191–200 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
does going remote impact one's salary?
From what I’ve been told it’s been pretty easy for some to negotiate no salary adjustment when going remote. It’s against HR “policy” but I know deals happened when someone was deemed a crucial contributor.
Do Googlers mind working in the office much? They get plenty of free meals/snacks/beverages, great equipment, and great salary allowing them to live close to the office and pay for childcare if needed. I can't see the rest of the industry moving in the direction of returning to the office, because they don't have these things.
If you want my opinion, open space sucks and I can buy my own snacks. After one day at the office, I feel my head is about to explode. Constant noise, bright artificial lights... The only good thing is that I can have informal meetings with my colleagues, talk around the white board and so on... this is very valuable.
After two years of not being in the office, I don't see how anyone can justify going into the office without putting themselves into a quagmire of hypocrisy and contradiction.
My problem with remote work is that it exacerbates a divide between blue and white collar workers that breeds further resentment, which has already led to all sorts of social ills. I’m not sure the individual benefits outweigh the collective rage.
We should address it by making the lives of blue collar workers better (higher minimum wage, universal healthcare, high density housing), not by making the lives of white collar workers worse.
A few months back I was talking to a manager at [huge established software company]. He was making the case that obviously anyone who has moved away from the Bay Area should have their pay cut. He personally has not been in the office for a single day since spring 2020, but since he telecommutes from Berkeley rather than Omaha, he sees no reason to cut his own pay. Later that same day I spoke to someone who's managin…
If anything people that work from home should get a raise since the company doesn't need to pay for their space in an office.
I think anyone who's claiming that remote work has been "proven" to be better or worse is wrong. There are some studies but they use estimations and proxies, carrying the same flaws as doing performance reviews based on lines of code. We've proven that the big tech companies can go fully remote and not completely crash and burn, that's about it. Some people love the lack of commute and less semi-forced hanging out, s…
I think anyone who's claiming that remote work has been "proven" to be better or worse is wrong. There are some studies but they use estimations and proxies, carrying the same flaws as doing performance reviews based on lines of code. We've proven that the big tech companies can go fully remote and not completely crash and burn, that's about it. Some people love the lack of commute and less semi-forced hanging out, s…
> We've proven that the big tech companies can go fully remote and not completely crash and burn, that's about it. Agreed. We've proven that big tech companies can continue to be productive for up to two years going remote. I suspect that that doesn't generalize very well to being completely remote over the long term. It works well when you already have a bunch of personal relationships between teammates that were es…
What a miserable work culture it must be for them to even have the nerve to declare this.
Downvote away, I’ll be hiring some of them! ;-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both engineers and managers at big tech companies can get by working 2 hours a day. And remote vs on-site doesn't affect that. This has been true since well before WFH. As for the location-based pay part, I bet none of the people who were furious about getting "adjusted" after moving out of the Bay Area ever complained about their colleagues in Bangalore working the same amount as them and making 1/5 as much.
I get a bit annoyed hearing about the 2 hour a day folks. They are probably forcing their peers or managers to take on more work than is their fair share. I'm in management now .. as an engineer, I most certainly used to work over 8 hours a day (probably 12 hours, counting all the time I spent studying to keep up). Now, in management, the hours have actually gone up .. I now have to worry about things my team is doin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Location is one factor in cost of living, but there are a lot of others too: the type of car you drive (if you drive a car), the quality of food you buy/coffee you drink/restaurants you frequent, the number of kids you have, the schools they go to, etc. Should companies adjust compensation according to these variables too, or just city?
No because everything you listed is a personal choice.
It's funny, because that logic means that location-based-pay becomes its own justification. The city I live in is normally a personal choice. But by paying based on location, the city I live in no longer becomes a personal choice, which justifies the extra pay for living in that city.
But the moment that my company discriminates pay based on anything that has an associated cost, it suddenly stops being a personal choice, which justifies that pay differential.
If part of my pay was tied to wearing an expensive suit, then my clothes would no longer be a personal choice, thus justifying the extra pay for the suit.
If part of my pay was tied to me driving a fancy car, then my car would no longer be a personal choice, so it would make sense for them to pay extra for the fancy car.
If part of my pay was tied to enrolling my kids in a particular school, then enrolling in that school would no longer be a personal choice, so it would make sense for them to pay extra for that, and so on...
Why do so many assume that there are only 3 options: - 100% remote. - 100% office. - Some rigid hybrid scheme of n days per week in the office every week where n = 3 +/-1. Why not "mainly remote but be in the office when it makes sense to be in the office"? This is how my team has been operating since last July - remote first but every 1-2 months we'll do a week onsite somewhere. Now we're getting pressure to start b…
There may be some highly specific scheme that could make hybrid work, but in every situation where I've encountered hybrid it's been riddled with problems: - Decisions made in the office, remote employees input ignored - Manager sees others in the office, remote employees ignored for promotions - Remote employees given the green light to work remote, others who don't work remote resent the remote employee for having…
Not sure which schedule you are talking about you shouldn't all the employees be generally available between 9 am to 5 pm?