Tragedy of return to hostile offices • Hacker News Board

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#181

Post by beepbooptheory » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

borkt wrote: post #94

chasd00 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The RTO is being entirely driven from the top by institutional investors wanting to avoid losses on property investments and from the bottom by those who have yet to grapple with the fact they dont have friends or hobbies and need you in the office so that they dont feel like such embarrassing losers. I know i'm supposed to "contribute to the conversation" but it's important to recognize that the above point is exa…

OP forgets ‘institutional investors’ is code for the pooled retirement funds of the vast majority of residents, as well as the institutions who hold much of the sovereign debt, which is generated to pay for social services, war, etc. It all comes down to those who are presently working supporting those who presently don’t.

Ok but insofar this is true, this is also a misguided, terrible state of affairs that needs to be addressed!

Like saying "you better support your employer's aims or maybe grandma wont get her cancer medicine," is not the gotcha you maybe think it is.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#182

Post by NoboruWataya » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

GenerocUsername wrote: post #89

benjaminwootton wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it though? Most companies prioritise their own self interest over nebulous “institutional investment” bogeymen.

Do they? Odd how coordinated so many companies reach the same conclusions, policies, and follow the same trends. Could it be that the board members of these companies are in that nebulous investor class?

It's not odd at all that people in a similar situation tend to act the same way, particularly when they can see how the others act and realise that following the crowd is the best way to not get fired.

Many companies would benefit financially by reducing their office footprint and thereby paying less rent. The idea that boards everywhere would sabotage their own companies to appease commercial real estate investors is tinfoil hat level stuff.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#183

Post by karaterobot » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 3:55 PM UTC

I like the phrase "serendipity is not a strategy", it gets to my biggest complaint about the arguments for going back to the office. Your shitty open plan office was never MIT Building 20 before the pandemic, and it's not going to become a womb of creativity after the pandemic just because you want it to be so. The way I know that is because you have to threaten people to come back to it, if it was special at all they'd come back on their own.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#184

Post by globular-toast » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 3:57 PM UTC

rossdavidh wrote: post #13

So, I have often worked remotely, think it's fine, and makes sense in some cases. But, honestly, this is a professional-class issue, and every article about it seems written from a viewpoint that has forgotten about most of the population. The waitress and cook never had the option of working remotely, nor did the factory worker, the construction worker, the taxicab driver, the truck driver, etc. etc. Most of the pop…

What? Is your argument basically "you can't have problems because other people have problems too"?

My partner is a nurse. Of course she can't work from home. Her job is literally touching people, putting things in them and taking things out.

They're not making her go to the hospital just to fuck with her.

My job, on the other hand, does not involve physical contact. In fact, I don't even need to leave home, as demonstrated by years of working at home. I deliver value at home so I get paid for it. It's as simple as that really. It's completely irrelevant how other people deliver their value.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#185

Post by lhamil64 » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 3:57 PM UTC

ericbarrett wrote: post #59

AlexandrB wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is correct. It's why, before the pandemic normalized remote work, offices were popular. What's disheartening is that a lot of "return to office" plans I've heard of from friends involve conditions even worse than what was there before. For example, hot-desking replacing the previous (also terrible) open office. I'm too young to have lived through the golden age of engineers actually having an office to w…

I keep saying—if you want me to return to the office, give me an office . Or even a cubicle. Why even enforce a hot-desking setup when the space is 20% full? It makes no sense at all!

I'm lucky enough to work at a place that gives us actual offices. Some offices are larger with two desks (so some people share) but I have my own office. There's apparently some plan to improve our site and I'm really hoping they don't move us to an open plan or something.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#186

Post by dopidopHN » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 3:58 PM UTC

AlexandrB wrote: post #40

tristor wrote: post #10

One of the primary reasons that remote work improves productivity is that it allows employees to tailor their environment to their needs, rather than be forced into a hostile office space that requires kafkaesque bureaucratic bullshit to make even minor changes. I once had a former employer force me to take an espresso machine home that I had brought to work because it created a situation where a different shift was…

I think this is correct. It's why, before the pandemic normalized remote work, offices were popular. What's disheartening is that a lot of "return to office" plans I've heard of from friends involve conditions even worse than what was there before. For example, hot-desking replacing the previous (also terrible) open office. I'm too young to have lived through the golden age of engineers actually having an office to w…

My first job I was in medium sized room. With an individual desk. A handful of other peoples, and a door that close.

The team was large. Like 50+ devs easily. All scatter in different rooms.

Bliss

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#187

Post by francisofascii » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 4:02 PM UTC

bilsbie wrote: post #97

I still remember the time we had no space for an intern to sit so we had to put him in an empty VP office. But only senior people could have windows so they covered his windows in cardboard …

> But only senior people could have windows

I once worked at a company where almost the opposite was true, or at least they prided themselves on not factoring that in and in moving desks several times a year. Managers and senior people tended to be near the center of a very crowded office space, away from the windows, I suppose to be closer to the "action". Newer or less important folks tended to be near the windows.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#188

Post by idontpost » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

Galanwe wrote: post #105

2023throwawayy wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are in a positive office space, you need to understand that you are incredibly lucky and part of a tiny minority.

> you are incredibly lucky Says who? There's no more reason for an office space to be bad rather than good. And there's no reason to think that having a good one is based on luck. If office space dynamics and setup are important to you, then put it in your job search mental list and find a job that matches that.

[dead]

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#189

Post by lm28469 » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

wbobeirne wrote: post #77

Devasta wrote: post #19

I work in Cork, Ireland. My boss is in Dublin, his boss Singapore, my staff in Nova Scotia, Devs in Manila, clients in London and New York. I'm always working remotely, no matter where I am, as is anyone who works in any multi office company. The RTO is being entirely driven from the top by institutional investors wanting to avoid losses on property investments and from the bottom by those who have yet to grapple wit…

> and from the bottom by those who have yet to grapple with the fact they dont have friends or hobbies and need you in the office so that they dont feel like such embarrassing losers. I can see why office culture doesn't appeal to you, you sound like a grump who doesn't enjoy the comraderie you can form with people that you spend 40 hours a week with. If you can enjoy the cognitive dissonance of socializing with blac…

> who doesn't enjoy the comraderie you can form with people that you spend 40 hours a week with.

I'd much rather spend that time with people I chose. Some you of you borderline sound like you're suffering from Stockholm syndrome

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#190

Post by _huayra_ » Mon, Nov 13, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

tsunamifury wrote: post #155

tristor wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> you are incredibly lucky > Says who? Says anyone who has spent more than a decade in the workforce. > There's no more reason for an office space to be bad rather than good. And there's no reason to think that having a good one is based on luck. By “no reason”, you mean no logical reason. That might be true. Unfortunately a crafted reality controlled by sociopaths isn’t required to be logically consistent at every…

Yea I can’t help but realize after my career in offices then seeing mass wfh, the sociopath layer depended deeply on a perceived panopticon of working in the office. The panopticon was a negative motivator for workers, but also a common experience that standardized the culture and expectations. WFH was like setting rats in a maze to free range and noticing they can be more productive but at the expense of common purp…

> Even Google, a company that purported to be about worker freedom to harvest productivity if top workers, has retreated to this position.

If you take the approach of "watch what they do, not what they say", Google is one of the clearest examples of pro-RTO: they invest in so many perks because they want to make the panopticon feel comfy.

There are other companies that don't give you a darn thing and just dangle the loss of one's job as a threat (Amazon), but I think top performers are more swayed by the "free food" approach than the "let's have a big public dashboard with the entire team's attendance" approach (again, Amazon).