141–150 of 169 posts
"Pending approval from your manager/lead" - Corporate doublespeak for Don't even think about going full time remote. We are going to drag you back kicking and screaming.
it is a typical corporate doublespeak and approach for stratification of perks - the higher strata would easily be granted the approval, no questions asked, while the lower - what you described.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In Spain: "Under the plans, an estimated 200 to 400 Spanish companies will voluntarily take part in the project by reducing their employees’ working week to 32 hours while keeping their salaries the same. The government will compensate participating businesses for any higher costs incurred by the changes, such as the need to hire additional staff or to reorganize scheduling and shift patterns. That investment will be…
> The government will compensate participating businesses for any higher costs incurred by the changes, such as the need to hire additional staff This is strange. They're paying companies to hire extra workers so everyone can work fewer hours? Sounds more like a jobs program than anything.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure I completely buy that in-person conversations are a net positive. Constantly being interrupted with drop-in conversations definitely hurts productivity. The vast majority of the time those conversations could have been an email and our two minute chat is going to take me ten minutes to get back in the zone of what I was working on.
The decision-making process much (and by high margin) more effective in-person. Email is too slow, chat is too frustrating (too many back-and-forth messages just to make sure everyone on the same understanding level). The simple questions (how to do smth, where to find smth and so on) are better and less disturbing - via chat. You can always answer later, when you have time. And good co-workers know how to distinguis…
This reminds me the time I was working at the office. We had an open floor plan, and so no doors (except the CEO).
It was sometimes nice to talk to people, but there were times when I was deeply in code, and someone asked a small random question from me. It was clearly because he/she wanted just to talk. This would have been better to ask through Slack as I could then continue my work and answer later.
So what I usually did was a) stayed home for deep work hours or b) put on my headset and listened to music to indicate that my "door" was closed.
And yes, with the CTO the physical door was an indication: if it was open, we went in and discussed something, and he was always happy to do so. When it was closed, we didn't interrupt him, and when we did, you could feel that he was feeling indeed interrupted.
> Whether you choose to transfer to a different office or opt for completely remote work, your compensation will be adjusted according to your new location. That's it, the end of geographic arbitrage. No more working from the mountains on a Silicon Valley salary. Hope everyone enjoyed it while it lasted.
If you're in a relatively low comp area and decide to work remotely from a high comp city, does your location-based pay go up? Or is all "remote" work considered the same location pay-wise? And furthermore, who's checking all of this—do you have to prove where you work, or just have a mailing address and a place to pay taxes? I know one place that sent an inspector to verify the home office had the minimum required o…
I'm not sure exactly how sales tax rules work, but in the US I believe that if a business has a presence in a given state they are required to collect sales tax in that state. This could matter for smaller companies but probably Google already has a presence in every US state.
Regardless, purposefully lying to your employer about your location seems like something most employers would get really upset about simply on principle once they found out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a matter of etiquette, and of boundaries. In-person conversations are definitely a net positive if your coworkers are well-mannered. Also, there's this new invention called "doors" that I wish companies would get on board with. I hear that "opening" one's "door" can be used as an invitation to chat. :)
> Also, there's this new invention called "doors" Must be very new since our office had none bar for the meeting rooms.
Imo all jobs should also be offered as either 5 days or 4 days (@80% salary) as a minimum. The lack of flexibility annoyed me so much that I built https://4dayweek.io/ Software jobs with a better work / life balance
Google offers really easily 80% time for 80% salary, even for nooglers. You just have to ask for it, some of my friends here went for it straight away after being hired.
Myself I'm on 90% (one every other Friday off) just because that's my optimal balance.
This is really stupid. Most people do not need to be in an office to get work done. Google, and all these other tech companies, made record profits this year. I just don't get why they insist on keeping people in a seat? At least for google, offering all these on-site only perks is just a scheme to keep employees at work for as long as possible.
Aside from jobs that actually need to be done in person, I think it really comes down to leadership egos. Probably just feels good to walk by a sea of minions on your way to the corner office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're misinformed. Please stop spreading misinformation.
That's not entirely untrue. Even if you do get promoted, the four year cliff is real. I got promoted and still experienced a substantial loss in total comp at year 4, with good performance and what seemed to be typical refresh grants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t that the justification France used when they went to 37 hours and aren’t they down to 35 now? Fewer hours means a couple more positions to keep an eye on things, even if productivity doesn’t drop for everyone else.
In France this didn't really work, in corporate jobs anyways, people would just work their old hours anyway, which they then take off as 'vacation days' - typically in the vacation periods where there's downtime anyways. Doesn't seem like it's worked to help increase total employment.
I haven't seen any studies but I'd not be surprised if this translates into an increase in total employment.
Another benefit I perceive is that by assuming that people will be absent, companies have higher bus factors by default and the increased resilience that goes with it. And of course, the reduced efficiency that comes hand in hand. I've lived through enough crises to favour resilience.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Google equivalent of a chipping block in most cases is not getting promoted Do tell, given what you know about the Google promotion process, how a choice to work remotely would translate to a decreased likelihood to be promoted (and, importantly, to an unfair degree)?
Realized I have a typo from relying too heavily on auto-correct. Sorry about that. I worked at Google for four years. I've seen many people I know basically "play it safe" by making conservative decisions in order to minimize the likelihood of hurting one's promo chances. Despite all the talk about this, nobody really knows for sure what will affect their promo. For example, people will stay on a team they hate rathe…
Got it. So when it was asked, "how many know they're on the chopping block if they work remotely" and it was redefined to ask "how many know their chances for promotion might be affected by working remotely?"... The answer is "almost everyone".
Many people will happily choose to work remotely, even if it makes promotion harder, because that's a good trade-off for them. Exactly like people will happily work from other offices.
So what's the problem?