80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans • Hacker News Board

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#261

Post by PeterStuer » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 6:34 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #170

lamontcg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it funny that when people were required to be home, employers talked about what great productivity they were getting with people at home. Then when it isn't required anymore, they want everyone back in the office for...productivity. The decades of evidence that open office plans are utter shit for productivity already proved that the emperor wears no clothes and they have no idea what makes for better produc…

The only real reason for open offices is cost saving. Everything else is just an excuse to make it not seem like it is.

Empire builders love to see and display their footsodiers. Nothing like sweeping a gaze over a big plateau with a few 100 serves to affirm your confidence.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#262

Post by PeterStuer » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 6:37 AM UTC

mkl95 wrote: post #58

troupe wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it funny that when people were required to be home, employers talked about what great productivity they were getting with people at home. Then when it isn't required anymore, they want everyone back in the office for...productivity. My guess is that most employers really have no way to measure if an employee is being productive or not so managers are just reporting what makes them look good...and now we are ba…

> My guess is that most employers really have no way to measure if an employee is being productive or not so managers are just reporting what makes them look good...and now we are back to where managers will look better with lots of people running around the office. My guess is that CEOs and VCs have some obscure reason to force people back into the office. Perhaps related to real estate, especially considering how h…

Not obscure at all. They are also invested in all the other lucrative service businesses that feed and clean and move and supply all those offices. And then there's the leases on the office buildings they own that are under threat etc etc.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#263

Post by petre » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 6:38 AM UTC

GMoromisato wrote: post #202

atleastoptimal wrote: post #15

I understand the merits of WFH and in-person work. One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee, and more so, employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. 90% of jobs aren't people's "passions" and have…

Complete tangent: I wonder if it's uniquely American to believe that people can/should only be passionate about jobs that are world-changing. Or maybe it's just very common in the tech-world and HN. I'm absolutely guilty of this. I'm a software engineer, and I feel proud of having worked on products that millions of people use. Steve Jobs's challenge to "put a dent in the universe" is axiomatic for many of us. Yet I…

> Yet I know that in other countries (e.g., Japan) there is a belief that any job, no matter how humble, is worth doing well and that passion for excellence is a virtue

That's a reason why the quality of most Japanese products is superlative. Another nation that is passionate about their stuff are Italians, but they value good looks and good food above all. The US values profits and growth and China values high output volumes.

If one works in a Fortune 500 company they're probably creating value for shareholders instead of changing the world. What they are primarily changing is the income gap, by making the rich richer.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#264

Post by paulmd » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 6:47 AM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #119

tester756 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, you found simple solution for very complicated dynamic and you actually believe you solved this problem? I don't care about offices with doors. Sure, they're better, but still it doesn't solve my issues - I care about commute - time and money, especially time. I've been commuting like 3h / day before WFH and I don't want to go back unless you pay me at least 2.5x

I think this is a great comment. > I care about commute - time and money, especially time. I'm assuming you have done the whole draw a circle around where you live that represents your maximum willingness to commute and then apply for jobs in that circle thing? It was very popular in silicon valley during the dot com boom. When the commute circle comes up empty though, what do you do? Not snark, 100% serious. Hired a…

> Some of those employers will say "work at the office or quit, your choice."

Haha, god no, that’s constructive dismissal. “Quit or I make your working conditions worse, require relocation to a new area, or reduce your salary” is not something the law or the courts treat as a voluntary choice, they’re not quitting, you’re laying them off not-for-cause due to a shift in organizational strategy. You’ll be paying these people to go away.

The whole “RTO as a backdoor headcount reduction” has sort of been sold as this whole thing where it’s do or die, and the proper response is “well, if I choose not to do it, what does the severance package look like”?

The fact that you are making this offer org-wide and you don’t know who’s going to take it is your problem, it’s still a layoff like any other change in strategy.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#265

Post by kkfx » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 7:10 AM UTC

The real reason behind RTO is the management needs of a soviet-alike economy in cities now, and tomorrow a slave-based service economy.

The today need is the fact that offices keeps up many related activities, as a proof look at https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/01/20/bowser-bid... who have no economical meaning for the society but are the sole activity of many people, like soviet adage of digging holes today, fill tomorrow and dig again to state there is no unemployment issue.

The tomorrow need is well depicted by https://www.forbes.com/sites/worldeconomicforum/2016/11/10/s... witch means "how to make people owning nothing?" well, living in an expensive high-density city means need to earn much just to pay their cubicle-based life. More inflation, more people seeking owning less to spend less, so are more reliant on third party services. Cars too expensive? Well, go for the public transport. Homes too expensive? Go for smaller and smaller apartments. Not enough room to store and cook food? Go for ready made food, possibly delivered directly to you. No room for a washing machine? Go for public washing machines services and so on. In the end: people living a stressful life not to live but to pay services, without enough time to think, but with a vague idea of having still much thanks for the availability of such services.

Both today's and tomorrow needs of such small cohort of humans who profit form pasturing the masses can't be satisfied if people start to spread. In a mild density living economy is mostly made by SME, not much by giants with few exceptions possible, and people own, know the value of owning, so have enough asset backups behind their back to be not so easy to steer using the genital garrota of the economy.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#266

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 7:12 AM UTC

atleastoptimal wrote: post #15

I understand the merits of WFH and in-person work. One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee, and more so, employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. 90% of jobs aren't people's "passions" and have…

>Lots of employers like to delude themselves that their company is some big important, cutting-edge enterprise that's making a real impact in the world.

to be fair, the center of talk on this site are usually in fact the cutting-edge enterprise that is making a real impact on the world (whether that impact is positive or negative is arguable).

>employers smart enough to have founded/run those kinds of companies usually are smart enough to see the merits of a hybrid policy.

so far, I believe Google and Microsoft and Facebook haven't. Twitter sure hasn't but that's honestly the least of their problems.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#267

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 7:15 AM UTC

petre wrote: post #256

philipov wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you know what's a bigger cost savings than open office? No office!

Actually, the employers should really pay us rent for WFH because they are using our own facilities to make profits.

My last job did give me a stipend that more or less covered my internet bill. That was nice.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#268

Post by zuminator » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 7:17 AM UTC

itronitron wrote: post #239

zuminator wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not quite seeing your point. Are you saying the article's usage is inconsistent with the meaning of sunk cost? In some cases companies have multi-year leases for office space that is drastically underutilized due to WFH. Does that not count as a sunk cost in your opinion? It's true rent is paid on an ongoing prorated basis but to quote from Investopedia, "Sunk costs also cover certain expenses that are committed…

My point is that if the companies are locked into their office leases then that is a sunk cost, and companies requiring employees to return to the office in order to justify that expense is an example of decision making under a sunk-cost fallacy. I don't know why the author doesn't point that out in the article, hence my pedantic tone which some have noted.

Because utilizing a sunk cost isn't a fallacy. Believing that you should utilize a sunk cost isn't a fallacy, either. As you said earlier, it becomes a fallacy when your belief is mistaken, that is, when you continue to utilize or invest in the sunk costs despite the cognizable fact that doing so is a net detriment. But how can the author make a reasoned determination of whether or not these business decisions are detrimental? She doesn't have available all the financials or other relevant information. And even if she did, how to best operate with those facts is a matter of business judgment.

For example, a company might reason that maintaining a vacant business tower will look bad on their expense sheet and lower investor confidence. In that case better to fill it up with hybrid workers even if there's no operational benefit to doing so. If there's a sunk cost "fallacy" there, it's only by proxy perhaps; the business itself is making a reasoned decision based upon the shareholders' (fallacious) need for the sunk cost to be utilized.

Point being that without knowing all the ins and outs, calling the business practice a fallacy would be at best premature.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#269

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 7:20 AM UTC

throw__away7391 wrote: post #194

SoftTalker wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, when I work from home, I watch TV all day. Not literally -- I mostly read HN and other sites, do personal email, do household tasks, walk the dogs, do a load of laundry. I still get my work done, to a "meets expectations" level, which takes me a few hours, normally right after lunch, and that's good enough for me.

I start work around 6:00 AM and frequently am still at it at 8:00 PM. I've always been a top performer, but I still worry I'm not productive enough and that I'll get laid off. I still prefer this arrangement to going to the office.

>I still worry I'm not productive enough and that I'll get laid off

that's the neat part; you get laid off anyway. Layoffs are rarely actually about keeping the most productive people on board. If they want your wing of work to be marked as a redundancy, there's not much you can do from a purely productive standpoint.

Re: 80% of bosses say they regret earlier return-to-office plans

#270

Post by johnnyanmac » Sat, Aug 12, 2023, 7:27 AM UTC

Alupis wrote: post #146

atleastoptimal wrote: post #15

I understand the merits of WFH and in-person work. One thing that is however funny is the guilt tripping used by employers who have this straw-man version of a lazy WFH employee, and more so, employers who have a delusion that their workplace is important enough that people need to sacrifice a large portion of their lives just for the opportunity to be there in person. 90% of jobs aren't people's "passions" and have…

There's a lot of nuance that isn't discussed in the WFH circles. I don't believe the cynical claims some offer of VC's losing out on real estate deals, or mid-level managers needing to boost their butts-in-seats numbers or whatever. For some, perhaps, but on average? What percentage of long-distance relationships work out long-term? Do you become more or less close with friends after they move out of town? Do you sti…

>What percentage of long-distance relationships work out long-term? Do you become more or less close with friends after they move out of town? Do you still "know" them the same as you did when you regularly met in person for lunch or drinks? Is it awkward when you do see each other in person that one visit a year?

that's the crux of a lot of people here. You are comparing coworkers to friend and some people don't care about friendhips at work. They just want to do their work, stay in good graces, and get back to their leisure ASAP. It's not their job to care about overall company productivity, so as long as they feel more productive it's a win. Any inefficies is irrelevant because it means the ball is in their court and they still get more time for said leisure.

As of now, the WFH initiative is the cloesest we got to a wide scale 32 hour work week that many desire.