> One Google employee, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, typically commutes to the Seattle office from a nearby county and would likely see their pay cut by about 10% by working from home full-time, according estimates by the company's Work Location Tool launched in June. > The employee was considering remote work but decided to keep going to the office - despite the two-hour commute. This seems…
Google employees who work from home could lose money
481–490 of 699 posts
Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#482So what it seems is that google sees a lot of people wanting to work remote. With this, they say you can work remote..but if you choose to live away from office, you will earn less.
Now why do they want “remote” employees close to the office? My guess is one of two things: 1) it’s easier to require folks to come into office for random events like team building. Less room to squabble if you live in same city 2) it’s a long term play to “pull” people back into office. When you live in same city as office, it’s a much easier choice to decide “hey maybe I should just go back to office.”
Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#483> One Google employee, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation, typically commutes to the Seattle office from a nearby county and would likely see their pay cut by about 10% by working from home full-time, according estimates by the company's Work Location Tool launched in June. > The employee was considering remote work but decided to keep going to the office - despite the two-hour commute. This seems…
Here is the thing: All of this money as a whole amount makes the choice seem silly. What happens when you factor in cost of living is that the 10% starts growing incredibly fast. If their current spend is 80% of their salary, then the 10% is actually a 50% post-expense difference. Suddenly that drive makes sense.
This goes double, once you're a family. Negotiating between partners and children about which things to cut back on is unpleasant.
My advice (which I've followed imperfectly) is that if you have the income to make this reasonable, leave a cushion where you can handle setbacks without having to make the hard choices.
Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of people do need a car even in Europe. In France, unless you live in central Paris you do. In the UK, unless you live in central London yo do. Now, if you live around Paris or London you may be able to commute to work by public transport, and many people do, indeed, but many also commute by car, and the vast majority do outside of these areas. I'm sure the same applies to many other countries. Edit: By…
Transport options available to me living in mid-sized European city: - Tram - Train - Electric bicycle hire - Electric moped hire - Bicycle hire - Foot - Taxi - Bus - Own bicycle / ebike / electric scooter / moped - Aeroplane - Own car (if you can afford ~€40k to buy a parking space) - Ferry Transport options available in American suburbs: - Own car It seems to me that most Americans are already living under severe r…
- Lightrail
- Train (Amtrack station downtown, accessible from lightrail)
- Bus (w/bike rack, bus stop 100ft from my front door)
- Electric bicycle hire
- Electric scooter hire
- Foot (nearest grocery is 1.2mi, nearest restaurants are 0.8mi)
- Taxi
- Own bicycle (bike trail from neighborhood to the office park where I work)
- Aeroplane (lightrail goes to one of the largest international airports)
- Own Car (large driveway, two car garage w/ electric vehicle charging)
- Own bicycle
- Own Motorcycle
Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
" more strategic your role -should- be. " "The problem is too many upper managers think their role should be tactical. " So this is a little bit mythologizing and there's a couple problems with this perception: 1) Everything is operational, and operations require material leadership at every level, there is no escaping it. Meaning, that there's a very material 'hands-on' component to even in higher level leadership.…
So I'm not saying strategic vs tactical is a binary; it's a spectrum. And where to fall on it is hard; I think we're in agreement here. But, you mention you've been overridden by bad executive fiat on occasion, and also made forays where you shouldn't have because you didn't have the bigger picture. The 'right' course of action to address both of those as your manager would be to make sure you understand the bigger p…
So many issues transcend the narrow scope of some product, which is why 'the effect' as you say, generally goes pretty far, meaning, executive leadership input which is essentially necessary.
It's also a good example of how circumstances can create existential scenarios that have nothing to do with classical strategy and yet take up so much time and be pretty important to a companies evolution.
To me, strategic issues like acquisitions, major product extensions or internalizing parts of the supply chain (i.e. Apple doing cars, their new ASIC chips) are big, CEO level things, those are not general executive strategic things.
The VP at Apple in charge of desktop software products has a 'strategy' that is not going to remotely sound like a 'strategy'.
I believe that the iPhone, since it's inception, has evolved along the lines of efficient product operations, not strategy. Or rather, their 'strategy' would be summarized by choosing 1-3 major consumer issues to focus on, having a new physical design to support that, and all of the marketing, carrier sales, ops and production issues resonating efficiently around it. Their 'strategy' is in a way just 'effective and coordinated product, product marketing, manufacturing, marketing operations' etc..
Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#486Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#487Relevant goomic: https://goomics.net/347/ For those who can't / don't want to follow the link: it cleverly contrasts how it's perceived as righteous for corporations to engage in tax-arbitrage to maximize profits, but deceptive for employees to engage in cost-of-living arbitrage to maximize quality of life.
When I applied it was for a different LOB (line of business). I was applying for tmobile customer service. I did their tests, we spoke of compensation, hours, days available, all that good stuff. I told them I was tired of being on call 24/7 and wanted regular scheduled hours, so I could know exactly when I get off work, plan accordingly and have a life.
They told me I was going to be interviewing with three senior people from my team.
They kept asking me weird questions that had nothing to do with the job I had applied for (T-mobile customer service).
At the end they told me I was hired, but at the very end they tell me its for a totally different LOB (applied and tested for tmobile, was instead hired for Goodsam Roadside Assistance).
They told me everything would remain the same- hours, comp, everything.
All lies of course.
So I get to training and find out hours are all over the place, no set schedule, and even better? -I never knew when I would get off work. Once we took a call we had to complete it.
Imagine someone in BFE Canada, with a 40' RV, with a busted axle, and I have to now manually call all over Canada for 8+ hours to find a mobile mechanic willing to go for our paltry rates,oh and it's three ferrys to get there!
They would not let us hand off calls, we could not take breaks even for restroom while on a call. Some calls went well over 8 hours. It was fucking disgusting.
When I had enough of this they kept reiterating that we owed the company our time since it was our responsibility. When we accepted the job we took on a responsibility to our customers, our coworkers but most importantly to Qualfon. When they gave us a schedule we had to adhere to it or be fired...but they could change our hours/days on a whim and we had to take it. When they had mandatory overtime we would be fired if we didn't work it as it now counted as 'scheduled time'
They didn't seem phased when I mentioned that what they were doing was illegal AF (no breaks, no telling about hours, refusing to let you off calls etc). When I bitched about not having a life because I never knew when I got off work, and how this LOB was a bait and switch, they kept reiterating we needed to keep our promises. I asked what about what we were promised by goodsam and qualfon, how they needed to adhere to our scheduled hours, stop changing days/hours, etc. I was pulled into an office where the site supervisor tried to bully me (a giant dude used to getting his way) we had a screaming match and I offered to take it outside. I mean if you get out of your chair while screaming and stand in my face jamming a finger in my chest, the way I see it you want a fight and I'm happy to oblige.
Then starts the screaming for security (which we didn't even have!), which caused laughter since everyone heard what was happening.
Anyways I and half the floor walked out that day, and everyone above a phone operator was fired and replaced within a month.
This was the same company that when covid started refused to allow social distancing as it meant wasted space, and refused to allow masks as they 'muffled the operator's voice'
Moral of the story is every company, every single one, sees what they do as 'good' and anything the employees do/want is 'bad'.
They will, with a straight face, fuck you over and expect you to say 'thank you, sir, may I have another' .
And they all wonder why no one wants to be in these situations anymore, especially not for bullshit comp.
Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#488Class A office space in Manhattan is about $70/sqft, and the average office employee gets 150 sqft allocated (desk, hallway, conference room, supply closets...) Google is probably 170. That's $11900 annually that they save by not having an employee take up office space. No, it's not fungible on a small scale, but it's certainly fungible on a large scale: reduce your office needs by 100 people and you can rearrange de…
> sublet that 17000 sqft. Who to if everybody is working from home? Not that they are but there also aren't an infinite supply of companies that want to rent office space when many workers are now either WFH or hybrid working and only going in a couple of days each week.
Probably depends on how companies do hybrid although the ones I've heard plans from seem to be looking at hoteling arrangements which will cut total space.
Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Therefore your math doesn't add up. 2hr commute against 8 hours of work is not a 25% increase. What? Going from 8 to 10 hours is absolutely a 25% increase. 10 is 125% of 8
You are right, I was wrong. But I was mainly arguing that the commute time shouldn't be counted against work time, it really isn't: you can listen to radio, or read if you are on public transport. Rather, I'd count the saved commute against my life (as in, not work) time.
Re: Google employees who work from home could lose money
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strategy, in the end, if it's done well should seem fairly obvious, even boring. a product roadmap that takes into rational consideration the aspects of market dynamics. If your company is looking to make incremental improvements and not trying to do anything innovative, I agree. If you’re building the first smart phone where there exists no “roadmap” or “rational consideration”, then it’s neither going to be obvious…
Apple didn't build the first smartphone; they made it mass market because the technology (which Apple did not invent) had gotten to where bundling it into a smartphone would provide sufficient value to a consumer to be worth paying for. There were other mass market smartphones even then; what the iphone brought was UX (so kudos for Jobs for hiring Jony Ive) and an app store (so kudos for Jobs either for recognizing t…
IIRC, that was already true for business customers before the iPhone.
> There were other mass market smartphones even then; what the iphone brought was UX (so kudos for Jobs for hiring Jony Ive) and an app store (so kudos for Jobs either for recognizing the benefit of allowing others to do the work to extend the iphone's software capabilities, or for hiring someone who did).
IIRC, the previous smartphone brought email, what the iPhone brought was email and the Web. With regard to the app store, I'm not sure if Jobs really deserves much kudos for accepting what users were already doing with their devices rather than continuing to try to force his original vision (first party native apps and web apps only, no third party native apps).