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

Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

finance.yahoo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 212 posts

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#151

Post by [deleted] »

Sylamore wrote: post #86
kindatrue wrote: post #31

"Unispace found that nearly half (42%) of companies with return-to-office mandates witnessed a higher level of employee attrition than they had anticipated" No severance payouts. No bumps to your unemployment insurance payments. Everything is working to plan.

This seems to be the real reason that AT&T is pushing RTO, including telling people that have worked remote for their entire careers and never seen an office in 20+ years that they must relocate to a designated location either by the end of 2023 or 2024 depending on their wave. If they reject immediately they will get severance, but if they accept and don't relocate later they will be terminated without severance. ht…

[deleted]

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#152

Post by DiggyJohnson »

antisthenes wrote: post #119
DiggyJohnson wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer RTO and being in the office with the entire team. That doesn't make me crazy, and I know several others on my team feel the same way.

Your preferences would do a very quick 180 if you had a commute over a certain length in order to get to the office. Understand that your current preference is a result of being in an advantageous living accommodation next to the office building your company is leasing.

I live in the city center and so by choice. My office is a 12 minute drive away with rarely any traffic. I'm in a medium COL city not known for its tech scene. I don't live "next door" to my office, though that would be awesome if I could.

> Understand that your current preference is a result of being in an advantageous living accommodation next to the office building your company is leasing.

I prefer to go to the beach or the park in my free time, but my preference would certainly change if there was hurricane outside. In that case I'd rather stay indoors.

Obviously my experience would differ if I had a 30+ minute hellish commute. The only teammates that have a commute this long choose to do so as a tradeoff (e.g. more house).

I guess this response and tone surprise me because it seems obvious. There are clearly tradeoffs made when we choose where to live and where we work (including WFH or in-office policy).

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#153

Post by antisthenes »

McDyver wrote: post #110
antisthenes wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I talked to a director last week who spends 1/3 the year in ski country, 1/3 the year in the Midwest and 1/3 the year on the coast. He's not going back, and practically anyone would be lucky to have him. Does he actually spend any time working?

> Does he actually spend any time working? This seems the exact thought process of management wanting people to RTO. They forget there's time, and life, after working hours. And the less you need to commute, the more free time you have to actually live and enjoy life.

I can't imagine essentially "moving" to a new place 3 times a year.

I have pets and would need to take at least 3-4 days off to pack and move everything, so unless this dude owns 3 properties, it seems like a massive time expenditure to do this. Not to mention being incredibly stressful (which would make me less productive).

Unless they are a digital nomad with a laptop and a pair of flip-flops.

I make no assumptions about their actual work day. Maybe they are incredibly productive.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#154

Post by marcosdumay »

jbombadil wrote: post #28
gottorf wrote: post #3

Of course it's too early to tell with lots of confounding variables, but labor productivity has been taking a steep dive[0]. So perhaps in the aggregate, WFH is resulting in less work being done. I say this as someone who's been full-time WFH for over a decade; I'm not taking a position one way or another. [0]: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MPU4910063

That chart confuses me. Each data point is percentage increase vs the PREVIOUS year? So the "steep dive" that you talk about is a single year -1.7% decrease vs a decade of constant increase, going as high as 4.6% in a single year? I feel that chart is almost deceitful. Every year that this is above 0 is a percentage win no matter the delta. So if that chart showed * 2030 -> 20% * 2031 -> 1% It'd feel like a steep div…

It's the rate of change if you draw the variable in a monolog paper. That is, a constant value there leads to an exponential growth (or reduction) of the real value.

It's common to draw economic indicators this way.

Basically, if one year had +3 and the next -3, you would be back at the original value.

The largest ever 4.6 at the peak of WFH in 2020 and the fall to a normal 2.2 in 2021 both represent fast growth in productivity. The only "bad" point there is the -1.7 at the peak of RTO in 2022. So the GP's analysis is indeed bullshit.

(But anyway, there are some much more compelling explanations for 2022 than RTO, do not take it as evidence against mandating office work, it's not strong enough for that.)

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#155

Post by elvis10ten »

bluefishinit wrote: post #134
elvis10ten wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s why I said it’s contextual :) There is always a good enough balance (I think). Some of my colleagues live outside Berlin and I think they are only required to come to the office a few times a month and they haven’t complained so far.

I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month. You still have to live within driving distance to the office (or take a plane a few times a month which is even worse). I think over time we'll see that the "balance" is actually 100% WFH unless physical presence is absolutely required (like you're making and selling sandwiches). It's just going to take a while for the new fully remote…

I didn’t see the option to reply to your last response, so posting this here.

Just curious, Do you live in a cycling friendly city? And how is the public transport?

Also, your response confirms what I said earlier. Not factoring in people that prefer an office will mean you replace the office with another form of an office.

> I've managed around a dozen teams in my career and 100% of the time the fully remote teams have produced better results than the in-office teams.

The worst performers in my career has usually been the remote folks. But we can post all the anecdotes we have, but guess time will tell.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#157

Post by FirmwareBurner »

Freedom2 wrote: post #124
commandlinefan wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> transparently a middle management “I’m still relevant!” Which makes one wonder who the people who kept posting on here how much they missed the office and wished we'd go back to the office during the pandemic actually were.

There's a non-zero number of HNers who arguably make their job a core part of their personality that experienced significant distress when they discovered that people were fine working from home. It's the only way I can rationale people who cannot fathom that others have hobbies / friendships outside of work.

>There's a non-zero number of HNers

The world of employees is more than just HN userbase. Don't take the narative here as being universal. In my groups of people, most prefer working in the office the majority of the time than at home. They are not on HN.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#158

Post by bluefishinit »

elvis10ten wrote: post #155
bluefishinit wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would never work somewhere that required me to be in office a few times a month. You still have to live within driving distance to the office (or take a plane a few times a month which is even worse). I think over time we'll see that the "balance" is actually 100% WFH unless physical presence is absolutely required (like you're making and selling sandwiches). It's just going to take a while for the new fully remote…

I didn’t see the option to reply to your last response, so posting this here. Just curious, Do you live in a cycling friendly city? And how is the public transport? Also, your response confirms what I said earlier. Not factoring in people that prefer an office will mean you replace the office with another form of an office. > I've managed around a dozen teams in my career and 100% of the time the fully remote teams h…

> Just curious, Do you live in a cycling friendly city? And how is the public transport?

I do, but I work remote and I honestly don't even think there are any tech companies in my city even if I wanted to work locally (which I don't).

> Also, your response confirms what I said earlier. Not factoring in people that prefer an office will mean you replace the office with another form of an office.

If you count zoom/discord/slack/github... as "another form of an office", then sure. I really do mean that successful companies in the future will not have a physical presence if they don't need to.

> The worst performers in my career has usually been the remote folks. But we can post all the anecdotes we have, but guess time will tell.

I think it's pretty easy to see how being pure remote is superior from a talent market perspective. How can "people who live within commuting distance to the office" ever compete with "the best people on the planet I can hire"?

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#159

Post by msluyter »

obnauticus wrote: post #9

It is unclear who wants RTO, at least within tech and other leaders whom I know within tech.

FWIW, I think Scott Galloway has an interesting take on this:

https://www.profgalloway.com/work-from-office/

One of his arguments is that for younger employees, in that it provides an opportunity to create social connections. For example, it appears that ~20% of people meet their spouses at work.

Re: Damaging results of mandated return to the office: it’s worse than we thought

#160

Post by FirmwareBurner »

elvis10ten wrote: post #98

Every time this topic comes up on HN, I see many anecdotes on why WFO is bad. My anecdote: I work from the office everyday (unforced). 20-30 minutes commute. I come in at 6am/7am and leave at 2pm/3pm. I do a 30 minutes calisthenics session and then head home and usually leave my laptop in the office (as a forcing function to disconnect). The result: I have built strong bonds with colleagues outside my team. A few of…

>E.g: As an immigrant, the office has been useful in seeding my social circle and learning useful things about Berlin that I probably wouldn’t have know.

HN will tell you that you should make friends outside of work and that they shouldn't be forced to come to the office just to socialize with you. /s

Post reply on HN