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

The return-to-the-office trend backfires

thehill.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#141

Post by palmotea »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #139
palmotea wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Labeling does not necessarily imply contempt. But certain labels do. Labels like "drone," for instance. > Not everyone is going to enjoy socializing with their coworkers. There's nothing wrong with that. There isn't, but that's not what we're talking about.

That's subjective. I don't agree about "drone" for example. I see it as a largely neutral descriptor that can skew slightly positive or negative based on context. Particularly "corporate drone" to me refers to an office worker with a long term stable job at a megacorporation. Such a category can easily carry either a positive or negative connotation depending on the speaker. > There isn't, but that's not what we're t…

> I see it as a largely neutral descriptor that can skew slightly positive or negative based on context. Particularly "corporate drone" to me refers to an office worker with a long term stable job at a megacorporation. Such a category can easily carry either a positive or negative connotation depending on the speaker.

That's a massive stretch, dude. And the scenario here is pretty clearly one guy with a stable job at a megacorporation judging another guy at the same megacorporation .

>> There isn't, but that's not what we're talking about.

> Says you. Your original response was ambiguous so I included that.

Maybe my original comment, but that's not what you responded to. By the time you chimed in the context made it clear.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#142

Post by matchbok3 »

asadotzler wrote: post #83
matchbok3 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, maybe. But a company that spends all of it's time "surveilling" their employees rather than adding value will go out of business. So I'm not sure what the point really is when people bring this up when talking about WFH. If someone doesn't want to be surveilled at work they can quit, right?

Not really. Workers produce the thing the company sells. Those workers are mostly trapped so they deal with whatever nonsense management is up to. Management, mostly useless, maintains its control and viability by asserting that workers need policing and they're the ones to do it. If the policing is relatively easy with WFH, they'll do that. If it's much harder, or less demonstrative of their fake value, screw that,…

If management is useless then it should be trivial for you to replace them. I wish you luck!

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#143

Post by matchbok3 »

surgical_fire wrote: post #117
matchbok3 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "monitor and control"? Should an employer not be able to see what their employees are doing at work? What is an "excuse" for a layoff, exactly?

If you deliver all tasks in a timely manner, is productive and helpful in a team setting, contribute to discussions and initiatives beyond your immediate assignments... What exactly should I monitor? How many minutes per day your butt is in a seat? If you did a school run and woked a bit more after hours to compensate? If you had a headache and took a short nap after lunchtime? How does monitoring you contribute to a…

I agree. I don't really think "monitoring" is the reason for RTO. I think quality of work and collaboration is.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#144

Post by fc417fc802 »

palmotea wrote: post #141
fc417fc802 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's subjective. I don't agree about "drone" for example. I see it as a largely neutral descriptor that can skew slightly positive or negative based on context. Particularly "corporate drone" to me refers to an office worker with a long term stable job at a megacorporation. Such a category can easily carry either a positive or negative connotation depending on the speaker. > There isn't, but that's not what we're t…

> I see it as a largely neutral descriptor that can skew slightly positive or negative based on context. Particularly "corporate drone" to me refers to an office worker with a long term stable job at a megacorporation. Such a category can easily carry either a positive or negative connotation depending on the speaker. That's a massive stretch, dude. And the scenario here is pretty clearly one guy with a stable job at…

Not a stretch. That's my genuine impression of the phrase.

His reply was quite judgmental but I don't think his original turn of phrase that you first objected to was.

Obviously I didn't feel the context made it clear or I wouldn't have written what I did.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#145

Post by asdff »

matchbok3 wrote: post #134
asdff wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What say you to the fact that there are companies that work remote today and are competitive and doing fine? Anomalous? Or maybe your prior assumptions need adjustment?

Yes, they are outliers. Or they are coasting. Again (and again). There is a reason why YC and the top, most innovative companies are in person.

A whole lot of outliers then. Top companies are in person? I only know a few people in FAANG but they all work remote. Maybe different for certain tasks like on site hpc work. They are in software engineering though.

YC in person doesn't mean anything to me. These bay area types often have a screw loose and do things like have people live on site maybe even in tents during sprints. Megalomaniac behavior, not a lesson to follow.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#147

Post by mcs5280 »

feznyng wrote: post #126
mcs5280 wrote: post #61

My company gave us 3 months notice and said 100% RTO in January 2026. I warned them this was a dealbreaker for me. They said sorry, no exceptions. In January I submitted my two weeks notice, citing RTO. They accepted my resignation letter and then called me a few hours later saying they could make an exception. Now I'm back to 100% remote. I wouldn't consider myself to be an irreplaceable superstar employee, but they…

My extremely paranoid take is they might intend to replace you with someone who will RTO but need to keep you around for a while until they find that replacement.

You might be right. We shall see.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#148

Post by matchbok3 »

asdff wrote: post #145
matchbok3 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they are outliers. Or they are coasting. Again (and again). There is a reason why YC and the top, most innovative companies are in person.

A whole lot of outliers then. Top companies are in person? I only know a few people in FAANG but they all work remote. Maybe different for certain tasks like on site hpc work. They are in software engineering though. YC in person doesn't mean anything to me. These bay area types often have a screw loose and do things like have people live on site maybe even in tents during sprints. Megalomaniac behavior, not a lesson…

Again. If you think you can do your job remotely 100%, then there is no reason why someone in South America can do your job for 20% of your salary.

Think about it.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#149

Post by NeutralCrane »

matchbok3 wrote: post #133
NeutralCrane wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“Someone has it worse than you” is always a stupid argument.

Solid contribution champ.

Poor in the US and around the world often don’t have access to the healthcare they need. If you get cancer, are you turning down chemotherapy so you don’t seem soft? Are you turning down your next raise because some teacher somewhere is getting underpaid?

If you want substantive rebuttals you should make a substantive argument first.

Re: The return-to-the-office trend backfires

#150

Post by 0x3f »

matchbok3 wrote: post #142
asadotzler wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. Workers produce the thing the company sells. Those workers are mostly trapped so they deal with whatever nonsense management is up to. Management, mostly useless, maintains its control and viability by asserting that workers need policing and they're the ones to do it. If the policing is relatively easy with WFH, they'll do that. If it's much harder, or less demonstrative of their fake value, screw that,…

If management is useless then it should be trivial for you to replace them. I wish you luck!

Doesn't really follow for structural reasons. Same as how the management of most countries sucks and is entrenched such that they can't be replaced.
Post reply on HN