out. Where do we go? Things will never be the same again. Remote work will now be completely normal, that's for sure. But how do we get back to living our lives? Fundamental assumptions I've had about the things I've wanted to do in life are now basically no longer an option. Will Silicon Valley no longer really be a "thing" anymore with physical meetups, hackathons, conferences etc. being a thing of the past? Surely at some point we have to reckon with this, rather than just hunkering down in our caves.

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

#267

Post by eachro »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #238
chrisco255 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but if you actually look at the death count, it has dropped in the past month and a half, despite re-openings: https://ga-covid19.ondemand.sas.com/ Georgia being one of the earliest states to re-open, continue to see their deaths plummet even as their case count increases. What's the reason for this? I don't know. Better testing, maybe. Maybe a less deadly version of the virus is propagating now. Not sure.

The Georgia death rate graph that you link to is sort of an odd case; there's apparently a variable lag between the occurrence and reporting of a death, sometimes up to a month - When a death is reported, they place it on its occurrence date on the graph, not on the reported date. As a result, it will appear from this graph that deaths are always declining whether they are or not - the more recent deaths have not yet…

Another thing to keep in mind about hospitalizations is that many people have avoided going to hospitals during the pandemic for non-covid related visits for fear of contracting covid at the hospital and/or adding to hospitals caseload. It could also be the case that people are re-evaluating their risk profiles and no longer taking the same precautions with respect to hospital visits. I'm not sure what is really happening but wanted to emphasize how tricky it can be to interpret covid related metrics.

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

#268

Post by UncleOxidant »

chrisco255 wrote: post #213
UncleOxidant wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how so many people/entities want to pretend that somehow the pandemic is less dangerous now than it was in March when we started all of the isolating/WFH. When in fact we have a lot more cases now, high levels of new cases and more than half the states have R0 > 1.0. https://rt.live/

Yes, but if you actually look at the death count, it has dropped in the past month and a half, despite re-openings: https://ga-covid19.ondemand.sas.com/ Georgia being one of the earliest states to re-open, continue to see their deaths plummet even as their case count increases. What's the reason for this? I don't know. Better testing, maybe. Maybe a less deadly version of the virus is propagating now. Not sure.

Deaths lag new cases by 2 to 3 weeks.

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

#269

Post by perl4ever »

ubermonkey wrote: post #251

A cycling pal of mine is an in-house lawyer at a big oil company here in Houston. They were told a couple weeks ago that there were no plans to go back to the office until at LEAST 2021. All the work is being done just fine.

Working for a unionized public sector employer, they are nevertheless doing the charade of "well, we'll go back next month, oops, maybe not" over and over. So I guess it's not just the heartless capitalists.

Most recently, a mid-July date was mooted for returning to the office, but a few days later it was announced that the union-negotiated work-from-home arrangements have been extended to October. It's ambiguous whether there will be a transition period, or if really nobody wants to go in.

But nobody seems to want to push things out as far as next year all at once. Some employees feel threatened and say they're not going back until there's a vaccine. I'm just kind of bemused for the moment, because I'm almost 100% sure that as things get worse, there is no chance of following through on the plans, yet the authorities keep making them, and then pushing the date out a little more.

I'm fine with going back to the office as soon as other people are and management can explain why we should. But I'm not sure that's happening in the forseeable future. Every day we get an email from our dear leader talking about going back as though we need to keep our hopes up, yet we are also told how well we are doing working remote. So...why return?

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

#270

Post by jedberg »

scarface74 wrote: post #259
jedberg wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Time zones are still a thing. No matter how remote someone is, if they're more than a few times zones away it becomes problematic. More than nine timezones across the company is nearly impossible to do well. So if we're talking about a US company, if you want anyone on the west coast, hiring continental Europeans will be tough, unless one of those groups is willing to work outside normal hours. Also, taxes can be har…

Also, taxes can be hard. I'm sure as remote working gets more popular, services will pop up to help with this and maybe laws will change, but right now, it's really hard to hire someone outside the US, and it's fairly complex to hire someone inside the US in state that you aren't already in. Inside the US is a solved problem. I haven't worked for a company in 20 years that did its own payroll. ADP, Insperity among ot…

It's absolutely not solved. I run a company with employees in multiple states.

The payroll company takes care of some of the problems, but for example, every state has different rules about worker's comp. Most states require you to get your own, but you still have to let them know. Some states require you to buy into their state system, which requires signing up.

Then there is corporate registration. Many states require you to register as a foreign entity. Payroll doesn't take care of that.

Then you have to pay state taxes, or if you just have employees, you have to file a form that says "I don't owe your state any income taxes".

There are other things different states do differently that the payroll provider doesn't take care of.

Post reply on HN