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

231–240 of 306 posts

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#231

Post by Joeri »

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!

You know offices are not in a good place when people wistfully wish for the office situation of the workers in office space and the matrix.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#232

Post by jimmydddd »

yesdocs wrote: post #225
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 am old enough to remember when cubicles and offices were the norm. Cubicle companies studied and improved the cubicles spaces to make them more efficient using science. Yes they actually studied what would make us happier and more proficient at work. Then came the stupid trend of organic seating. Cubicle’s ? Thing of the past they said, yet our productivity suffered. Great for sprints but quickly diminished due to…

Re: "'fad' that CEO's liked." My previous CEO: "We all have to be in an open office every day to enhance productivity." Also my previous CEO: "I'll be working from my house in the Hamptons during July and August." :-)

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#233

Post by paulcole »

tomashubelbauer wrote: post #227
paulcole wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except for some people telling others how they have to live life Don't act like this is a one-way street. If you're working remotely then your employer is also telling its employees how they have to live life. It's just that in this case you happen to agree with them so it's A-OK!

People who prefer the office can band together and get one with WFH. People who enjoy their homes or even still an office, just their personal one, don't have that choice with RTO.

You're making a pretty standard mistake often made by people who are pro-WFH.

Many people who prefer working in an office prefer to work with other people who are also in an office. They do not want to interact with people who are working remotely.

Just to be clear, this is a 100% fine preference to have.

In this case, a company saying, "Yeah get a coworking space or whatever and meet with the remote people on Zoom" is telling these employees how to live, exactly the same as telling a WFH employee to come into the office due to RTO.

And again, just to be clear, neither of these are bad things. It just depends on your perspective.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#234

Post by ryandrake »

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)

Think about it as if it was a private golfing club, where these guys (corporate executives, real estate developers, bigshot investors, local politicians and officials, chief of police, county and city judges) all hang out in the same bar and play golf together, and shoot the shit with each other, and go to each others' kids' soccer games and so on. I'm sure there's a lot of peer pressure for them all to kind of get along and scratch each other's backs so that everyone can profit at the expense of the rest of us schmucks who are not in the club. A phone call is probably the most formal that it would get!

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#235

Post by toast0 »

twh270 wrote: post #76
sircastor wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My last job had pinball machines in the breakroom. We also had folks coming over from the UK who thought those pinball machines were awesome. The pinball got taken away because it was seen as “unfair” to all the offices that didn’t have something like that.

Notice how shi*y companies always seem to find that "unfairness" needs to be "fixed" by removing the benefit?

It's not just companies. I've seen lots of people say why do they get X? rather than how can we get X?

As an example, Pinball and arcade games are often very easy to source. Where I've seen them at my workplace, they were brought in and maintained by employees. Some space needs to be allocated, and maybe needs a bit of electrical work if a high density arcade forms, but otherwise... May be different if there's no collectors in the employee base, or in countries where machines are scarce.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#236

Post by ryandrake »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #75
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…

More amusingly, not that long ago my direct boss was denying it was the case, but it was not until recent RTO call that he ( and his boss ) finally admitted something along the lines of 'yeah, we got commercial real estate on our books so like you know, we should do our part'. So yeah, I am told to subsidize failing real estate without getting anything in return. Won't I think of the poor, poor investment managers an…

When it comes to gains and profits, the shareholders are supposed to benefit. When it comes to losses and difficulties, the employees are supposed to 'do their part' and shoulder them.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#237

Post by Devasta »

wiseowise wrote: post #148
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…

> 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. Projecting much?

Absolutely not... I have loads of hobbies!

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#238

Post by ghaff »

voisin wrote: post #215
edgyquant wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I don’t personally believe there is an actual performance boost. I think I is the opposite, and even where it might exist at the individual level I think it is certainly (to my eye) incorrect at the team and company level. But I won’t make that argument because it is the third rail of HN comments. So I make all my arguments assuming WFH improves productivity.

You can also stipulate that short-term productivity didn't take a major hit for the most part while having concerns about onboarding junior people, reduced level of engagement on teams, weakened company culture, etc. It's hard to separate out other factors but it sure feels like that to me.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#239

Post by cachapa »

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 I once got a "tested for electrical safety" company socket on my personal phone charger once.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#240

Post by ghaff »

NoboruWataya wrote: post #182
GenerocUsername wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

If you buck the trend that everyone else is following, maybe you really are the genius in the room. But that's probably not the way to bet unless your situation is unique for some reason.
Post reply on HN