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

Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

blog.fogcreek.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 128 posts

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#101

Post by tghw »

sergiotapia wrote: post #40

I work remotely exclusive and the list present here doesn't seem that bad to me. I do feel it's a slight bugger to have to constantly ping someone that 'I'm here!'. The submitted commits and code reviews should be plenty for that. The place I work has similar guidelines and we communicate via Skype instead of Google Hangouts - and it works very well. There has to be _some_ interaction between team members, otherwise…

They pretty explicitly call out "chat, commit messages, code reviews, cases, Trello boards" as ways of pinging the rest of the team.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#102

Post by tghw »

cs02rm0 wrote: post #98
tghw wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As Fog Creek's first full time remote employee[0], I fully disagree with your assumption. Coming from Fog Creek, that statement has no weasel words in it, it's a genuine sentiment. Back when I was working for the company on site, my father had his leg broken by an out of control snow boarder right before Thanksgiving. When I was home for the holiday, I realized he needed help around the house, so I asked to work remo…

I think the concern though is that the policy doesn't tie with the attitude you have experience of. The company I work with wouldn't have a problem with me going somewhere and finding video didn't work, so stepping down to audio, then IM. And if that wasn't sufficient, then not booking the hours. Having to Google Hangout with some random where you've booked a room is virtually saying don't bother asking to work remot…

This is clearly targeted at more permanent remote work. Shorter stints are much easier to work around.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#103

Post by tghw »

I was Fog Creek's first full time remote dev. I left the company about 18 months ago to pursue my own company.

There seems to be some confusion and questions in this thread, so let's do this:

AMA (Ask Me Anything)

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#104

Post by tghw »

trustfundbaby wrote: post #97

I was excited about reading this, but came away very very disappointed. I guess I was expecting Fog Creek to be a lot more gung-ho about working remotely and they weren't, but it wasn't just that, but the fact that they sounded the way the large companies I have worked with sound about remote arrangements ... like they're doing you a favor, instead of giving you a way to be awesome. To be fair,I have never run a comp…

Fog Creek had a long standing no-remote policy. The first experiments to change that started about two years ago, when I moved away from New York and started working remote. They are still getting the hang of it, these policies seem to be another step in that process.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#105

Post by vacri »

tghw wrote: post #82
parennoob wrote: post #20

"You still have stuff like chat, commit messages, code reviews, cases, Trello boards, etc. Be a little paranoid for this time about showing your work. It will help you feel good about your time, and us feel good about granting it." Run through a de-weaselizer, this reads: "Be a good little pet, and do an extra set of tricks when we take you out to the park, so you feel good about running around in the park and we fee…

As Fog Creek's first full time remote employee[0], I fully disagree with your assumption. Coming from Fog Creek, that statement has no weasel words in it, it's a genuine sentiment. Back when I was working for the company on site, my father had his leg broken by an out of control snow boarder right before Thanksgiving. When I was home for the holiday, I realized he needed help around the house, so I asked to work remo…

It's also important to remember, in most industries, trust like this is totally unheard of. We are very fortunate to work in an industry where it is a more common practice.

You should probably work in more industries. There are plenty of industries where workers have to roam (like high end sales or service) and have to be able to manage their own time effectively.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#106

Post by clarky07 »

This sounds awful to me. I get that you're writing a paycheck and you want people to work, but that's got to get done on the hiring and firing end of things. Hire good workers. Fire people that don't work out.

>Be a little paranoid for this time about showing your work. It will help you feel good about your time, and us feel good about granting it.

The last section is just ridiculous imo. If someone is doing their job, you should know it. If they aren't doing their job, you should know that as well. Being paranoid about my job is not going to help me feel good about my time. Promise. It might make me start looking for a new place to work though.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#107

Post by lacksconfidence »

mistermann wrote: post #83
lacksconfidence wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the alternate explanation, most of the people in this thread disagree with Joel Spolsky. Given occam's razor and his fairly high profile, which is more likely?

> Given occam's razor and his fairly high profile, which is more likely? I'll hazard a guess that you're "older", like me. I don't think Joel Spolsky has a high profile at all with forum active programmers, I mean, when did he drop out of public writing, it was many years ago. At least to me, most of the criticism here is generally of the nature "you're wrong "....not subtle, considering the variety of things involve…

Fair enough, i certainly fit in the "older" category. I find it less than intuitive that those active here don't know the co-founder(and current CEO?) of Stack Exchange, or the team behind Trello. But i also accept I am not the target audience of HN and times perhaps have changed.

I also spent three years recently working for a company with Is he wrong? Hard to say, many different things work for different people. Is it right for me? Certainly not. Do the other people in this thread saying he's wrong believe they work better in alternate conditions to the ones proposed? Probably.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#108

Post by fphhotchips »

LordHumungous wrote: post #18
fphhotchips wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me this isn't about seeming friendly or unfriendly, it's about defining boundaries of what is vacation time and what isn't. It's about saying "No, what you're doing isn't working from home, it's vacation. Don't feel guilty about not getting anything done, just go and have a break." Compare that to being fuzzy about it - you're not really having a decent break (because you're trying to get work done) and you're not…

That's why a good manager should define goals of things that need to get done. As long as the goals are being met, management should allow their developers the freedom to choose their own work environment and hours, within reasonable bounds. Demanding that your employees have headsets at home is called micromanaging.

But it's not! If you're trying to maintain the communication benefits offered by an office structure, while also allowing WFH, his reasoning is actually pretty good. Laptop speakers are annoying, and hearing every key stroke from your laptop's keys is even worse. A headset is not even $20 - and a directional clip-on mic is even less.

Further, their goal is to encourage good work/life separation even when working from home. If you can't maintain that separation, it seems FogCreek would rather you clock it up to 'life' time than blur the lines. That's just good management - working with distraction is going to result in poor output. Goal oriented management in this scenario, particularly when this may not be a normal part of the workers routine, could result in stress and poor work. Far better that if you can't have a good work environment then you just take a break and increase your output when you get back.

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#109

Post by wging »

kevin wrote: post #28
wging wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems targeted at people who are remote long-term. Maybe a little more reasonable in that light. But for short-term people, >Approval from your team lead. Basically, just tell someone well in advance if you’re going to be altering your work arrangement, temporarily or permanently. seems counterproductive. Sometimes problems come up and you suddenly need to be at home tomorrow to meet the cable guy, who has committed…

I think "approval" is less formal than you might imagine for a company like Fog Creek and most startups. Sending a quick email to let the person in charge know that you're going to be some place unexpected is totally reasonable.

Then why call it approval?

Re: Fog Creek’s Remote Work Policy

#110

Post by bambax »

ISL wrote: post #27
sigre wrote: post #9

This reads like yet another autocratic, micro-managing HR document. "Have a room with a door that shuts." Seriously? How about this: hire smart people you trust, give them whatever tools and support they need to do their jobs most productively, then get out of the way.

One co-founder of Fog Creek has this to say, as a goal for the company [1]: "* great work environment, with the goal of every engineer having an office with a door that closes" And, in an oft-cited "Joel Test" [2]: "8. Do programmers have quiet working conditions?" Furthermore, the company itself says [3]: "The average Fog Creek developer has 694 square inches of screen real-estate, 2 desktop computers, and an Aeron…

But what's the point of having a door if you're constantly chatting or video conferencing on Google Hangouts?
Post reply on HN