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

There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

chartr.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#61

Post by ghaff »

jayd16 wrote: post #40
mike_d wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a pretty toxic environment. Working with remote employees is no different than working with someone in another office. Consider the pre-pandemic prevalence of "phone booths" and one person conference rooms, so you can be in a meeting as the only local attendee. As far as the other location is considered, you are remote just with access to a bigger coffee maker.

Its toxic to not want to be on zoom or have to book a meeting room to talk? >no different than working with someone in another office Given the choice, they'd likely prefer someone local in this case as well.

I might have used a different word than toxic. But, in general, it's unrealistic for many teams at many larger companies to expect everyone to be local and physically available for a random meeting. On my team people are scattered all over the US and at least one is in Europe. And that's not at all unusual.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#62

Post by ghaff »

nonameiguess wrote: post #58
whywhywhywhy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seeing lots of people on teams very vocal about not wanting to work with remote people either and saying no to anyone that has the inkling of it. Something the remote crowd might not realize is happening.

This seems a little ridiculous, probably a backlash against shittily-handled hasty retreats to full-remote for the pandemic, from companies and teams that didn't handle it well. Putting aside that my current company is 100% distributed, doesn't have offices, and I'm the only one in the company that lives in my city, so they can't ask us back, I haven't had a job since I managed a bar nearly 20 years ago that didn't i…

>shittily-handled hasty retreats to full-remote for the pandemic

That's more than a bit unfair. From what I've seen a lot of companies that were completely unprepared to switch to remote, handled it a lot better than they thought they could.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#63

Post by ghaff »

karaterobot wrote: post #45

> Indeed, as reported by The Washington Post, 50% of job applications on LinkedIn last month were for remote work positions, despite the fact that from-home postings made up just 15% of the listings on the site. Another explanation could be: High-paying tech industry jobs are more likely to offer WFH, and are more competitive than low-paying service-industry jobs. There are more service industry job postings, but mor…

Tech is indeed something of a bubble from what I can tell. Rush hour traffic looks at least as bad as ever around where I live--though the driver who picked me up at the airport a few weeks ago told me Monday and Friday are appreciably lighter.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#64

Post by sundaeofshock »

WWLink wrote: post #52
KronisLV wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> BTW - my current employer (big tech company) also wants to bring everyone back into the office, even though it increased the headcount during the pandemic and there was no campus expansion for 1 and half year due to COVID lockdowns and there is no space for everyone. My current company hasn't made such a demand, but I've also heard that in others in this country about 20% of people actually prefer to work in person…

> My current company hasn't made such a demand, but I've also heard that in others in this country about 20% of people actually prefer to work in person daily, everyone else seems to work remotely. That 20% probably also expects/demands everyone else show up, because they prefer everyone else to be there, too! :)

You got a citation for that?

I’m a part of the 20% who enjoys going into the office a few times a week. There are three other folks who show up regularly; the rest rarely — if ever — make an appearance. I’m fine with this arrangement and I don’t see a need to force everyone else back in.

With the the exception of misguided upper management, I suspect most people take a more nuanced view of remote work.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#65

Post by oregano »

ghaff wrote: post #34
mike_d wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a pretty toxic environment. Working with remote employees is no different than working with someone in another office. Consider the pre-pandemic prevalence of "phone booths" and one person conference rooms, so you can be in a meeting as the only local attendee. As far as the other location is considered, you are remote just with access to a bigger coffee maker.

The reality with a lot of teams at many large companies is that meetings of any size will involve people in different offices/fully remote/traveling/etc. Even if I and others nominally assigned to my local office all came in, I'm not sure I'd know a single person on a given day.

I work at a large company based in Seattle and this is exactly my experience. I go into the office maybe once every few weeks and maybe talk to one or two people from my org. We do coordinate to get together in the office every couple months which is kind of fun but not worth doing on a weekly basis as our team is already distributed across the country and world.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#66

Post by [deleted] »

sundaeofshock wrote: post #64
WWLink wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My current company hasn't made such a demand, but I've also heard that in others in this country about 20% of people actually prefer to work in person daily, everyone else seems to work remotely. That 20% probably also expects/demands everyone else show up, because they prefer everyone else to be there, too! :)

You got a citation for that? I’m a part of the 20% who enjoys going into the office a few times a week. There are three other folks who show up regularly; the rest rarely — if ever — make an appearance. I’m fine with this arrangement and I don’t see a need to force everyone else back in. With the the exception of misguided upper management, I suspect most people take a more nuanced view of remote work.

[deleted]

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#67

Post by KronisLV »

WWLink wrote: post #52
KronisLV wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> BTW - my current employer (big tech company) also wants to bring everyone back into the office, even though it increased the headcount during the pandemic and there was no campus expansion for 1 and half year due to COVID lockdowns and there is no space for everyone. My current company hasn't made such a demand, but I've also heard that in others in this country about 20% of people actually prefer to work in person…

> My current company hasn't made such a demand, but I've also heard that in others in this country about 20% of people actually prefer to work in person daily, everyone else seems to work remotely. That 20% probably also expects/demands everyone else show up, because they prefer everyone else to be there, too! :)

> That 20% probably also expects/demands everyone else show up, because they prefer everyone else to be there, too! :)

This hasn't been my experience exactly, though I've also participated in the occasional get-together at the office when the team collectively decided to work together in person.

As for the motivations of those who prefer to be at the office, some might have living conditions where the office environment is a more pleasant for work (especially given some family situations), others like to have clear boundaries between a work place and a rest place... whatever those motivations might be, I don't judge.

Though I can see how it would be annoying if someone demanded that everyone fit their preferred way of work. I once talked to someone who was dead set on only doing synchronous communication and rejected the idea of someone being able to respond to their question an hour later or so as acceptable - something like that would definitely cause problems, though that's just a particular mindset to look out for.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#68

Post by gedy »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #14
mike_d wrote: post #4

This is a bold claim made on a very shaky set of data. Most companies aren't going to explicitly post jobs for remote, just because a lot of talent management platforms don't really support it well. I think the goto is to post the job as available in every location the company has an office, and see what the applicant wants to do. Of course employers want people to come back. They have millions if not billions of dol…

Seeing lots of people on teams very vocal about not wanting to work with remote people either and saying no to anyone that has the inkling of it. Something the remote crowd might not realize is happening.

Then pay up so I can afford to live by office. If not, this important collaboration can just suffer a little with remote comms.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#69

Post by up2isomorphism »

Remote work for a lot of people simply does not work. It is not the interaction makes progress but the intensity of interactions makes progress. And for a large number of people remote communication does not give the necessary intensity.

In my opinion very few jobs should be posted as remote but adjusted to remote if that does not hurt productivity.

Re: There aren't enough remote jobs to go around

#70

Post by ghaff »

sundaeofshock wrote: post #64
WWLink wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My current company hasn't made such a demand, but I've also heard that in others in this country about 20% of people actually prefer to work in person daily, everyone else seems to work remotely. That 20% probably also expects/demands everyone else show up, because they prefer everyone else to be there, too! :)

You got a citation for that? I’m a part of the 20% who enjoys going into the office a few times a week. There are three other folks who show up regularly; the rest rarely — if ever — make an appearance. I’m fine with this arrangement and I don’t see a need to force everyone else back in. With the the exception of misguided upper management, I suspect most people take a more nuanced view of remote work.

I suspect that most people who would like more coworkers to come back into the office appreciate that they have very little say in the matter and should probably largely keep quiet about their preferences--and perhaps seek out somewhere where things are different if they care.

I suspect many have preferences but not strong enough ones to take imminent action.

Post reply on HN