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

Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 838 posts

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#781

Post by gerl1ng »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #30

People who like WFH will never want to return to the office unless perhaps the office is a 5 minute walk from home (they may be forced to, but they won't want to). For many people the time and cost savings of avoiding a daily commute cannot be offset by a nicer office. Those who are happy to return to the office in general are those who do not like WFH and prefer more contacts and a change of scenery. A nicer office…

I think it's not just black and white.

My office is a 20 (tarmac) - 25 (forest) minutes bike ride. I don't have any problem working from home but if the weather isn't too bad I go to the office regulary - even if I sit there in the same remote meetings all day as I do at home. For me the change of the scenery and the "off" time by doing the commute are worth it.

Going to move out of range of an office for this company in a year. Thinking about joining a coworking space then for it.

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#782

Post by ElFitz »

rayiner wrote: post #778
ElFitz wrote: post #769

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to get pedantic, we could more precisely define the upper-class as those who extract value from others, and the lower classes as those from which said value is extracted from. Were we to push that to the extreme, the only upper-class at Goldman Sachs would be retirees, either as direct shareholders or as beneficiaries of some pension fund. Even if they were lower middle-class Americans living in an old ag…

A farmer’s dog may be eating the scraps, but has a fundamentally different role in the farm as an enterprise than the animals the dog is herding. By your value-extraction definition, Sundar Pichai isn’t upper class. He doesn’t make money from his ownership of the capital—he owns a negligible share of Alphabet. Instead, he helps the shareholders extract more value from Alphabet and is compensated for that work. A defi…

> A farmer’s dog may be eating the scraps, but has a fundamentally different role in the farm as an enterprise than the animals the dog is herding.

And yet they are both animals, often get treated as less than most people, the shepherd dog only gets the proverbial scraps. Precisely the analogy’s entire point. I’m Glad I didn’t have to spell it out.

> A definition that excludes CEOs from the upper class isn’t a very workable one.

Absolutely. Hence the "Were we to push that to the extreme", followed by a ridiculous application of the definition.

> Another way to look at it is that there’s a large class of people whose jobs wouldn’t be nearly as well compensated without monopolistic capitalism.

And thus we can differentiate those of these people who are part of the upper class from those who aren’t by wether they get an actual share of the value they produce, or merely scraps. Wether they are compensated as equals, or as useful tools.

Interesting bit about Sweden and Norway. I didn’t know that.

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#783

Post by BerislavLopac »

nebula8804 wrote: post #686
derefr wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not even. He was upset because the presence of his middle-class employee in his previously-upper-class restaurant — especially with the employee visibly performing middle-class behaviors like a lack of consideration of discretion (and then not being told to sit down by the restaurant staff!) — was tarnishing the restaurant's upper-class image, i.e. the usefulness of using eating there as an upper-class shibboleth. Or…

I would love to hear the "backchannel" conversations happening between people like Musk, Altman, the Google guys and their cronies. It often "feels" like they are planning something nefarious longterm but I can't exactly see the big picture so im not sure.

I thought that it is quite obvious: a "new aristocracy", separate from the "masses" and protected by the law while not held accountable by it. It's not quite that there is a "master plan" and coordinated "conspiracy" -- it's simply that the humans have a tendency to protect themselves by isolating from "others". And when you have the wealth and power, this separation quickly becomes very unbalanced.

In Middle Ages, this separation was based on ownership of land and societal structure which soon started being formalised in (both religious and secular) laws. Today, money has the same purpose (being a measure and store of wealth).

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#784

Post by benterix »

ryandrake wrote: post #659
benterix wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's never been my experience but it's a thing Yes it is a thing. It starts when you get promoted to a more senior role. The thing is, nothing much changed inside or outside, so many people feel they need to make a point. They start to dress differently, behave differently, introduce distance - to make sure others understand who is in the "superior" position. I noticed thin in insecure types or those who need some…

There are executive-class perks in most medium-to-large companies, but at least in tech, they're kept on the down low so you have to kind of look for them to find them. Personal assistants are probably the most visible. Private meeting rooms / bathrooms / entrances for the executives, chauffeurs, cooks, masseuses, access to corporate jets, hard-to-get tickets to sporting / arts events, separate housing allowances and…

> they're kept on the down low so you have to kind of look for them to find them

That's basically my point.

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#785

Post by dizzydes »

Yea this article is patently ridiculous.

As with any benefit people who have little other option or who like socialising (young city dwellers) will return to open plan bull-pits.

For others, the next proper recession (with actual unemployment) will potentially tilt the % again towards company preferences. I say company preferences as there’d be huge savings from WFH if they can make it work by then.

The fact so many companies are pushing for return suggests that it must be more profitable for the companies in question, for sales it certainly is. Their arguments > our arguments here as they have their own data.

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#786

Post by shortrounddev2 »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #753
spookieboogie wrote: post #62

Nope. My previous employer tried this in ~2021 with the intention of demanding a full RTO as soon as they possibly could after decades of being a cubicle farm. I immediately left for a company that adapted to remote-first and never looked back My commute time has turned into workout and cooking time, (as expected I'm in the best shape of my life,) my only coworker is my spouse and best friend, I get to live closer to…

>my only coworker is my spouse and best friend TBH that's the part that scares me. I feel this is yet another avenue of socialization that is closing down in modern young adult life. People kept saying that the best place post college to meet friends is at work, and now some industries are going the direction where work may not even have coworkers in your area. So where now if you don't drink? Hope to hit it off in s…

I've thought about starting a happy hour group for remote workers, but I don't like to drink anymore

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#787

Post by rayiner »

ElFitz wrote: post #782
rayiner wrote: post #778

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A farmer’s dog may be eating the scraps, but has a fundamentally different role in the farm as an enterprise than the animals the dog is herding. By your value-extraction definition, Sundar Pichai isn’t upper class. He doesn’t make money from his ownership of the capital—he owns a negligible share of Alphabet. Instead, he helps the shareholders extract more value from Alphabet and is compensated for that work. A defi…

> A farmer’s dog may be eating the scraps, but has a fundamentally different role in the farm as an enterprise than the animals the dog is herding. And yet they are both animals, often get treated as less than most people, the shepherd dog only gets the proverbial scraps. Precisely the analogy’s entire point. I’m Glad I didn’t have to spell it out. > A definition that excludes CEOs from the upper class isn’t a very w…

> And yet they are both animals, often get treated as less than most people, the shepherd dog only gets the proverbial scraps.

Yes, but focusing on those factors gives you an incomplete understanding of the dog’s place on the farm. At the end of the, day the dog is helping the farmer extract value from the sheep. Indeed, the dog’s very specialized skills wouldn’t have much value outside the context of the farming enterprise. That means the dog’s interests are much more aligned with the farmer’s than the sheep. His unique role, and relatively comfortable position, wouldn’t exist outside the value-extractive context of the farm.

> And thus we can differentiate those of these people who are part of the upper class from those who aren’t by wether they get an actual share of the value they produce, or merely scraps. Wether they are compensated as equals, or as useful tools

Facebook engineers building the infrastructure the company uses to extract monopolistic profits from consumers are receiving a share of the value. The actual value creation ultimately comes from someone making shoes in a factory in China, which sells them to Nike, which uses Facebook advertising and branding to sell them to consumers for far more than they’re worth. Yes, he’s a “useful tool” for the shareholders, but so are the senior executives (besides Zuck). Their ability to command $500,000 salaries or $1 million salaries, or $10 million salaries doesn’t exist outside the context of these enormous monopolistic profits.

You’re getting hung up on “equality” but being in the same class doesn’t mean you’re equal. In a feudal society, knights may be quite lowly compared to a high ranking landowner. They’re “useful tools.” But I’m not talking about equality of rank, I’m talking about interests and incentives. On that front, the knights have fundamentally different interests and incentives than the serfs. Whatever resentment they might have toward higher ranking nobility, they still reap the benefits of the feudal structure. The my would be much worse off outside that structure.

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#788

Post by mikeevans »

hgsgm wrote: post #731
notfromhere wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The funniest bit to me is that Musk owning and working as the CEO of multiple companies is admitting that CEOs don’t actually do much tangible work.

He bought the company from Jack Dorsey, who did the absentee CEO thing first.

Yes, but Jack isn’t a micromanager.

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#789

Post by shortrounddev2 »

300bps wrote: post #191

3.5% unemployment rate = nothing will get people back into office if they don't want to be in the office. This all flips around at some point though. Maybe 10% unemployment? For me, I'm looking incredulously at people making decisions on where to live assuming that "work from home" is locked in forever. I know someone who is in the process of settling on a house in the middle of nowhere working for a large publicly t…

That's true for anywhere you live. If I get a new job in New Jersey and buy a house there, then I will have to get another job in New Jersey or sell my house if I lose that job.

Re: Want employees to return to the office? Then give each one an office

#790

Post by giraffe_lady »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #766
giraffe_lady wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I simply do not get much if any of my human connection needs met by coworkers. I have a family, neighbors, close friends I see frequently and less close friends I see occasionally. A church, relationships based on volunteering, hobbies and interests, teens I mentor and their parents I shoot the shit with. Coworkers are so far down the list of priority socialization that my life isn't negatively affected by not intera…

> I have a family, neighbors, close friends I see frequently and less close friends I see occasionally I guess some people have all the luck. By the time I graduated: - my family was across the country - neighbors have never been really friends - close friends mostly went to San Fransico. No one was in my town. - Meetups didn't form any relationships. If there was no work I'd just be lonely, and not for the lack of t…

I have experienced all of these things as well, it's not luck that changed it but time and effort. Except meetups, never seen a real friendship come out of those.
Post reply on HN