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

Tragedy of return to hostile offices

benjiweber.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 306 posts

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#201

Post by xhkkffbf »

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…

At one recent gig, everything was fun until the company got big enough to need an HR scold. Ugh. We were told that a ping pong table was forbidden because of "health and safety issues". Needless to say, I left soon after.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#202

Post by voisin »

vincnetas wrote: post #133
conductr wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IDK, I don’t think real estate part is entirely true. It’s often quoted but most companies have very little RE as a percentage of revenue or whatever metric you think makes most sense. Many more are just leasing RE and could easily have exited that position by now. Even a one time write off could be spun as a positive thing. These properties can be repurposed and have continued value without their corporate tenants.…

Not necessary the company directly, but could be parent company, stockholders. What value would office buildings retain if there were no one leasing office spaces? They would be burning money by maintaining the buildings.

Sure, let's say it is shareholders. So these shareholders (diverse, distributed groups) get together and collude to pressure their investment companies to sacrifice performance (WFH) for the benefit of the shareholders' other investments?

I don't buy it.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#203

Post by voisin »

AlexandrB wrote: post #50
pid-1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does that work? Are institucional investors writing "plz return to office or we are going bust" emails to every company?

No they just have board meetings where they stress the importance of being in the office for "spontaneous exchange of ideas" and "culture" while also floating think pieces in business magazines about how important having people in the office is to success.

"Hey Exec team, my other portfolio investments have real estate exposure so I need you to sacrifice the performance you clearly witness from WFH employees and your own personal bonuses that are tied to that performance for the benefit of my other investments."

I don't buy it.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#204

Post by alistairSH »

graywh wrote: post #158
Pet_Ant wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the memes about cubicles the one time I had it was actually pleasant. You could have a small meeting in the cubicle. The walls were tall enough to hang up reference diagrams. Those same walls meant that sound didn't travel when your PM was on yet another call. Not being able to see a window was a downside. As was there oppressive grey-beige monotony, but I imagine with the Google colour palette they'd be much…

cubicle walls or not, windows are often blocked by office walls

My previous office was like that. The individual offices were around the exterior wall. The cubes were in the interior. Only managers got to see daylight. It was fucking depressing.

Wife's previous office was better. Offices were around the interior, so cubes go light from the windows. Those offices had windows, so they too could get some natural light during the day.

Current office is open plan, which is kinda dumb. Seating chart has me and another middle manager next to each other. Of the people who come in regularly (no forced RTO), we're the most frequently there AND the most frequently on calls. Le Sigh.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#205

Post by Verdex »

lobsterslive wrote: post #16

Having your own private bathroom is a really underrated perk of WFH. There are of course many more benefits to WFH, but using your own bathroom is something no office and their disgusting communal bathrooms could ever compete with.

Okay, so I have this idea. And by idea I mean effectively a fever dream: Separate building connected by underground tunnel with one of those moving sidewalks and the building is filled with personal bathrooms for each employee.

Each employee is given a small budget and menu where they can decide what amenities their bathroom gets stocked with. You can decorate it according to your whims.

There's so many logistical and even geometric problems with the idea. But just imagine the retention numbers if someone was actually able to pull it off. You have your own personal bathroom overlooking a serene wooded area, wall mounted TV doing sports ball recap, small private library, and scented candle with that sent you can't get enough of.

[Although, honestly, I would be happy if they just made the toilet stall dividers go from the floor to the ceiling.]

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#206

Post by cableshaft »

voisin wrote: post #200
schnable wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another factor is that large employers in city centers are getting some political pressure to bring people back into town. Commuting is a major prop to city economies and tax bases.

What does this pressure look like, in practice? Sternly written letters? Phone calls? What power does a city have over a private employer when it comes to employment decisions like this? If remote is everything people say it is, the cities should have no power to overcome improved performance and lower (in the long run) costs (due to lower or nonexistent rent)

Lots of companies get tax breaks, and a city can threaten to take them away if they don't bring employees back to the office.

"Of the billions in tax incentives granted to US companies every year by cities and states, many agreements require workers to come into the office some of the time, or at least live in the region. For companies receiving these incentives, relaxing in-office attendance could be costly."

"New Jersey paused its on-site requirement when Covid hit. Last summer, though, the state announced that companies receiving those benefits must bring employees back to the office about three days a week — a lower bar than before, but still challenging for firms struggling to hang onto workers in a red-hot labor market."

"The state [of Texas] said it will revoke benefits granted under the multibillion-dollar Enterprise Zone Program to companies whose employees no longer work on site at least half the time."

The article does go into pushback the states are getting from companies for imposing these, to be fair, but it's clear they have some levers to pull in order to coerce companies to bring employees back to the office.

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-t...

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#207

Post by tcgv »

iteratethis wrote: post #152

A lot of people work virtually regardless of their location. You can return to the office but it doesn't stop. You still work as if it was remote because there will always be somebody in the meeting that isn't there. They could be at home, in a different building, or a vendor in another country. Such is the consequence of complex organizations and outsourcing, as well as employees increasing demands to have a say in…

> collaboration is the problem rather than the solution

Spot on.

> The perfect workflow is where you tell me with clarity what to do, and then let me do it without distractions or changing everything halfway-through

In traditional manufacturing processes (i.e., physical goods), this is possible and often achieved. Productivity can be easily measured by dividing the physical output - like the number of items produced - by the factory headcount. Innovation exists in cycles that precede manufacturing, since changes to the factory layout are expensive and often require interrupting production.

Software development is a different beast. Innovation is intermingled in the 'manufacturing' process. Requirements change faster, and we need processes to accommodate that. Work happens in smaller time frames (e.g., two-week sprints). Productivity and delivered value are harder to measure. Paying customers are in the loop and provide constant feedback we need to filter and incorporate for our 'product' to succeed.

The software development challenge is more consultative in nature than the manufacturing one.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#208

Post by edgyquant »

voisin wrote: post #200
schnable wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another factor is that large employers in city centers are getting some political pressure to bring people back into town. Commuting is a major prop to city economies and tax bases.

What does this pressure look like, in practice? Sternly written letters? Phone calls? What power does a city have over a private employer when it comes to employment decisions like this? If remote is everything people say it is, the cities should have no power to overcome improved performance and lower (in the long run) costs (due to lower or nonexistent rent)

I am not sure why you, and others in this thread, keep stating a performance boost. Workers claim a performance boost while actual performance suffers pretty greatly

https://fortune.com/2023/07/06/remote-workers-less-productiv...

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#209

Post by macNchz »

jwells89 wrote: post #150
Pet_Ant wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For all the memes about cubicles the one time I had it was actually pleasant. You could have a small meeting in the cubicle. The walls were tall enough to hang up reference diagrams. Those same walls meant that sound didn't travel when your PM was on yet another call. Not being able to see a window was a downside. As was there oppressive grey-beige monotony, but I imagine with the Google colour palette they'd be much…

The walls have another benefit: they act like noise canceling headphones for your eyes. That’s one of the issues I have with open floor plan offices: people buzzing around in my peripheral vision can be incredibly distracting and detrimental to productivity depending on the day and my mental state, and there’s almost nothing that can be done to mitigate that.

In the same vein, I also find it distracting to have people sitting or walking behind me–like my brain tries to maintain some awareness of them, which in turn makes me cognizant that people can see my screen, which itself is kind of distracting.

In an open office this is largely a no-win situation as well: if you get a position with your back to the wall, you see people milling about everywhere, and if you face a wall, the whole office sees your screen.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#210

Post by benhurmarcel »

dboreham wrote: post #193
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've been remote working since 2000 but as an EE I agree with your employer: they have a duty to remove unauthorized electrical appliances from their premises since they present a fire risk. In addition an espresso machine obviously presents a risk of injury and associated lawsuits from numbskulls who don't know how to use it.

And that's how you get kettles hidden behind books in the archive room.
Post reply on HN