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

Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

entrepreneur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 296 posts

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#181

Post by zamadatix »

asib wrote: post #177

What I've found quite surprising in seeing these WFH vs RTO debates play out over the past couple of years is that even the WFH stans argue in terms defined by the employers. The most obvious example of this is citing evidence that WFH makes people more productive, but there are various other arguments that try to position WFH as beneficial for both employers and employees. I have opinions on many of the points made…

Like you say, the set of people who'd be pushing the argument from that angle is inherently pretty small. Basically either those that don't need money from a job in the first place + those that want some extra money from a job but only when it's extremely convenient and that boundary just happens to be WFH or not.

The others don't inherently care more about their employer than themselves, they care more more about the money impact it means for their compensation. More efficient = more valuable to employer = more compensation. For employees benefit only = less valuable to employer = less compensation.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#182

Post by fhdsgbbcaA »

rad_gruchalski wrote: post #71
fhdsgbbcaA wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define “fraud”? If you get your work done in two hours and can’t progress until a teammate does their end, is it better or worse if you are scrolling HN in an office or at home? I run my own company, I do not give a single fuck how, where, or when people get their job done. I only care they deliver. Likewise, people who need to be watched over are not the employees I want in the first place. I’m not running a daycare…

> Define “fraud”? He lived in another state but paid taxes where he supposed to be living. The company was held liable. > I run my own company Then you should understand what for you can be held liable and what your responsibilities are. It may be very expensive not to know. In extreme cases you may be held criminally liable. > I do not give a single fuck It’s just a recommendation: I’d suggest you do because your ta…

For people making tangential points about tax compliance, no shit. Obviously I’m talking about work environment, not saying I’m cool with tax fraud and embezzlement.

The point I’m making is if you want to feel like a Big Boss go ahead and stand over people, if you want an a-team doing a-team shit hire people who don’t need a babysitter.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#183

Post by mushufasa »

ygjb wrote: post #42
mushufasa wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have this capability so why not do it? sortof yes, sortof no. Aside from all the conversation about work culture, state taxes are a big barrier to fully remote work. States hate losing tax revenue. Notoriously, it is easier to register to do business in a state than to unregister. This is even harder internationally. For large organizations, remote can be the difference between one state's paperwork + regs + tax…

> For large organizations, remote can be the difference between one state's paperwork + regs + taxation, and every state and country under the sun's paperwork + regs + taxation. That is a real burden. Not just the paperwork + administrative overhead, but being subject to differing employment + everything else laws from everywhere will really muck up ability to run a consistent business. This is a real burden for smal…

While Amazon may have the administrative capacity for handling the filings, that doesn't address the tax revenue politics + considerations (which i didn't write much about in my earlier comment).

The issue of state tax breaks was such a big deal during their "HQ2" contest a few years ago that it actually became one of the top issues in the NYC elections that year. (to a large extent local candidate races became a referendum on how they felt about giving tax breaks to amazon in exchange for Amazon's commitments to employ a certain # of highly paid software + product people who would potentially contribute to the overall tax base. NYC people ended up electing politicians to stop the previously-negotiated pending deal with amazon, and amazon got enough blowback to say 'we give up' publicly.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#184

Post by fhdsgbbcaA »

glzone1 wrote: post #77
fhdsgbbcaA wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define “fraud”? If you get your work done in two hours and can’t progress until a teammate does their end, is it better or worse if you are scrolling HN in an office or at home? I run my own company, I do not give a single fuck how, where, or when people get their job done. I only care they deliver. Likewise, people who need to be watched over are not the employees I want in the first place. I’m not running a daycare…

A lot of business don't want to bother performance managing that closely. Plenty just worked off of trust. * You hire someone, and then figure out someone else is doing the work (usually because they are making stupid mistakes, and the person you hired can't be that dumb) * Your staff work odd hours that make coordinating hard (side gigs / hussle's etc). * I think the rumored record of multiple full time jobs someone…

I know a person who is absolutely brilliant, first class intellect. They have two remote jobs and have gotten softly reprimanded at both for essentially making other people look bad because they get so much done.

As far as I see it, both companies get an a-tier person who outperforms the rest of their staff. This person gets two paychecks. Everybody wins.

But in the “we own your time and soul” employee relations model he’s a “crook” or a “fraud” because they aren’t sitting in the company canteen talking about bollocks all day.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#185

Post by slashdave »

vineyardmike wrote: post #15

Google has been shedding office space in the bay. They probably don’t currently have enough desks, and they don’t feel like spending on the office space. They’ve also been aggressively moving teams overseas. My guess is they won’t RTO, or at least not until their headcount matches desk count in core regions.

https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments-office...

7 million square feet of office space.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#186

Post by tomcam »

I love this.

My bias is that returning to office is best for the company. But that doesn't mean I'm right. Here we have a poorly controlled but real-life way to see which one is better. I get that we don't have optimal test conditions, but if Google switches back in a year like /u/xyst suggests, then I assume it failed. Not sure if companies have a reason to discourage working at home if it is equally likely to produce good results.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#187

Post by asib »

zamadatix wrote: post #181
asib wrote: post #177

What I've found quite surprising in seeing these WFH vs RTO debates play out over the past couple of years is that even the WFH stans argue in terms defined by the employers. The most obvious example of this is citing evidence that WFH makes people more productive, but there are various other arguments that try to position WFH as beneficial for both employers and employees. I have opinions on many of the points made…

Like you say, the set of people who'd be pushing the argument from that angle is inherently pretty small. Basically either those that don't need money from a job in the first place + those that want some extra money from a job but only when it's extremely convenient and that boundary just happens to be WFH or not. The others don't inherently care more about their employer than themselves, they care more more about th…

My labour history knowledge is pretty non-existent, but I assume past progress was often made via unions, e.g. 8-hour work day. Seems like this is a situation begging for workers (at Amazon and elsewhere) to unionise and demand the right to WFH through the power of collective bargaining.

The workers that progressed labour rights in the past surely mostly needed their jobs too, so this situation doesn't seem unique at all.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#188

Post by worstspotgain »

My prediction is that good companies will eventually let you graduate to WFH. Beat the RTO group by X% to win WFH, stay Y% above to retain it. Eventually, the remainder RTO pool will be made up of slackers and people who live nearby. Just adjust X and Y as needed to retain quality employees.

The problem is that not all jobs are suited to objective performance metrics. The other problem are the PHBnazi middle managers who are insisting on RTO for personal aggrandizement reasons. They won't always win the day.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#189

Post by tomcam »

longnt80 wrote: post #171
10xalphadev wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live within an European city - not downtown, but relatively close. My commute by car over ~10km is 18-20 mins, same distance by public transport takes 40-50 mins, depending on train reliability and workers not striking. So change my mind?

I don't intent to change your mind because it's often that people are stuck to their opinions. Just want to say that sitting in public transports I can do other things such as doing some work or reading a book. While sitting in a car feels terrible to me. 30 minutes of driving a car is a lot worse than sitting in public transport. Also, if I have to commute by walk/bike, I also feel much better.

> Just want to say that sitting in public transports I can do other things such as doing some work or reading a book.

In my experience that kind of activity was often not possible, especially in cases where one bus was late and I had go worry about getting to the connecting stop on time. Likewise I couldn't really read b/c I might get distracted and miss a connection.

This was all pre-Internet and of course pre-unlimited data plan. These days I might have a downright pleasurable experience on public transport listening to podcasts under those conditions. Except here in Seattle there are just too many maniacs on some lines.

Re: Google won't be mandating a strict return-to-office plan

#190

Post by sethhochberg »

papercrane wrote: post #125
sethhochberg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We see this all the time working at the intersection of the insurance / fintech space. I've had several big, legacy vendors make requests for multiple physical signatures on a piece of paper (printed and mailed or faxed, can't just annotate a PDF) from people who haven't even met eachother in person let alone ever worked at the same address. The kicker? These papers are access authorization forms to APIs. Your averag…

> I've fought similar battles over not being able to provide a direct phone extension because I don't have a phone on my office desk I'd probably just setup a cheap DID number with someone like VOIP.ms and have it go straight to voicemail. I agree though, it's not a fight you should have fight. Office phones are going the way of the fax machine.

This is what we've eventually given up and done. At a certain point, the vaguely-principled stand gets in the way of business. We're playing in an old-school corner of the world and need to meet it in the middle.
Post reply on HN