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

191–200 of 212 posts

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

#191

Post by CaptainNegative »

bluefishinit wrote: post #118
CaptainNegative wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't like working from home, but I hate mandated RTO because of all the antisocial behavior people bring into the office from their WFH days (loud meetings at their desks, brushing their teeth at their desks, Das keyboards, etc.).

Those have nothing to do with WFH, they're regular office behavior and one well known reason for why many people hate going to the office.

Those definitely existed in the past, but there's been a dramatic uptick of terrible office etiquette in my current situation relative to pre-pandemic times, even though I'm in the same building working for the same company. I now expect any rando who sits next to me to enter a meeting.

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

#192

Post by DiggyJohnson »

dickersnoodle wrote: post #166
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.

It does make you selfish, though. You'd force people who don't want to RTO into the office because you prefer it?

Why do you not see it as symmetrical? A WFH policy is not my preference, yet I don't feel "forced" to put up with it if that is the policy of my team / company.

What am I missing?

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

#193

Post by antonjs »

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 grew up in a mountain town, and the mountain started doing 8 am openings for season pass holders. Some colleagues and I would hit the slopes, ski for an hour, and be in the office at 930. My actual productivity after that kind of fresh air and exercise every morning was much higher.

We also had an employee with a 'powder clause' in her contract. Any day with over a certain amount of snowfall meant a day off.

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

#194

Post by antonjs »

Volundr wrote: post #181
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?

FWIW we had an engineer who basically did this, and he was definitely a top performer. Depending on where he was and what the activity he was there for he might work nonstandard hours, but he definitely got shit done. Director level non-standard hours might be a non-starter, but nothing about the lifestyle demanded it, it was really just about maximizing the time spent skiing or whatever. One could always knock of at…

Also much easier to ski or hike on the weekend if it's right next door rather than a four hour drive (looking at you I80). Add in potentially having kids growing up around nature and even working standard hours M-F can make the work remote from your preferred environment much more worth it.

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

#195

Post by marcosdumay »

andersa wrote: post #188
marcosdumay wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would be obsolete I doubt this. Would probably be cheaper, but I doubt the rental market is so inelastic that the new price will break anything.

I wonder if they could be turned into apartments or something else useful.

There are always some discussion about turning them into apartments here on HN. My conclusion from them is that no, they couldn't.

But they could be turned into something else useful. All that space close to each other and at the destination of every transportation structure will find a usage.

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

#196

Post by StimDeck »

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…

> The worst performers in my career has usually been the remote folks.

On what KPI? Did they also suffer less burnout? Did the company lose money hiring these folks? Did anyone care? Who? Why?

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

#198

Post by bestouff »

FredPret wrote: post #63
underseacables wrote: post #16

I understand why businesses want us to return to office, and cannot disagree that I would likely react the same way. However returning to the office has numerous additional costs that are very much avoidable. I have to go to the office once a week. That’s a week do gas, time, money, pollution, and using resources and space that is duplicative.

Here’s the thing with commercial leases. They go on for years at a time and cost a very large amount. So some companies are locked into their office leases and stupidly think not having people there is a waste of that money when it’s a sunk cost and has already been wasted. But for companies without an office, it’s a massive saving. So in the long run, cubicle-minded managers will go out of business, and get outcompe…

Leases ? You didn't understand how it works. Boss has a company. Boss buys some big office. Boss rents its office to its company. Some systemic tax rebates apply. Boss gets even more rich.

RTO is a nightmare for these people.

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

#199

Post by doxick »

hospitalJail wrote: post #111
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.

Do you enjoy the unpaid commute time?

Yes, yes i do. It gives me some time to physically and mentally detach from work when going home, and it gives me time to read up on news, catch up with friends, family, etc.

"But you could do that from home": yes, but i wouldn't.

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

#200

Post by sam0x17 »

campl3r wrote: post #172
sam0x17 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also clear that some people feel real benefits from being in the office. I'm so tired of this equivocation. These aren't two neatly swapable things like some sort of cute little "preference" that each company can decide for itself without receiving any judgement. The costs behind in-office work are GARGANTUAN, both in terms of the literal cost of renting + heating + cooling a huge office space that is vacant e…

As an employee the cost of working from home is GARGANTUAN. I already life where I want to, don't force me to move to a more expensive place so that I have space for an office at home. I don't need to move for any office, as all offices in my local city (1+ mil) are easily reachable by bike or subway within 30 minutes.

90% of the people I do video calls with are either calling from a literal closet or do an animated/replacement background anyway. Like you I spent a lot of time and effort preparing my (real life) background behind me, and most people are surprised when they find out it isn't fake.

Point being, no one cares, and you do not need a "home office" to WFH. You can WFH from a bus

Post reply on HN