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

Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 969 posts

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#231

Post by johnnyanmac »

Aurornis wrote: post #220
neilv wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, in combination with possible constructive dismissal, the company is possibly defaming the employees in a way that predictably adversely affects their ability to gain new employment. And there may be other potential problems that aren't apparent to me, since I'm not a lawyer. Talking to a lawyer about this is low-effort, low-risk. You get a lawyer's name from friend/family or another kind of lawyer you know, or…

> the company is possibly defaming the employees in a way that predictably adversely affects their ability to gain new employment. And there may be other potential problems that aren't apparent to me, since I'm not a lawyer. Why is it that the "I'm not a lawyer, but" comments are always giving the worst legal advice? There is no defamation case anywhere in this situation.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not going to say either way. See a lawyer if you're impacted and see what they say. Don't take legal, medical, nor relationship advice from the internet.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#232

Post by deejaaymac »

wordofx wrote: post #228
johnnyanmac wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should know by now that all these RTO initiatives are not grounded in any reasonable logistics nor financial reasoning. Right now all of tech is in cut mode, and RTO's are a great way to do layoffs without calling them layoffs. Note that when Google got "too many" people RTO'ing, they did layoffs anyway. If your office does try to make things stricter, it's another layoff attempt. I don't think it will work, becau…

[flagged]

When I was a teenager I played World of Warcraft for 5 years. During that time we did "raids" where 40 people have to pay attention and communicate, sometimes for longer than 8 hours, with people from around the globe.

If teenagers can do it, adults can do it. Period. And if they can't, skill issue I guess.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#233

Post by Aurornis »

kokanee wrote: post #37
sugarpimpdorsey wrote: post #22

The only thing I hated worse than going into the office was our remote employees, who never seemed to be available when you needed them, had their status set to Away (or wouldn't respond for hours if they were green). It was a privilege, people abused it, and now it's over. And managers were the worst offenders.

Interesting. I've been remote for 5 years across three different companies, and if anything I've had the opposite experience: my remote coworkers are far more responsive than my on-site coworkers, who are always in meetings, in transit, having in-person chit chat, or taking a break.

I've been managing remote teams for over a decade. Your management must be doing performance management well. Most remote coworkers and employees I've had have been good, but that was only because the company aggressively pruned people who abused remote work.

Remote job postings attract deadbeats at a higher rate than in-office jobs. There are even New York Times Bestseller books with example scripts of how to negotiate remote work with your boss so you can travel the world, outsource your work to virtual assistants, and respond to e-mails once a week. These people always come in with a "if I get my job done, it shouldn't matter that..." attitude and then they fail to get their job done.

Remote is also the target for the /r/overemployed people who try to get as many jobs as they can and then do as little work as possible at each. Once someone has 3, 4, or more jobs they don't really care if they get fired. They'll string you along with excuses until you let them go. The first time it happens to you, your sense of sympathy overrides your instinct to cut the person and you let them string you along way too long. The 3rd or 4th time you have someone you suspect of abusing remote, you PIP them hard and cut them quickly because you know how much damage and frustration they can bring to the rest of the team.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#235

Post by Aurornis »

johnnyanmac wrote: post #227
Aurornis wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Constructive Dismissal has been brought up in every RTO thread for years, but I've never heard of a case where it worked. The key to constructive dismissal is that a reasonable person would have to find the new conditions intolerable and it has to constitute some form of discrimination (e.g. not a change in company policy, but a targeted attack that discriminates against you). So given that most people commute to wor…

>but I've never heard of a case where it worked. that's what the severace packages are for. There's not a lot of people being dumped that wouldn't take 3-6 months of pay in advance in exchange for not being able to engage in a length lawsuit with a trillion dollar corporation.

You usually don't get a severance package if you resign or quit due to RTO unless the company goes out of their way to offer one.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#236

Post by zero_shift »

nickff wrote: post #210
zero_shift wrote: post #190

At $org, we too are undertaking a mandatory RTO order, enforced with door access logs. People are up in arms, particularly those in our smaller locales, where the offices we have are perfunctory at best. The rationale is the usual one: collaboration, watercooler chat, unspecific evidence / "research" about productivity (that we are told definitely exists, but is yet to be shared). I remain baffled by executives' obse…

I find this idea that there is a 'CEO RTO mania' to be absurd; if WFH was just as good for the company, and more attractive to employees, we should see a boom in WFH-first companies, which does not seem to be happening. Instead, it seems like CEOs see RTO as a way of getting rid of 'slackers', preventing people from multi-tasking while 'working', and in some cases increasing 'teamwork'. In any case, it makes sense to…

> Instead, it seems like CEOs see RTO as a way of getting rid of 'slackers'

"Seems" is an interesting word, because if even you can't locate a rational motive, whilst attempting to apologise for RTO, and are just left making some guesses, then what am I supposed to infer except that this whole thing is based on suspicion, groupthink and anxiety?

"The data is clear", trumpets Microsoft in their internal email. Then why will they not divulge it?

It resembles the same kind of social contagion as the AI usage mandates we see - also completely meritless

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#237

Post by ghaff »

wongarsu wrote: post #176
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds a bit extreme, but OTOH this is what tradesfolk typically do - charge $100 to ring your doorbell and take it from there, since it does cost them money just to get to you. Still, even if there is some sort of justification (moreso if the company chooses to locate themselves away from residential/affordable areas), I'm not sure how you would avoid abuse. Maybe just pay employees a fixed amount for each day they…

With tradesfolk you can choose who to call, and somebody from farther away will charge more for getting to your door. With workers that is not a consideration today (in most roles), but if companies had to pay for travel time it absolutely would be. But that leads to uncomfortable questions about moving. If you get children and move to an area with a better school, can and will your work now fire you because your com…

I think my contractors have generally had a general service area. And, if you're out of it, they're probably not interested. Now, mind you, I often don't have a super-itemized bill. But I'm not sure I've seen a commute time/cost line item.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#238

Post by Anon1096 »

tokai wrote: post #66

Commute time should be salaried time. Then the whole office/home work discussion could be taken with the true costs involved.

As a salaried employee there is no "salaried time." You're paid for your output not the time spent on it. This goes especially true for Microsoft where lots of people put in far less than a 40hr workweek. Literally no one bats an eye at arriving at the office late so if you want to start your commute at 9 and include that in your "working hours" no one would care.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#239

Post by johnnyanmac »

wongarsu wrote: post #169
tokai wrote: post #66

Commute time should be salaried time. Then the whole office/home work discussion could be taken with the true costs involved.

Nobody's stopping you from moving closer to the office, and incentivizing people to move further away is the last thing we should do Yes, rent 5 minutes from the office is likely very high, and it's much cheaper two hours away, and that's why most people live far away. But that is already a factor in salaries. If the office is in a high-cost-of-living area they have to offer higher salaries to get an equal caliber of…

>Nobody's stopping you from moving closer to the office

the stiff housing market indeed is. You can't buy land that isn't for sale.

Nevermind that most people cannot just up and move whenever their work fancies it. And you don't want to. Too many horror stories of people who moved for their job only to get laid off a few months later. Corporate isn't taking my community with them.

>If the office is in a high-cost-of-living area they have to offer higher salaries to get an equal caliber of workers.

Or they just offshore it.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#240

Post by Aurornis »

drewbitt wrote: post #60
kokanee wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I've been remote for 5 years across three different companies, and if anything I've had the opposite experience: my remote coworkers are far more responsive than my on-site coworkers, who are always in meetings, in transit, having in-person chit chat, or taking a break.

That's the experience I have had too, particularly regarding managers who are in the office for the day. They are not spending much time at their desk.

> particularly regarding managers who are in the office for the day. They are not spending much time at their desk

I mean, that's the point of RTO: These companies want people meeting face to face more and sitting alone at their computers less.

I argue that this means it makes more sense for managers and leaders than ICs as a result.

Post reply on HN