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

271–280 of 306 posts

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#271

Post by gamblor956 »

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…

The espresso machine bit makes sense. Espresso machines need constant cleaning and maintenance, which are ongoing costs in addition to the potential liability concerns from someone getting injured using the machine.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#272

Post by mk89 »

paulcole wrote: post #267
mk89 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an extreme view in my opinion, as also the previous poster showed. You can have 10 people with 5 wanting to work from the office, 5 who don't want. Or 10 that all want a hybrid model. Etc. It's not all black or white. Pushing for only one way of working or the other is telling people how to live. It has been like this for many years because there was little or no alternative. Now "thanks to" the covid an alte…

I don't get why everyone is so defensive over this? When a company says, "This is how we work," that is them telling you to conform your life to how they work if you want to work there. That's for any value of "this" from remote, in-office, hybrid, whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. It just happens that the people who are strongly in favor of remote work don't seem to acknowledge the fact that committing to r…

"Going to an empty office": why in the first place?

If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced?

I really believe given the conversations I had with some colleagues (and others in general) that people who miss the office want an office full or at least 70-80% full because of the way it has always been before covid - it doesn't matter if there is 20% of people, it's just not enough.

This is what I personally don't understand, and this is why I say people are now forcing everyone else to go back to the office. Which is not as those who WFH.

Full remote (no offices etc) is a different beast - I am not talking about that.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#273

Post by jakobson14 »

tivert wrote: post #223
ericbarrett wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> 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! Cynically, it makes layoffs a lot more opaque. When everyone gets to express their individuality by sitting in an identical, constantly-shifting workspace; you can't "walk by" someone's desk and notice it's cleaned out and their gone.…

This. Very "don't startle the cattle."

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#274

Post by erik_seaberg »

rossdavidh wrote: post #13

So, I have often worked remotely, think it's fine, and makes sense in some cases. But, honestly, this is a professional-class issue, and every article about it seems written from a viewpoint that has forgotten about most of the population. The waitress and cook never had the option of working remotely, nor did the factory worker, the construction worker, the taxicab driver, the truck driver, etc. etc. Most of the pop…

I have flipped burgers, assembled camcorders, and driven airport shuttles. The thing about those jobs is that the workspace was well designed by someone who understood the tasks. Writing quality software requires long quiet concentration, yet we keep cheaping out on open plan desks.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#275

Post by paulcole »

mk89 wrote: post #272
paulcole wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get why everyone is so defensive over this? When a company says, "This is how we work," that is them telling you to conform your life to how they work if you want to work there. That's for any value of "this" from remote, in-office, hybrid, whatever. There's nothing wrong with that. It just happens that the people who are strongly in favor of remote work don't seem to acknowledge the fact that committing to r…

"Going to an empty office": why in the first place? If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced? I really believe given the conversations I had with some colleagues (and others in general) that people who miss the office want an office full or at least 70-80% full because of the way it has always been before covid - it doesn't matter if there is…

> "Going to an empty office": why in the first place?

I don't understand what you're asking here.

My point is that a remote worker saying, "You work in the office while I work at home" is dissatisfying to many people who like the idea of working with people in person and who dislike collaborating with others who are working remote.

> If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced?

Some people don't miss the office and need to be forced to go to the office – if the company decides they want employees in the office.

I don't get what you don't understand?

If a company wants all its employees in the office then allowing some to WFH isn't going to happen. If a company wants all its employees to WFH then working in office isn't going to happen. If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#276

Post by mk89 »

paulcole wrote: post #275
mk89 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Going to an empty office": why in the first place? If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office? Why do they need to be forced? I really believe given the conversations I had with some colleagues (and others in general) that people who miss the office want an office full or at least 70-80% full because of the way it has always been before covid - it doesn't matter if there is…

> "Going to an empty office": why in the first place? I don't understand what you're asking here. My point is that a remote worker saying, "You work in the office while I work at home" is dissatisfying to many people who like the idea of working with people in person and who dislike collaborating with others who are working remote. > If there are so many people missing the office life, why don't they go to the office…

Many companies I know don't reason so black or white. You can always find compromises, by making it attractive for employees to gather once or twice a week (e.g., free breakfast on wed), for example. That's good enough for many.

> If a company wants a hybrid solution where some employees WFH and some work in office then it's going to be dissatisfying to those who want all employees in office.

Right, but why should we care?

Extremes are specific situations that must be addressed differently: I want full remote, does my company allow it or not? If yes, ok, if not, either I leave, or I find another way.

Same applies for people wanting everyone at the office: things have changed over the years, why do we want or need that? It's a decision that forces 80% or more of the workforce to behave in a certain way, just because some people have a very specific need.

If someone wants everybody at the office, it's his/her own problem to deal with, as the person who wants full remote, yet forced to meet with colleagues from time to time. Extremes have huge impact over each other.

You can't make everyone happy, but it also means you should not take away a huge benefit for many. This is why I like how some companies are doing, and yet it surprises me to read that some companies are just back to precovid like WFH never existed. It doesn't make any sense.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#277

Post by bitcharmer »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #163
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.…

The alternative to REIT consipiracy is that execs have run the numbers and loss from remote work is greater than the loss from office work. Painful. Headlines don't support this, articles only get clicks when celebrating remote work. But there is a very clear disconnect where headlines are saying "remote work is more productive" and executive surverys are saying "we are moving back to offices". Execs (on the whole, n…

I have to disagree. History has shown over and over again that MBAs don't need to be intelligent or understand the business to get to highly paid and powerful roles. Similarly, you can be an idiot and still succeed in becoming the president of US.

RTO is dictated by those people because without the headcount in the office it's plain and obvious that most of their "work" is illusory and provides no value beyond giving them means to build their kingdoms. RTO is mostly about self important and self-preservation of this whole class.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#278

Post by cjrp »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #163
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.…

The alternative to REIT consipiracy is that execs have run the numbers and loss from remote work is greater than the loss from office work. Painful. Headlines don't support this, articles only get clicks when celebrating remote work. But there is a very clear disconnect where headlines are saying "remote work is more productive" and executive surverys are saying "we are moving back to offices". Execs (on the whole, n…

Execs have signed long leases on office space and need to be seen to be using it.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#279

Post by Arrath »

macNchz wrote: post #209
jwells89 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wal…

Yeah I get that hair raising on the back of my neck feeling when I'm trying to focus and there's a constant train of people moving behind me, its really unbearable.

Re: Tragedy of return to hostile offices

#280

Post by Arrath »

jstarfish wrote: post #258
alistairSH wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.…

Heh. My previous workplace had a similar setup-- executives got perimeter offices with windows, everyone else got the bullpen. Thankfully, the executives were rarely there and their doors were left open, so sunlight still got through. Nothing is as bleak as security offices and SCIFs. Even the Soviets painted bunker interiors. Americans are too cheap.

Executive offices (and the attendant parking spots) that are occupied maybe 15% of the time are a huge peeve for me, a lowly bullpen resident.

Especially if we constantly have little break-off meetings or get togethers in the otherwise unoccupied office for sensitive things that we don't want overheard by the gossip mill. Maybe just give the office to someone who is 1) always here and 2) needs the space?

Post reply on HN