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

Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

engadget.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 632 posts

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#181

Post by Octoth0rpe »

azth wrote: post #141

> and that the policy is wasteful, inflexible and will lead to a "younger, whiter, more male-dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied" workforce. Does anyone take tossing around words like this seriously anymore? I am pro working remotely, but this is just ridiculous.

Yes. I don't see how at a minimum "more able-bodied" should be controversial. Someone who requires a wheelchair has a much easier experience when WFH. "Younger" is a likely extension of that given how age affects mobility.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#182

Post by LosWochosWeek »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #143
scarface74 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a stereotype. It’s statistics. https://developerpitstop.com/how-long-do-software-engineers-... The people who want to work from home and are being forced to work in the office, by definition aren’t “content”. As far as the living arrangements, if the impetus for you leaving is to find remote work, how will changing to another job change your living situation?

>"The people who want to work from home and are being forced to work in the office, by definition aren’t “content”." I feel like being "content" involves a lot of other factors and trying to determine if someone is content means looking at other aspects of the job holistically. I've always detested yearly evaluations and the 'song and dance' one must do to write "corpo-speak" about their achievements and goals. Yet,…

> I don't see jobs as fungible.

Very odd, seeing how you literally posted very fungibale things right after that. You know that you can just negotiate those things and only jump ship once you've found something that satisfies you.

If you wanted to make your point, you should've talked about actual barely-fungible things when switching jobs, i.e. if you're going to do the work you've been promised, your managers and company culture, etc etc etc

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#183

Post by TYPE_FASTER »

It's going to be fascinating to watch this play out over the next few years. Google will have 3.1 million sqft of space in Manhattan when it's done building out its most recent acquisition [0].

This may be an opportunity for companies who need technical teams, but aren't able to compensate at FAANG levels, to compete.

[0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/nyregion/google-buys-buil...

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#184

Post by twobitshifter »

RC_ITR wrote: post #173
shuckles wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are people who are convinced by this logic aware that the vast majority of Apple employees don’t work in Apple Park and instead in extremely unremarkable office buildings throughout suburban Bay Area?

And do they ignore the fact that many of apple’s most important employees work in physically secured labs where physical device access is a major part of their job? Like sure GitHub can be remote top to bottom, but an insane amount of Apples workflow is prototype driven and those prototypes cannot physically leave their secure facilities. Hard to argue (from a retention standpoint) that those people need to come in f…

You mean easy to argue? The lab workers would get no remote days per week due to their jobs. The workers who can be fully remote are being forced back.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#185

Post by hbosch »

azth wrote: post #141

> and that the policy is wasteful, inflexible and will lead to a "younger, whiter, more male-dominated, more neuro-normative, more able-bodied" workforce. Does anyone take tossing around words like this seriously anymore? I am pro working remotely, but this is just ridiculous.

It might seem exhausting, or annoying, or overly descriptive... but it is true and I find it hard to dispute.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#186

Post by brailsafe »

BobbyJo wrote: post #135
shuckles wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are people who are convinced by this logic aware that the vast majority of Apple employees don’t work in Apple Park and instead in extremely unremarkable office buildings throughout suburban Bay Area?

If you accept that there is some marginal benefit in getting employees together physically, (and as someone with a remote position, I certainly do) then I think the logic of "we already spent the money, get in here" has a degree of truth to it.

I think if you frame that as an roi, the marginal benefit as a worker would really have to outweigh the cost. If I was being scouted by a company, which I'm not, the offer would have to be extremely compelling, because it's just not in me to commute and be on time for shit.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#187

Post by 1minusp »

KerrAvon wrote: post #113
pavel_lishin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think engineers tend to under-estimate how much of their work is communicating with other engineers. Yes, you need that focus time. But running into someone on another team can be very valuable - you might learn that they're solving the same problem, you might learn that they're consuming the same API you're trying to figure out, you might learn that they're planning on working with your team in a few weeks, etc.

Sure, but if your company’s productivity depends on these accidental interactions, you’re in serious trouble if you’re as large as Apple is. Apple Park is so large you can roam the halls all day and not run into the people you’re working with on other teams. Many of the teams will be on other campuses anyway. I would argue the benefits of having more of your state in Slack more than make up for “surprise productive w…

The watercooler comment resonates: i keep hearing it as justification to be back in-person and even in cases where i feel i've ha da productive watercooler conversation, it has very rarely resulted in anything crucial or important emerge from it. Businesses have problems that need solving (using technology): it is unlikely that the problem is identified at a watercooler (or other metaphorical equivalents) or the solution is identified in a one hour in-person meeting. One might 'feel' that the outcome from the quickly made decision in the 1-hr meeting was useful, but thats questionable too.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#188

Post by seneca »

KerrAvon wrote: post #103
azemetre wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe allow teams, but I don't think allowing individuals to choose isn't good. Having a team that's half remote/half in-person is worse of both worlds. What typically ends up happening IME is that the in-person half typically gets way way way more visibility than those working remote. It's especially worse if the company isn't remote first at all. It's especially terrible if the team is remotely distributed as well.…

The Apple policy under discussion is a top-down edict from the executives that no future remote roles are allowed, period. This is more draconian than the pre-pandemic “exceptions allowed with VP approval” policy. Your experience isn’t germane to this situation.

> Your experience isn’t germane to this situation.

I've been seeing more and more of this rude dismissal of other comments. They're discussing the general topic at hand by offering their experience. Your snarky reply degrades the conversation significantly more than them broadening the conversation.

Less of this, please.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#189

Post by jasonthorsness »

TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #183

It's going to be fascinating to watch this play out over the next few years. Google will have 3.1 million sqft of space in Manhattan when it's done building out its most recent acquisition [0]. This may be an opportunity for companies who need technical teams, but aren't able to compensate at FAANG levels, to compete. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/nyregion/google-buys-buil...

I have to think real estate investments, employment laws, and other factors beyond what company leadership states openly must be involved. The employee objections here are written out clearly, but the policies from big companies that require more than 50% of time in the office seem like such a tragic compromise that I can't believe they've been fully explained.

The longer companies waffle on these policies the more likely it is they will hamper recruitment and face attrition to companies with more consistent policies.

In-office is much less effective when your team is distributed across multiple sites/time zones anyway which seems to be the new normal.

Re: Apple employees criticize work-from-home policy in open letter

#190

Post by drewg123 »

azemetre wrote: post #64
enumjorge wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not allow the flexibility to let both types of people do their best work though?

Maybe allow teams, but I don't think allowing individuals to choose isn't good. Having a team that's half remote/half in-person is worse of both worlds. What typically ends up happening IME is that the in-person half typically gets way way way more visibility than those working remote. It's especially worse if the company isn't remote first at all. It's especially terrible if the team is remotely distributed as well.…

My team is 1/2 in person and 1/2 remote and it works fine. We don't have the "way way more visibility" problem. I think this is at least partly because my director is remote, and at least one link in the chain of VPs above him is remote as well.
Post reply on HN