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

RTO: WTAF

wordsrightman.beehiiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 151 posts

Re: RTO: WTAF

#121

Post by krackers »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #94

"but it’s a sure-fire way to rid yourself of those pesky skilled and experienced employees. " That's so true. In my niche, everybody WFH, only the most desperate folks take stationary/hybrid offers - and only for the time it takes them to find the proper job. (Yeah I know everybody's different but I just share my anecdata - we do meet in person sometimes but it is not forced and we genuinely enjoy it.)

>sure-fire way to rid yourself of those pesky skilled and experienced employees

This only happens if the job market supports it. If every company effectively colludes with these mandates, on top of the bad job market, then you can squeeze as hard as you want without meaningful attrition.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#122

Post by zappb »

bonoboTP wrote: post #26

It bears repeating that if you're a tech worker in the US, your greatest asset is your physical location. You might think you like remote jobs, but you will have competition from South America, Western and Eastern Europe, etc. as well as people in the US living in flyover states in the middle of nowhere with cheap rent. If the focus also shifts more to raw input-output task accomplishmentbas opposed to in person soci…

First of all, companies have already outsourced all that they could a couple decades ago. Then when it comes to hiring in different countries, this gets extremely complicated due to taxes and regulations. While some remote-first companies can navigate this complexity (usually through some sort of HR as a service type company), most companies are not structured in such a way to feasibly hire people outside their incorporated area.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#123

Post by AnimalMuppet »

varispeed wrote: post #118
us-merul wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. If employers set RTO as the default, you may be able to negotiate remote time instead of a pay raise. They’re less willing to pay you more to commute and would rather see the commute as the expectation.

Salary isn’t a meter ticking from 9 to 5, and it’s not a line item of “WFH credits” vs. “commute debits.” Salary is simply the number that convinces you to show up and do the work. Whether you sit in an office, in your kitchen, or on the beach is irrelevant - the company pays because they need outcomes, not because of your postcode or chair type. That’s why all this “WFH as benefit / RTO as cost” chatter is sleight o…

My point is that, from the employee's point of view, the commute has to be factored into "total output". So if I've been getting $X for Y hours WFH, and now they want to give me $X for Y hours in the office, that's (Y+C) hours to me, and that's the same pay for more of my work - though part of the work doesn't benefit the company.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#124

Post by red-iron-pine »

BobaFloutist wrote: post #117
bonoboTP wrote: post #26

It bears repeating that if you're a tech worker in the US, your greatest asset is your physical location. You might think you like remote jobs, but you will have competition from South America, Western and Eastern Europe, etc. as well as people in the US living in flyover states in the middle of nowhere with cheap rent. If the focus also shifts more to raw input-output task accomplishmentbas opposed to in person soci…

>There is a vast gulf between the salaries in the US and even Western Europe in tech. American companies are welcome to start offering Western European level benefits (and compensate for missing government benefits) at any time. I would happily accept 30-50% less pay for a very solid health insurance plan, pay for my childcare 30 days of paid vacation a year that I'm actually entitled to take, 6 months of paid matern…

> Nobody seems to be offering that, for whatever reason.

different NDA rules, HR rules, non-compete rules, expectations about unions, hiring & firing rules, etc. etc. etc.

non-starter for a lot of fairly obvious reasons if you've done hiring before.

it's an issue with any offshoring, but 4.14/hr for India offsets that risk compared to 2/3s of NA salary for EU and all sort of hoops.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#125

Post by Esophagus4 »

varispeed wrote: post #119
Esophagus4 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a management, I understand that this is the perception… but it’s not remotely true. It astounds me how often this is repeated. It’s almost more of a conspiracy theory at this point. “Those evil incompetent managers are just so stupid they have to justify their existence by having people in office.” RTO is not about watching people in their seats all day to see who is productive. It’s about getting talented people…

The whole “RTO builds culture and networks” story is upside down. Culture isn’t something you force by sticking bodies in the same postcode; culture is what people build when they trust each other, share information freely, and aren’t ground down by pointless commutes. If your company can only transmit knowledge through overhearing desk chatter, you don’t have culture - you have an ad-hoc crutch for bad processes. Me…

If you want a job, feel free to work remote.

If you want a career, get back to the office.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#126

Post by spiderxxxx »

progbits wrote: post #39
MarcelOlsz wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a lazy and cowardly way to get people to cull themselves and save money on severance packages. It's not that deep.

It's also a dumb strategy because the good people will easily find another job and leave and you end up with office full of the least competent employees. But yes I'm pretty sure this is a big part of the reason for these mandates.

From what I've seen (at a fortune 100 company) they made the supposedly "best" employees fully remote, and they neglected to tell the others that there were "limited slots" for fully remote and thus they had to come in to work. After a few months of coming in for work, they then laid off those employees, as not enough people quit for that to happen. To be fair, I was given a severance, but it still sucks. And the office was in bad shape, bathrooms poorly maintained, cafeteria in disarray, with substandard food (compared to before). The reason they're trying to get rid of employees is to make their stocks look good. We did better during covid by all measures, when everyone was working remotely.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#127

Post by SR2Z »

thefz wrote: post #99
SR2Z wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that folks overseas aren't as capable of communicating with Americans as other Americans are. I think that American tech companies would prefer a motivated at-will employee at 3x the cost of an unfirable European with a statutory month off every year. I think that none of this will magically make it easier to raise money outside the US. There are obviously plenty of brilliant people outside the US. Unfortunat…

> I think that folks overseas aren't as capable of communicating with Americans as other Americans are I speak Italian, English and French. I speak English to you because it's the only language you know. We are not the same. > I think that American tech companies would prefer a motivated at-will employee at 3x the cost of an unfirable European with a statutory month off every year. We work to live, not the opposite.…

> I speak Italian, English and French. I speak English to you because it's the only language you know. We are not the same.

I have worked with overseas coworkers who spoke English. You're right, it's not always the same as having native fluency.

> We work to live, not the opposite. Again, we are not the same.

You're making my point for me - offshoring work fails for cultural reasons, not because overseas workers are dumb. Making work remote is not gonna change the cultural factors.

Also a very funny take because if you have ever visited the Bay Area, you can't throw a rock without hitting someone who struck it rich and retired at 30.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#128

Post by SR2Z »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #86
SR2Z wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that folks overseas aren't as capable of communicating with Americans as other Americans are. I think that American tech companies would prefer a motivated at-will employee at 3x the cost of an unfirable European with a statutory month off every year. I think that none of this will magically make it easier to raise money outside the US. There are obviously plenty of brilliant people outside the US. Unfortunat…

> I think that folks overseas aren't as capable of communicating with Americans as other Americans are. This is sortof absurd on the face of it. For context, I'm a European who's been working for US based companies for well over a decade now, and rarely do I have communications issues (and they're generally with non-native English speakers, mostly Europeans living in the US). > I think that American tech companies wo…

> This is sortof absurd on the face of it. For context, I'm a European who's been working for US based companies for well over a decade now, and rarely do I have communications issues (and they're generally with non-native English speakers, mostly Europeans living in the US).

You might have excellent fluency, but my experience is that it varies a lot depending on the person.

> Granted, you can't fire them for not laughing at your jokes but the same sort of process gets followed in California where most US tech companies are headquatered.

I think this is underselling the degree of employment protection in Europe, but I will freely admit I'm not an expert.

> In fact, it's normally easier to get a better person outside the US, as they have less options at big-tech level wages. The US dominates the tech sector because of availablity of capital, not availability of talent.

But "better person" here doesn't mean smarter - it means a more effective employee. Working in a very different timezone, language barriers, and culture differences make that an uphill battle, which is why offshoring hasn't exploded.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#129

Post by SR2Z »

benterix wrote: post #103
SR2Z wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that folks overseas aren't as capable of communicating with Americans as other Americans are. I think that American tech companies would prefer a motivated at-will employee at 3x the cost of an unfirable European with a statutory month off every year. I think that none of this will magically make it easier to raise money outside the US. There are obviously plenty of brilliant people outside the US. Unfortunat…

> an unfirable European This is not true - most American companies hire contractors, usually through a local intermediary. > with a statutory month off every year. This is something work pondering about, really. Take step back, look at your life, and think a bit about this point, no matter if you're blue- or white-collar worker.

> This is not true - most American companies hire contractors, usually through a local intermediary.

Do you have a source for this? I would expect EU rules around classifying contractors to be much stricter than what we have in the US.

> This is something work pondering about, really. Take step back, look at your life, and think a bit about this point, no matter if you're blue- or white-collar worker.

Yes, I have taken a look at my life and thought about this point.

I enjoy work. I enjoy building things that are useful to society and I enjoy getting paid a lot of money to do it.

I'm not even gonna pretend that I don't take long vacations. Lots of places I've worked have had unlimited PTO, despite no legal requirement for it.

But the smaller and earlier-stage places I've worked? No, people didn't take vacations there. The company could not afford it, and when employees are shareholders they generally love maximizing shareholder value.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#130

Post by mft_ »

schmookeeg wrote: post #116
mft_ wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We can give them bigger/more-prominent zoom portraits by seniority. Should make everyone happy. This would be hilarious, from a malicious compliance sort of angle...

From coveting the corner office, to coveting the corner 200x200px zoom square. What a time to be alive. :D

Huh, it might be interesting if the size of each participant's image could be controlled programmatically, e.g.

* The more you speak, the smaller your square gets

* The square varies in size based on the emotion in your voice

* Your square gets larger the longer you've had your hand up without being asked to speak

* The squares change size to equalize the size of everyone's face on the screen, eliminating the effect of camera and distance

(I wonder if Google Meet is hackable, as it's delivered in the browser rather than an app?)

Post reply on HN