31–40 of 564 posts
It's framed as a gift in order to manipulate the negotiating position. The fact is both employer and employee benefit from it, but if the employer can emphasize the benefits to the employee they can extract a bit of value from the relationship.
This article rests basically everything on one assertion: organisational productivity is equal or better with remote work. It would be prudent to show some evidence of this when making the subsequent points.
The opposite position could just as well be said to rest on the opposite assumption.
It strongly depends on your personality type. I'm much, much, much more productive WFH due to my ADHD. Also, noise cancelling earphones did NOT help while I was still in the office.
The cynical answer to that question is ”you don’t need to be in the office to do your work, but your manager does need you in the office to do his work”.
Unless you believe managers don’t do useful work, that doesn’t even strike me as a very cynical take. I disagree with it though, I manage a distributed team and I can do my work fine without the team being in the office. I think the serendipity arguments for on-site are much stronger than “manager doesn't trust team member to be productive on their own” which the entire world discovered was bullshit during the corona…
It’s a gift if you don’t have small children. It’s ridiculously harder if you do. It’s like trying to work in an emergency room, where every minute there’s some emergency, and you’re trying to do something different. Of course most people working in tech aren’t facing this issue and so think working from home is great for everyone.
Yet, there was more peace and ability to concentrate at home than there was at my previous office. Less interrupts, no time wasted to driving. And my kids weren't at the kindergarten.
The remote possibility even gave me enough energy to finalize my MSc finally (at evenings), something I wasn't able to do while working at the office for many years. Weird, huh?
I do miss beers with my colleagues though. But that's a bit difficult when none of my colleagues work in the same country, not much difference whether I would be in the office or not.
The cynical answer to that question is ”you don’t need to be in the office to do your work, but your manager does need you in the office to do his work”.
Because most people don’t like to be told to be in a certain place for a certain amount of time from where they can not leave. There’s another name for this situation.
> where they can not leave. unlike a prison, you're free to leave the job.
I find it kind of amusing (and annoying) that employers like to play the salaray game as it fits their needs. I got interviewed a few times, and some stated that they cannot pay the salary I was asking, because i don't live in a high-density, high-cost-for-living area, while others argued that they have to respect their local salaries, which are below what I would expect in my area. I'm yet to meet the employer that…
Imagine haggling with a supplier like this. Crazy we put up with it.
This article rests basically everything on one assertion: organisational productivity is equal or better with remote work. It would be prudent to show some evidence of this when making the subsequent points.
The opposite position could just as well be said to rest on the opposite assumption.
For many people I know this is the case, so I don't think pure remote or location work are "it".
I find it kind of amusing (and annoying) that employers like to play the salaray game as it fits their needs. I got interviewed a few times, and some stated that they cannot pay the salary I was asking, because i don't live in a high-density, high-cost-for-living area, while others argued that they have to respect their local salaries, which are below what I would expect in my area. I'm yet to meet the employer that…
> they cannot pay the salary I was asking, because i don't live in a high-density, high-cost-for-living area Imagine haggling with a supplier like this. Crazy we put up with it.