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

291–296 of 296 posts

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

#291

Post by rad_gruchalski »

fhdsgbbcaA wrote: post #182
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The point you are making is completely irrelevant. You might not care, and if you have people you trust, good for you. But it’s still irrelevant, you asked to define „fraud”, which I did for you. All you do in response is virtue signalling.

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

#292

Post by linotype »

sbrother wrote: post #25
xyst wrote: post #12

They say this now. But in 12 months (or the next layoff period), they will move from hybrid to full RTO. Still a shitty move to mandate RTO. Most people (IT folks) have spoke with do this routine: 0) daily routine to prepare for day 1) 1 hr commute to shitty office 2) login to computer, do calls with cross regional (and international) teams over Zoom/Teams/Webex or whatever conferencing system 3) teleconferencing wit…

I think the worst part is 9) at night, do more work that requires focus time while no one is bothering you, since expectations got calibrated to when everyone had a private office and more control over their own time.

So stop doing it. It’s making it worse for everyone else who has boundaries and a life outside of work.

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

#293

Post by linotype »

spacemadness wrote: post #280
worstspotgain wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's because having children in SF is not "normal," a huge fraction of new workers are single male tech workers. SF is the city with the fewest children per capita in the country, Daly City is #6. https://www.aaastateofplay.com/the-u-s-cities-with-the-most-...

Plenty of my colleagues have had kids.

With hours like that, do they really though? Or did they just procreate?

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

#295

Post by cush »

mvanbaak wrote: post #116
qqtt wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't think there is any algorithm. For all the bluster and commitment to being "data driven", none of the companies I've seen mandate RTO have provided any sort of data-driven reason why it needs to happen. Amazon's policy might as well be "Jassy feels it in his gut that RTO is better for the company so we are doing it". All the communication of RTO invokes the most fanciful and vague references to "magic…

Amazons RTO is a hidden layoff round. They are overstaffed because they hired like crazy during the pandemic, now they need to slimmdown and will simply wait for people to quit because of the RTO and fire those that dont comply. And they dont have to pay anything because those that leave do so out of free will, and the fired people were simply breaking their contract

People keep saying this, but I don't believe Amazon is that unwilling to pay severance. They excel at making tough business decisions and paying for sunk costs. It's an incredibly risky way to run a layoff - top talent will leave at the same rate as bottom. I don't buy it.

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

#296

Post by KittenInABox »

dsq wrote: post #261
KittenInABox wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not like cities give their money to every suburban mom. It's like this: Suburbs cannot function without freeways, but the presence of freeways harm the property values of city neighborhoods not suburban ones. SFH simply produces less tax revenue than an entire apartment building by land, so any statewide social services (education, freeway maintenance...) is paid proportionately more by cities than by SFH. There…

Aren't SFHs occupied more by high income tax brackets? That would balance out the property tax.

According to this report: no they didn't!
Post reply on HN