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

The damaging results of mandated return to office

entrepreneur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 348 posts

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#211

Post by valleyjo »

NKosmatos wrote: post #103

Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back. It’s like going from a black and white TV to a color one, from a dummy phone to a smartphone, from dialup internet to fiber to the home. You never go the other way round, unless there is a very strong reason and personal decision. People like to improve their lives in whatever way is best for them and will strongly object to a “downgra…

Not universally true. I strongly prefer work from office. I hate commuting but prefer the office so that’s a paradox I struggle with. I’ve been thinking terrible commutes are a symptom of how we’ve built society. If everyone lived within 20 minutes by public transit or bike or walk from the office would there still be as much pushback?

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#212

Post by ggm »

NKosmatos wrote: post #103

Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back. It’s like going from a black and white TV to a color one, from a dummy phone to a smartphone, from dialup internet to fiber to the home. You never go the other way round, unless there is a very strong reason and personal decision. People like to improve their lives in whatever way is best for them and will strongly object to a “downgra…

Black and white TV had higher fidelity in pixel terms to colour TV.

Just sayin'

I know what you mean, but once you've had true greyscale, nothing really comes close.

There's a reason people watch uncoloured movies.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#213

Post by nehal3m »

lynx23 wrote: post #74
CtrlAltDelete51 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a source for any of that? Speaking personally, everyone I’ve spoken to on the matter (myself included) have zero desire to return to a traditional office.

How many people do you know? When WFH was mandated, I hated it. When the mandate was finally kicked, I loved going back to the office, and have spent almost every workday at the office, despite having the possibility to do 40% WFH if I wanted. No, I don't want that, thank you. Not a coder, working as admin. I like people, that is why I work in an office. And personal experience is definitely that working together wit…

"Besides, sometimes, WFH-people are just not reachable, because reasons... Daughter has sneezed the first time, or wife has decided she needs to go for her yoga class and coworker suddenly needs to care for a 4-year-old... And, god forbid, if you ever say anything when these blatantly shameless things happen, you are the bad guy."

This is obviously hyperbole for... living a life?

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#214

Post by n4r9 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #199
n4r9 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having the tech to allow a few employees to work remotely is one thing. Having an organisational and operational structure to allow everyone to work remotely is another thing entirely . You have to transform a lot of things like: * On-boarding - new employees are no longer able to suss out the company by chatting to people they bump into. They need well-defined ways to meet other teams and to learn how to communicate…

> Having an organisational and operational structure to allow everyone to work remotely is another thing entirely. It really isn't. Not for a lot of companies. Smaller, older, single-site operations maybe. Almost anything with more than one location is already intimately familiar with distributed communication, typically don't replicate HR everywhere so have all electronic onboarding anyway (aside from sending a lapt…

> Smaller, older, single-site operations maybe

This accounts for around half of US employees and most US businesses. In the UK and other countries, it's even more.

> all electronic onboarding anyway

That's not true, you'll almost always be having in-person chats throughout your on-boarding if you're in the office. And anyway, the tech really isn't the issue here. As a new recruit in the office, you're usually sitting near your mentor/line manager. Every now and then they'll verbally check in with you, or you can tell them you're stuck on something and they'll tell you what to do or who to go to. As other colleagues approach your team area, your manager introduces you to them and explains what they do.

In a remote environment, all of this suddenly takes a lot more conscious pro-active effort. Check-ins have to be rigorously scheduled. New hires need to feel safe enough to approach anyone they need to, and to be told in writing who to approach and how. They need to be introduced to everyone explicitly via call or messaging. They need to be protected from falling "out of sight, out of mind", and encouraged to build personal connections with colleagues.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#215

Post by dougmwne »

fmajid wrote: post #189

I recently changed jobs and had the choice between a senior IC role at a FAANG and an engineering director position at an open-source company that is fully remote. While working in fully remote culture would be intellectually interesting, I opted for the FAANG and enjoying going back to the (incredibly cushy) office, after 3 years of WFH that I found isolating and depressing, even though I am an introvert and possibl…

I can tell you that the comfort of your home is a huge factor. I would not dismiss it. I think that it accounts for a lot of the difference between European attitudes to WFH and American.

My best WFH situation was a beach house where I had a dedicated room for work, a large back garden and could take 3 walks a day down the beach between calls.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#216

Post by throwawaylinux »

n4r9 wrote: post #214
throwawaylinux wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having an organisational and operational structure to allow everyone to work remotely is another thing entirely. It really isn't. Not for a lot of companies. Smaller, older, single-site operations maybe. Almost anything with more than one location is already intimately familiar with distributed communication, typically don't replicate HR everywhere so have all electronic onboarding anyway (aside from sending a lapt…

> Smaller, older, single-site operations maybe This accounts for around half of US employees and most US businesses. In the UK and other countries, it's even more. > all electronic onboarding anyway That's not true, you'll almost always be having in-person chats throughout your on-boarding if you're in the office. And anyway, the tech really isn't the issue here. As a new recruit in the office, you're usually sitting…

> This accounts for around half of US employees and most US businesses. In the UK and other countries, it's even more.

Right. Far from the "few and far between" narrative here, isn't it?

> That's not true,

I'm talking about HR onboarding. Signatures, payroll, boilerplate regulatory compliance training etc.

> you'll almost always be having in-person chats throughout your on-boarding if you're in the office.

Nope, not if HR is located elsewhere. It's phone, email, electronic meetings.

> And anyway, the tech really isn't the issue here. As a new recruit in the office, you're usually sitting near your mentor/line manager. Every now and then they'll verbally check in with you, or you can tell them you're stuck on something and they'll tell you what to do or who to go to. As other colleagues approach your team area, your manager introduces you to them and explains what they do.

"If you're in the office you'll be in the office".

All of this stuff is trivial to do online. I don't pretend it has exactly the same results, and one possibly valid concern is monitoring and hepling newer and less proven employees. It doesn't mean that just because there are certain pros and cons that the whole idea falls in a heap at the first hurdle though, so those kinds of anecdotes do not address what I wrote.

> In a remote environment, all of this suddenly takes a lot more conscious pro-active effort. Check-ins have to be rigorously scheduled. New hires need to feel safe enough to approach anyone they need to, and to be told in writing who to approach and how. They need to be introduced to everyone explicitly via call or messaging. They need to be protected from falling "out of sight, out of mind", and encouraged to build personal connections with colleagues.

None of this is rocket science, and all of the tools to do it trivially exist in any software suite any company uses even ones that aren't remote. Email, calendar, chat. Or a physical pen and notepad if you must. Checking in on people isn't some incredible and complicated new skill managers have to learn, that's what they do.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#217

Post by sokoloff »

zem wrote: post #164
flakeoil wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We will most likely see that jobs that cannot be done by working from home will see an increase in salary and WFH jobs will see a decrease. I'm thinking about jobs like nurses, electricians, factory workers, teachers etc.

I really hope so! though historically this has not been the case due to the whole "unskilled/low skilled jobs" framing

Is it due to that framing, or due to the balance of supply and demand for that labor and that framing is just an explanation of the supply?

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#218

Post by jen20 »

valleyjo wrote: post #211
NKosmatos wrote: post #103

Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back. It’s like going from a black and white TV to a color one, from a dummy phone to a smartphone, from dialup internet to fiber to the home. You never go the other way round, unless there is a very strong reason and personal decision. People like to improve their lives in whatever way is best for them and will strongly object to a “downgra…

Not universally true. I strongly prefer work from office. I hate commuting but prefer the office so that’s a paradox I struggle with. I’ve been thinking terrible commutes are a symptom of how we’ve built society. If everyone lived within 20 minutes by public transit or bike or walk from the office would there still be as much pushback?

Per the root post of the thread:

> _and you like the taste_

If you don’t, that’s fine, and your preferences need not be imposed on your peers.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#219

Post by drewcsillag »

valleyjo wrote: post #211
NKosmatos wrote: post #103

Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back. It’s like going from a black and white TV to a color one, from a dummy phone to a smartphone, from dialup internet to fiber to the home. You never go the other way round, unless there is a very strong reason and personal decision. People like to improve their lives in whatever way is best for them and will strongly object to a “downgra…

Not universally true. I strongly prefer work from office. I hate commuting but prefer the office so that’s a paradox I struggle with. I’ve been thinking terrible commutes are a symptom of how we’ve built society. If everyone lived within 20 minutes by public transit or bike or walk from the office would there still be as much pushback?

Would there still be as much pushback? Yes.

Open office environments are terrible for productivity, stress, health, etc. — the science is pretty well settled here.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#220

Post by ac2u »

ddevault wrote: post #209
ac2u wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did the person you’re replying to imply they didn’t have solidarity or wanted office work imposed on everyone? The parent poster simply said “Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back.” And the reply was essentially “to each their own but my WFH experience was different “ and you’re ready to jump down their throat with accusations of lack of solidarity.

It's just such a pointless distraction. Don't make it about you? It reminds me of men who hear that women get paid less and start complaining about their own salary. "Hey, we have this problem." "To each their own but it doesn't affect me!" Why waste your breath to say this?

You’re adding a lot of baggage to the poster here that they never implied. It’s pretty important to have a pulse on what’s important to employees.

Employers taking the posters point into consideration may mean that they’re a remote first company, but they also provide coworking passes for people that appreciate not working from home.

In the same way that pre-covid management monoculture was “WFH could never work”, the monoculture now risks being dominated by people who have dedicated home offices who seemingly can’t empathise with people who appreciate commuting somewhere, feigning outrage at anyone who could dare suggest that there are multiple perspectives.

Post reply on HN