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

Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 597 posts

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#301

Post by [deleted] »

jen20 wrote: post #236
mlrtime wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree here. For most of my career I was fortunate enough to not have a "real" commute. at most a 20 min walk to the office. The worse commute is when it was raining or snowing. The problem becomes now my home is tied to my work place. If the company moves or I change companies, I have move or stress at a new commute. I did move once during a job change, and it didn't last long. Another compounding issue…

I wouldn’t call 2.5% of the day (including night) nothing. 20 minutes is way past the upper bound of a daily commute I would consider reasonable!

[deleted]

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#303

Post by Retric »

oneplane wrote: post #263
miroljub wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why call people suckers? Maybe they don't mind commuting? Maybe their commute is only 15 minutes, and not 2.5 hours? > To be fair, leftover workers seem to stick around at a company for 10-20 years. Even if they were "leftovers", their value to the company they know in and out after 10 to 20 years and their productivity skyrockets compared to the A+ rock stars that left the company after one year.

I think they would be referred to as 'suckers' because they are spending time for their employer for which they are not compensated in that scenario (two options, both pay the same, but one requires you to sacrifice significant portions of your day for no compensation).

You negotiate compensation before accepting the job and generally have the option to move.

If anything it’s people failing to consider commute times when looking for work that’s the issue not company’s requirements. Going they will pay me 10k more per year but I’ll spend X more hours a week commuting is effectively being paid to commute.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#304

Post by oneplane »

pigbearpig wrote: post #275
oneplane wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they would be referred to as 'suckers' because they are spending time for their employer for which they are not compensated in that scenario (two options, both pay the same, but one requires you to sacrifice significant portions of your day for no compensation).

Bill might like a long commute as much as Gladys likes to work from home. Hard to call Bill a sucker in that case.

Gladys can drive around for hours at will, while Bill has no choice. Bill is still a sucker.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#305

Post by ralmidani »

justneedaname wrote: post #289
bdw5204 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The solution to that problem is to count the travel time and any required breaks as part of work hours while also reimbursing all travel expenses. That would require employers to pay the full cost of unnecessary in-person work on both ends and would strongly disincentivize them from doing it. Employers reimbursing your travel expenses if they need you to travel to a conference on the other side of the country is alre…

Not quite comparable though I would say, given that you know what you're signing up for when applying for a job. Travelling to a conference is a one-off whereas you'd be expecting to come to your job everyday (given the contract states this). You wouldn't accept a job in another country and turn round expecting them to pay for your flights, hotel etc. to be in the area during the work week

Aside from being compensated directly for daily commutes (on which we could reasonably disagree), there’s also an issue around liability: if someone crashes going to work and the other side wants to sue, should the company be liable, the employee, or both? Being “on-the-clock” makes it more likely the company would bear responsibility, as opposed to being “off-the clock”. Company cars seem to be less common now than they were even 10 years ago. A personal injury lawsuit could easily bankrupt a household, but is much less likely to bankrupt a mid-sized or large company.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#306

Post by LightBug1 »

Jebus ... this is still being debated?

Can we just acknowledge the complete an utter failure of managegment around this debate (I am management, btw) such that we can't settle this one fair and square.

We all have expectations and results from individuals. It doesn't take a Fed study to answer the question around an employees productivity. Either it's better, the same, or worse.

I'm all for remote and hybrid work. Manage by results and what's the issue? Super strange. Get together every so often to catchup, do the human thing.

I've had anecdotal evidence of firms falling behind because so many talented employees tell them where to go when flexibility isn't an option.

Hold the line.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#307

Post by coldpie »

bdw5204 wrote: post #281
pigbearpig wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill might like a long commute as much as Gladys likes to work from home. Hard to call Bill a sucker in that case.

The only reason I can imagine that somebody would genuinely like a long commute would be if they hate their home life and are trying to escape from it. They'd probably be better off just getting a divorce instead.

My commute is about 40 minutes each way by bus, plus a 5 minute walk on both ends. I love it. I get outdoors for a short walk four times a day, I read books and magazines on the bus, see what's being built or new businesses opening around town, sometimes I get to meet neighbors and other commuters, or help out random strangers with directions or whatever. My commute to work is definitely a benefit to my life.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#308

Post by Retric »

bdw5204 wrote: post #281
pigbearpig wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bill might like a long commute as much as Gladys likes to work from home. Hard to call Bill a sucker in that case.

The only reason I can imagine that somebody would genuinely like a long commute would be if they hate their home life and are trying to escape from it. They'd probably be better off just getting a divorce instead.

Reading on a long buss/train ride can be inherently pleasant. Similarly not all car commutes are stuck alone in traffic, I rather enjoyed commuting with my dad.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#309

Post by RGamma »

coldpie wrote: post #277
jimt1234 wrote: post #97

How could remote work not be more productive? Most of my friends/colleagues get back at least an hour of their lives each day they don't commute, and they all use the "extra" time to do more work. People wanna work. They just don't wanna sit in traffic, walk through parking lots and ride elevators for an hour every day.

> How could remote work not be more productive? When I had to WFH for a year during COVID, my productivity completely plummeted, almost to zero. It was very hard for me to be actually productive for more than 60-120 minutes each day. I could be playing video games or guitar, or watching videos, or petting my cats, or doing dishes, or cooking, or going for a walk. Instead I have to sit at this desk and do work? Ehh...…

We have a system where we clock in and out. This reduces the situation to "be clocked in when you work and clocked out otherwise" which is easy to handle psychologically.

So if I'm distracted I can't be clocked in, generating time deficit, which will motivate me to not be distracted.

And on the other hand I'm free to distribute the work any way I want.

Needs honesty and trust of course, but I'd wager that's not an issue for most.

Re: Remote work doesn't seem to affect productivity, Fed study finds

#310

Post by zer0tonin »

pc86 wrote: post #290
oneplane wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they would be referred to as 'suckers' because they are spending time for their employer for which they are not compensated in that scenario (two options, both pay the same, but one requires you to sacrifice significant portions of your day for no compensation).

15 minutes is not significant.

15 * 2 minutes a day 5 times a week is 100h+ by the end of the year
Post reply on HN