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

Let employees work from home

midnightdba.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 228 posts

Re: Let employees work from home

#191

Post by dsacco »

matwood wrote: post #59
dsacco wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your syllogism doesn't work. You begin by stating accurately that most companies aren't like Google and Facebook, which is true. Then you implicitly state that Basecamp and Automattic are more representative of most companies, which is patently false in many ways; in the relevant way, it's untrue because most companies do not have remote workers, and most people do not work remotely. You can't really lead with, "Base…

> it's untrue because most companies do not have remote workers, and most people do not work remotely There is work at home and there is remote work. Most companies of any size (more than 1 location), have remote workers. My first job out of college in the late 90s had most of my 'team' spread across the globe in other offices. We got everything done through conference calls and emails. Eventually I stopped going to…

Considering that we're talking about work outside of a shared office in this context, I don't think this is relevant or a good-faith response to the point at hand. We're not defining "remote" as "more than one location", we're defining it as, "people who don't work in one of the locations."

Re: Let employees work from home

#192

Post by pdimitar »

wayn3 wrote: post #189
pdimitar wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is going to work out just like companies who cut compensation work out. You'll be left with the mediocre engineers and everyone who's able to choose to work remotely will eventually do so. If you don't permit that, you're left with the chaff. This has to be the best comment in this thread. I am observing this phenomena lately and I gotta say, I feel rather good about seeing the more backwards employers struggl…

I do mostly contract work. I have a line item called "distress surcharge" that is charged to clients who want to bother me with being in the office. Effectively doubles my rate. Helps them quit being silly.

I wish I could say "I'll definitely try that!", but (prepare for a slight off-tangent) I suffered through enough stress and burnout cycles in my life -- several times! -- that I can't even justify a double rate for my newly delivered suffering in fresh new customer office. Or so I think. Funny things happen to human morals and sentiments when a lot of money is involved. Maybe I should try it once and see how it goes, actually.

I am looking forward to start working with N customers on contract / consulting base but the transition is really hard. People keep treating me like a coding monkey whom they have to swindle for the lowest possible salary. Guess I have to change my LinkedIn profile dramatically, and make my own website as a start.

Bottom-line / on-topic: if you're willing to share lessons learned from your transition then you should know that you'd have a passionate and intentive listener (me).

Re: Let employees work from home

#193

Post by tyingq »

sqeaky wrote: post #184
tyingq wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You compete with a larger pool when working 100% from home. Both skillwise and costwise.

That is an interesting take on it. I am comfortable with that, but I can see why many might not be. I will have to think more on that to see all of the ramifications. Immediately, I can see how it looks like businesses might try to hire devs from inexpensive overseas shops, but I know why employers rarely do that a second time. Then there are the really expensive devs who are clearly some of the best in their field,…

Sure. It doesn't have to be overseas though. A SV startup switching to work from home could save money by hiring remote developers from cheaper places in the US.

Re: Let employees work from home

#194

Post by brazzledazzle »

jasode wrote: post #7

>Objections to work from home fall apart Essays from workers like Jen McCown isn't going to work. What works is to have massively successful businesses that beat the competition because their employees work remotely . Since no multi-billion dollar business has demonstrated that specific cause & effect, the idea doesn't gain traction. Yes, businesses like Basecamp and Automattic have remote workers but I'm talking abo…

I think the problem is that lots of companies/managers hire filler. People to run inference or take on the most tedious work. Or just show some semblance of progress. These people need hand holding or constant direction. The worst managers are the ones that don't see this dynamic so everyone gets treated like they need to be micro-managed. I don't think anyone but the unicorns can afford to have a standard where everyone is a rockstar. So companies/managers that can't hire to that standard feel like they can't allow things like WFH because they don't know how or don't want to provide different perks for different people. They know that the ones that do need hand holding will be upset. We already provide disparate compensation in the form of salary but I think the hidden/taboo nature of that makes it more tolerable (at least until it leaks).

Re: Let employees work from home

#195

Post by Mz »

overgard wrote: post #171
Mz wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, my first thought was Textbroker. But then I searched and couldn't even find a Wikipedia article profiling them, though I did find this: https://techcrunch.com/2010/10/24/textbroker-raises-multi-mi... And then it occurred to me that their thousands of writers are not employees. They are 1099 contract positions. And then I remembered the awful stuff that went down when the Fortune 500 company I worked for created W…

It sounds more like you just had dysfunctional management, not that the concept is bad.

I am aware they did some really crappy things. Unsurprisingly, the company has shrunk in recent years. I left in part because I was having nightmares that I was on a sinking ship.

None of that precludes the possibility that WFH arrangements may be inherently poorly suited to an employee contract and may be better suited to a freelance type situation.

I thought it was worth tossing the idea out there.

Re: Let employees work from home

#196

Post by throwaway47861 »

maxxxxx wrote: post #60
Veen wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow your logic. The vast majority of businesses aren't like Google or Facebook. The vast majority of the nation's GDP isn't created by companies like Google and Facebook. Hundreds of thousands of businesses are the size of Automattic, Basecamp, or smaller. Those businesses employ the the vast majority of workers. Therefore, Basecamp and Automattic are excellent role models. Unequivocal success does not mea…

I am a big proponent of remote work but I think it's harder to manage a remote company. Automattic and Basecamp have excellent people in leadership who have a clear understanding of their company. A lot of mediocre middleman managers in the typical company aren't capable of setting expectations and evaluating work results. You need very good workers and leaders in a remote company.

So we're gonna cull the "manager" fakers who probably contribute $10,000 to their company's bottom line over a career of 30 years? Sounds like a double win for WFH to me.

Re: Let employees work from home

#197

Post by dsacco »

pdimitar wrote: post #188
dsacco wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, look at it this way. You and I might have our minds changed by insightful essays, but looking at the broader business landscape, which of the following appears more likely to persuade an organization to consider changes? 1) A collection of insightful essays discussing the merits of remote working for amenable cultures, written by people who work at companies that basically only our ingroup is very familiar with…

As another commenter very adequately put it: if a high-quality engineer can work remotely from a beach-house, they will. And the companies who are adamant in ther on-site policy will be left with the more mediocre engineers. And I already seen it happen several times in my home country.

Sure, I agree: they're theoretically limiting themselves to mediocre engineers, I guess. But the companies with the greatest potential to effect cultural change in the industry don't really care, because their returns look like this:

https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/AMZN#eyJtdWx0aUNvbG9yTGluZSI...

https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/AAPL#eyJtdWx0aUNvbG9yTGluZSI...

https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/GOOG#eyJtdWx0aUNvbG9yTGluZSI...

Which brings us back to my fundamental premise - companies emulate the business practices of the companies they desire to become (or in the special case of tech, desire to be acquired by). For every company that wants to virtue-signal their remote culture, or be avante garde out of sincere appreciation for the concept, there are many more that don't want to make changes like that without seeing it work at widely recognizable examples. When the companies with the collective lions' share of business signaling power in the industry have returns that look like those, they're not concerned about having mediocre engineers. Privately, they'd probably disagree with you that their engineers are even the competitive advantage.

To reiterate: this is all coming from someone who presently works remotely and enjoys it thoroughly. I just really don't think there are substantive arguments that it should be adopted by companies that don't already have the culture in place.

Re: Let employees work from home

#198

Post by hfourm »

throwaway47861 wrote: post #185
korzun wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are an exception. I was a huge advocate for working from home because I would get things done and end up saving two hours of commute. Your perception of this approach changes relatively quickly in a managerial role. If you are shaving 1-2 hours off your commute, then the overall output should be in line with whatever it was in the office. I probably met two other engineers that kept that in check.

So your answer is micro-management and making people fake activity during the mandatory 8h? You're not a good manager if that's the case. There are courses that teach people how to focus on results and deliverables.

Deadlines, deliverables, and results

Deadlines being flexible roadmap deadlines of course

Re: Let employees work from home

#199

Post by pdimitar »

barrkel wrote: post #45

I worked remotely, from home, for 5 years. These days, I work mostly in the office, with a 40 minute commute each way, despite the option for occasional working from home. There's a few reasons to prefer working in the office. The single biggest one is the hard delimiting of the work day; when I'm not in the office, I'm not working, I'm not available on email or chat, and unless it's an exceptional situation, nobody…

Anecdotal evidence.

I am never trash-talking people who prefer working on-site. Quite the contrary, I respect them just like any other valued colleague.

Working from home is a learned skill. I am so good at it these days that the moment I close my second Chrome instance (the one with all my work accounts) and shut down my VMs, my mindset immediately changes to "chill and leisure mode".

If you can't do it, that's fine. It's different strokes for different people. As the article says, both options must exist.

Re: Let employees work from home

#200

Post by pdimitar »

dsacco wrote: post #197
pdimitar wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As another commenter very adequately put it: if a high-quality engineer can work remotely from a beach-house, they will. And the companies who are adamant in ther on-site policy will be left with the more mediocre engineers. And I already seen it happen several times in my home country.

Sure, I agree: they're theoretically limiting themselves to mediocre engineers, I guess. But the companies with the greatest potential to effect cultural change in the industry don't really care, because their returns look like this: https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/AMZN#eyJtdWx0aUNvbG9yTGluZSI... https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/AAPL#eyJtdWx0aUNvbG9yTGluZSI... https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/GOOG#eyJtdWx0aUNvbG9yTGluZ…

My turn to agree. :)

I dislike the herd mentality you're describing but I know it's real. And I know that most people are followers -- only when they see something like WFH brings widely recognized benefits from bigger corporations, it's only then when they will follow suit. Sad state of affairs but nothing much can be done.

At the same time, such changes never happen overnight. The returns you're linking to IMO hardly have any meaningful correlation with the on-site vs. WFH work. Engineers must deliver and produce, but the company's bottom line is only partially influenced by the engineers.

Post reply on HN