Brian Chesky: Ability to hire from anywhere is more valuable than in-office work

Post by throwaway1777 » Sun, May 14, 2023, 4:41 PM UTC

slurpmaker wrote: post #52

eeasss wrote: post #17

Let's not forget that the Airbnb CEO has vested interest in expansion of remote work. This means more digital nomads and folks who travel to work from anywhere, which benefits the Airbnb Network.

At least they put their money where their mouth is. I for one have seen a lot of the productivity hits dissipate with the advent of remote work. It's at the expense of basic human psychology though. You really can't hire jerks, management cannot be "game players", and meetings need to be minimal and ad hoc. Remote work companies avoiding those 3 things eat in person companies lunch every day of the week as far as hou…

Post by flappyeagle » Sun, May 14, 2023, 5:34 PM UTC

Nasrudith wrote: post #118

flappyeagle wrote: post #39

This is just code for outsourcing. Americans who are all-in on remote work should recognize this.

Thar FUD was tired even before the pandemic, let alone when is being used as an illogical back-to-the-office prod. My attitude towards outsourcing at this point is put up or shut up. Nobody would be doing any threatening if there was anything actually there. We already have heard all of the tales of disastrous failed outsourcing attempts and mediocrity in "success".

Post by lamontcg » Sun, May 14, 2023, 5:41 PM UTC

ElFitz wrote: post #74

sokoloff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Airbnb, Inc. can hire employees in states where we have registered entities. Currently, employees cannot be located/live in: Alaska, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Alabama, Mississippi, and Delaware. It seems entirely reasonable to create state entities in a late-binding fashion, only after you find an employee or other reason requiring the creation of an entity and all the recurring paperwork/expense associate…

Even though there is, today, half a dozen startups dedicated to solving just that (Deel comes to mind), yes, it definitely is reasonable. I just don’t appreciate people sanctimoniously dishing out lessons all while not applying what they, unprompted, decided to preach.

Post by wahnfrieden » Sun, May 14, 2023, 5:47 PM UTC

jroseattle wrote: post #101

charrondev wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, how do we (the employer) ensure our employees aren't moonlighting on our team and only giving the minimum level of effort with us? The tools for properly determining this are no different remote vs in an office at least for IT work. Most dev teams work in sprints and each sprint comes with a commitment from each developer. It is very noticeable even in remote work if a developer is either: - Not mak…

> The tools for properly determining this... This isn't a logically-evaluate-output scenario. It's low-trust between employee and employer. The bullet points listed are highlighting situations where someone isn't delivering. What do you do if they ARE delivering, but not delivering as much as they could be? The "Not making a reasonably sized commitment" is implicitly an assessment of trust in someone. (I'm trying to…

Post by foogazi » Sun, May 14, 2023, 6:00 PM UTC

maltalex wrote: post #107

foogazi wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it can’t be measured does it matter ?

Of course.