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

211–220 of 296 posts

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

#211

Post by christhecaribou »

deanCommie wrote: post #196
cush wrote: post #51

I know multiple people who worked at Amazon (I say worked because they've recently quit) who would log two of their three weekly badges by going in the office at 11:59pm, and again at 12:01 am. Their team, managers, and collaborators never actually expected them at their desks. It was all to appease this mandate. It's not surprising that Amazon has moved to 5 days a week despite so many people gaming the system and n…

The irony is that these people are exactly the reason why Amazon HAD to move to 5 days a week. Because people didn't actually embrace the hybrid model, wasted time on petty protests like this, undermined morale and the hypothetical benefits of in-person colocation. If everyone actually tried 3 days a week, and had the benefits of in-person collaboration (instead of people coming in to the office to just sit on Zoom c…

“The proles rebelled, so Amazon dug their heels in harder” is not a great take. They’re supposed to lead, and they’ve lost their mandate.

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

#212

Post by christhecaribou »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #27
christhecaribou wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These folks literally just saw what Amazon did and did the opposite.

I'm not sure it's right to say they did anything here. All the article reports is that an unspecified Google VP made an offhand remark that no changes are expected to their 3-2 hybrid schedule - which used to be Amazon's schedule until Andy Jassy made an unexpected change.

How do you rationalize MSFT then?

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

#213

Post by matt_j »

bityard wrote: post #75
Spooky23 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a ton of fraud in this space. You need at least hybrid to keep that at bay. At a previous place, we chose hybrid RTO over intrusive surveillance. My opinion shifted from being a full remote advocate after I caught a half dozen folks with various schemes and scams. The straw that broke the camels back was a guy who lied about where he was living. He was going through a divorce and the ex-wife ratted him out to…

"Work in the office" or "remote surveillance" are not the only two possible options here. I work (remotely) for a company that treats their employees like adults. I have a work-provided laptop, but it doesn't contain any surveillance-ware and my boss doesn't care where I am or what I'm doing as long as I'm getting my stuff done and showing up for zoom meetings. When they hired me, they ran a background check to ensur…

Same. My work is very flexible, we can take time throughout the day for an appointment or errand, and in return, we have a strong work ethic that ensures that things get done, which sometimes requires overtime or after hours.

It's nice to be treated as an adult and it goes both ways.

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

#214

Post by rrdharan »

slashdave wrote: post #185
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.

Yes that’s one of the sites they bailed on:

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/11/02/google-ends-agreement-with-l...

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

#215

Post by azemetre »

epolanski wrote: post #145
mrangle wrote: post #38

There's going to be a significant exodus of Amazon employees once the mandate kicks in fully. A percentage aren't able to come into the office every day, due to unrealistic commute logistics. Google making this headline sets them up to catch a lot of talent at once, to the point that I suspect this may be part of the policy's intent.

We snatched a great talent from Amazon. And we didn't even need to throw crazy money, just full remote and 16 weeks of vacations per year. It's amazing what amazing talent you can get paying with time rather than money they don't need.

Wow 4 months is pretty awesome. Are you based in that USA? I worked at companies that had unlimited PTO and no one ever took that much time off.

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

#216

Post by jart »

redserk wrote: post #63
ENGNR wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same! Tech job, my co-founder and I are only a 5 minute drive or bike ride from the office. It’s nice to get dressed and have that separation from home. I feel like the commute is what people are actually feeling the worst, because it’s unpaid time that they just straight up lose. Being close to the office resolves it for us.

Unfortunately a new job, even 5-8 miles away, may turn a then-5 minute commute into a 45m-1hr commute in many metropolitan areas. I think more management needs to realize that forcing in-person isn't inherently beneficial. There can be value in meeting up if it's appropriately planned, though. My current management has been very accommodating with remote/hybrid. If there's a meeting where face-time is beneficial, peo…

Oh tell me about it. I used to have no problem with a 2 hour commute taking metro-north because I could just unwind on the train, and I loved walking into majestic places like grand central station. But a 60 minute commute to travel 10 minutes in the bay area flipping destroyed me, because it was nothing but stop and go traffic the whole way.

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

#217

Post by fhdsgbbcaA »

zblevins wrote: post #96
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…

Hiring?

Quietly and carefully.

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

#218

Post by fhdsgbbcaA »

Spooky23 wrote: post #135
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…

If you want to work like a hourly contractor, be one. Work your hours. If you want to be a $250k engineer and fuck around on Netflix waiting for something for 75% of the workday, you’re demonstrating a lack of maturity and professionalism. Or you work for a really dysfunctional place. If you’re running your own shop, you’re empowered to run it to your needs. That’s awesome. Mine are different.

My point is about supervision. If an engineer making a quarter mill needs somebody over their shoulder to produce, that’s the core issue.

If during an afternoon where they have to wait for somebody else, I’d rather they go for a casual walk and think through a hard issue slowly and carefully than sit at a desk artificially, writing dumb emails to keep up the charade they are “busy”.

(Of course the person they are waiting on now has to read said emails instead of finishing their task - busy work is net drag on everyone.)

For jobs that require thought we do very little to provide space for reflection, and imho that’s dumb.

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

#219

Post by amy-petrik-214 »

ryandrake wrote: post #45
worstspotgain wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Bay Area, 1-hour commutes are generally for older and apartment people. Younger family people are in the 2+ range.

When I lived in the Bay Area, my commute was ~2.5 hours each way. I would have killed for a 1 hour commute.

The bay area is godawful in terms of expense, traffic, regulations "WHERES YOUR LOICENSE". Prop 13 means the new home buyer has 10-100x higher property taxes than their old home neighbor. Permitting madness means that in the santa cruz mountains, any construction is on essentially a permanent freeze. Even driving an old car, generally considered to be an "antique" if older than 25 years in the other 49 states, why in California there is no set time, it is a set year, 1976. So, according to classically rabidly insane california logic, in the year 3000, a 1,000 year old car would be "new" and not "antique"

the saving grace: whereas lane splitting (driving a motorcycle between two cars) is illegal in 49 states and grey-area in DC, it is outright totally legal in California.

Thusly those with interest and probably low anxiety and medium-high deathwish are exempted from traffic

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

#220

Post by Spooky23 »

stego-tech wrote: post #146
Spooky23 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not defeatist. We’re at a high where massively capitalized companies have been in a hiring binge for skilled technical employees for a long time. It’s been good to me - my family is more prosperous by any measure than my parents are grandparents, who were arguably smarter and bolder people. All of these companies have been incredibly successful… but can they sustain their historically unprecedented growth? Maybe.…

Oh goodness, if we’re talking about sustainable growth then boy do I have some hockeystick charts to reject that notion. For decades, growth has largely been an illusion created through clever accounting and inflation metrics - it’s why the industry keeps desperately trying to jump on “brand new” stuff like crypto, blockchain, and generative models: a new industry means actual growth as opposed to illusory growth, wh…

I think you have a really interesting pov that is thought provoking. Seriously - thanks.
Post reply on HN