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

Remote Only

remoteonly.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 374 posts

Re: Remote Only

#311

Post by organsnyder »

nounaut wrote: post #247
megaman22 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kevin's available hours should be common knowledge, or easily findable in a system of some sort, ranging from text file to excel sheet to Exchange to massively overpriced time-tracking software.

Doesn't really help to know peoples hours. If they're not overlapping with yours then you have a potentially crazy overhead on time it takes to get responses to issues that could hold up your work completely.

That's a fundamental problem of teamwork. This also happens when the coworker sitting right next to you, working the same hours, has a higher-priority task than the one you're waiting for.

Re: Remote Only

#312

Post by psyc »

AYBABTME wrote: post #231
nvarsj wrote: post #207

My somewhat reductive conclusion about remote work is that it boils down to the ability to be an effective writer. If you're not good at written communication, or you work with people who are not good at it, remote work will be miserable. People who are not highly fluent in the company's written language or those with some level of dyslexia will struggle. Also some people get frustrated with the more analytic approac…

People say that, yet in my experience it's not actually true. We just need to communicate enough to coordinate. I'm not a great communicator, I don't think most people at my work are great communicators, yet we work just fine as a remote company. I feel people exaggerate this belief. Regular chatter in public chat channels seems sufficient. What really seems to matter is work ethics.

I’m on my second remote job, and I find all HN threads on the subject contain this bizarre exaggeration about how different it is, and how you need to be a certain kind of person, and have stellar communication skills. I feel like it’s the same as people warning others off living in Seattle - i.e. gate keeping.

And how are these hypothetical poor communicators performing at non-remote jobs, anyway?

Re: Remote Only

#313

Post by organsnyder »

JTbane wrote: post #292

Question for remote workers: how do you deal with the innate need for managers to know that you are busy?: i.e. that you're not just more or less slacking off for a salary.

Managers need to monitor output rather than time worked. Even if my colleague is able to get the same work done in half the time as me, we should still be treated the same.

Peer review also goes a long way. Your colleagues—onsite or remote—have a pretty good sense of both the quantity and quality of your output.

Re: Remote Only

#314

Post by khalilravanna »

lquist wrote: post #7
hartator wrote: post #6

> Disadvantages > Scares investors - Scares some partners - Scares some customers - Scares some potential employees, mostly senior non-technical hires - Onboarding is harder, first month feels lonely We do a full remote policy at SerpApi.com, however I found this disadvantages list a bit dishonest, they are more way numerous and important, the most obvious are missing real human contacts (and it doesn't get easier wi…

Came to the thread to say this. The site loses a lot of legitimacy by glossing over very real tradeoffs to having a fully remote team.

I'll start by saying that pushing to normalize remote-work is a noble endeavor. But that being said, as you said, glossing over the disadvantages leaves this site/post feeling very one-sided. I say this as someone worked fully remote for 2 years. It was a fantastic job but the main reason I left was the disadvantages of being remote. To say that the advantages are far more numerous, and far outweigh the disadvantages is subjective and myopic. It works for some people and some types of work but to say it's the Best Solution sadly seems to be to just be being disingenuous.

Re: Remote Only

#315

Post by jasode »

mandelbrotwurst wrote: post #306
jasode wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many, a ringing phone is much more disruptive than an email notification. Picking up a phone for voice calls is synchronous . Responding to an email is asynchronous . (The asynchronous advantage is probably why SMS texting & WhatsApp/FB messaging has overtaken voice calls.) I had a friend that didn't use email and always called my phone. Whenever I shut off the ringer, he'd eventually send me an email. But the co…

Phrasing a question in a way that ensure it will be understood by the reader is non-trivial. For tricky problems that might require several steps of back and forth, the ability to ask clarifying questions and access tone of voice that you get on a voice call is valuable. I'm not saying that this guy was thinking this through that extensively, but IMO there are times when a voice call is more effective. Did you attemp…

>, the ability to ask clarifying questions and access tone of voice that you get on a voice call is valuable. [...], but IMO there are times when a voice call is more effective.

I agree that voice calls can sometimes be more effective. Some types of tech support debugging are much easier with the interaction of live phone calls.

Those weren't the type of calls my friend was making. His calls were banal questions like, "I'm looking at these cameras the Canon 10D and Nikon D70. Which do you think is better?" He could have just typed that question into an email for me to reply whenever it was convenient. Instead, I hold the phone to my ear while I'm googling "Canon 10D vs Nikon D70".

>Did you attempt to explain to him why you didn't answer the phone as opposed to trying to "train" him?

No, I never told him in blunt terms, "don't call me anymore unless it's a complex question that requires the advantages of voice communication." I was hoping that dropping a ton of hints would do it but it didn't work. In any case, I changed my number so it's no longer a problem.

>His request for you to "give him a call" moves thing for you back into the realm of the asynchronous.

Not really because what ends up happening is after I call back, his brain says, "jasode is available now" and he'll call 5 or 15 minutes later with a new question. His threshold for initiating phone calls was very low which put me back in synchronous hell.

>I wonder whether maybe you have some other issue with voice calls?

Well yes, as I mentioned earlier: it's not my preferred form of communication. I do acknowledge and respect the fact that others default to voice but that doesn't change the fact that it's incompatible with how my brain works.

There is clearly a disconnect between people who prefer different modes of communication since the gp poster (throwawaymath) seemed truly confused and therefore asked, "Why doesn't picking up a phone fit into your workflow?"

Re: Remote Only

#316

Post by 52-6F-62 »

ryan-allen wrote: post #146
52-6F-62 wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is correct. Simplified, the counter argument appears to be: "If a company has the leverage in any capacity to exercise its dominance over a potential employee—to extract as much value from them at the lowest possible financial liability—it should in any case attempt to do so. It would be absurd to do otherwise." Personally, I can't abide by that—especially when the only basis is locale—and no matter if they brin…

That's pretty much a company's MO no matter where you go. It's always about leverage and market forces. If an employer could pay you 75% less to do the same work they'd do it in a heartbeat. It's better to know the rules of the game otherwise you'll just end up being played.

Yes and no, I think. Like some other commenters implied, I think it's short sighted. The outcome of working employees like that can end up being of lower quality, so the product suffers, and loses market traction.

I've been witness to this first-hand. Of course, it's only anecdotal, but just the same it's informed my opinions.

Though you're right about your last point absolutely— it's often pretty safe to assume they're (especially larger companies) operating under the pretense we're both referring to.

Re: Remote Only

#317

Post by mayniac »

narag wrote: post #266
SigmundA wrote: post #216

Doesn't seem to be much discussion about the environmental impact of remote work. Lately I have been feeling how ridiculous it is for me to drive everyday to a office and sit at a computer then drive home. So inefficient from an energy usage perspective. I see so many jobs that could easily be remote if people could deal with the issues outlined here. Imagine the difference in traffic and office space if every job th…

Imagine the difference in traffic and office space if every job that could be remote was. I was wondering how much work cannot be remoted and it seems a lot. Remote work is a privilege.

But the decrease in traffic and used office space translates to significantly less commuting time and more space at work for people who can't work remotely. It benefits everyone.

Re: Remote Only

#318

Post by gnode »

SigmundA wrote: post #216

Doesn't seem to be much discussion about the environmental impact of remote work. Lately I have been feeling how ridiculous it is for me to drive everyday to a office and sit at a computer then drive home. So inefficient from an energy usage perspective. I see so many jobs that could easily be remote if people could deal with the issues outlined here. Imagine the difference in traffic and office space if every job th…

I wonder if the claim of environmental friendliness actually works out in practise. Friends of mine who do remote jobs occasionally have the need to meet in person requiring international flights (which while being infrequent, are far more impactful than a local commute by car). You could say this isn't true remote work, but it seems to be the common manifestation. Conversely you can live closely enough to a workplace to walk or cycle.

Re: Remote Only

#319

Post by crunchlibrarian »

nvarsj wrote: post #207

My somewhat reductive conclusion about remote work is that it boils down to the ability to be an effective writer. If you're not good at written communication, or you work with people who are not good at it, remote work will be miserable. People who are not highly fluent in the company's written language or those with some level of dyslexia will struggle. Also some people get frustrated with the more analytic approac…

I like this idea of a "company's written language", I have known many people who are great communicators who nonetheless didn't write using the correct corporate cultural terms and were viewed as "poor communicators".

Basically this boils down to how strictly you cling to new buzzwords.

Re: Remote Only

#320

Post by hartator »

iandanforth wrote: post #86
hartator wrote: post #6

> Disadvantages > Scares investors - Scares some partners - Scares some customers - Scares some potential employees, mostly senior non-technical hires - Onboarding is harder, first month feels lonely We do a full remote policy at SerpApi.com, however I found this disadvantages list a bit dishonest, they are more way numerous and important, the most obvious are missing real human contacts (and it doesn't get easier wi…

This is a valid criticism of the list. Please submit an issue for further discussion! https://gitlab.com/gitlab-com/www-remoteonly-org/issues/

Sure, will do!
Post reply on HN