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

The damaging results of mandated return to office

entrepreneur.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 348 posts

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#331

Post by throwawaylinux »

n4r9 wrote: post #235
throwawaylinux wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And there's nothing that's particularly prohibitive about doing that remotely. You can't just call a bunch of dot points like "on boarding" refuting what I wrote. Sure it's what you might read in your CEO's email or whatever, but that doesn't make it true.

The point you seem to be making - that remote working is a cinch as long as all the managers already know what they need to do and how to do it - is both correct and missing the point. Studies in the UK demonstrate that feeling isolated and making connections with colleagues in a remote environment is a major concern for younger employees: https://universumglobal.com/blog/the-leadership-gap-young-wo... This is an org…

That's not the point I'm making and I have to say it's pretty outlandish if it seems that way to you.

The point I'm making is that it's not because an organization is "not ready" that remote work is not permitted. Implying there is some set of steps or purchases they need to make and then they are ready. It's because the people who can make the decision don't want to.

I thought that I repeatedly made it clear that I made no value judgement on the remote work and didn't claim that is a bad decision to make.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#332

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

di456 wrote: post #330
ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I frequently prefer in-person shopping too, but inventory control gets ever worse. At this point, I'm shocked if I find anything in stock anywhere... even staple items. I do prefer to support brick-&-mortar businesses, and will pay a bit extra to do so. "I'd argue that Amazon is benefiting from more people working remotely and is not as much enabling people to be home more" Not sure what the point is there.

> Not sure what the point is there. > it's Amazon and its ilk that allow people to be at home all the time, not out running errands. I was addressing that line

Yeah but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. If people couldn't have stuff delivered, and couldn't shop during business hours, then what?

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#333

Post by jaclaz »

runamok wrote: post #320
jaclaz wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not getting it. In sharecropping (with a lot of nuances depending on the specific countries and even different regions in a same country) the landowner and the tenant were some sort of partners, both had all the interest in having a better/larger crop (or raise more cattle, etc.). In a normal capitalistic employer/employee relationship, the employees have no particular interest in the final outcome, they are onl…

I'd argue they trade receiving the full fruit of their labor for increased safety/stability. I know I do at least. The owner of a business still needs to make payroll even when the business is doing well with legal consequences iiuc if they don't. If you are a sole proprietor your billable rate goes up but now you are marketing, IT, accounts receivable, janitor, etc. etc. Additionally different company's have differe…

Still this is a different kind of contract.

A bonus (or other forms of incentives) are additional to the base salary.

Until you are fired (or if the company does not pay your wage anymore) your salary/wage is fixed, and you get it no matter how the company is going.

In sharecropping the year you (as a tenant) got a bad crop, you wouldn't have anything to eat, and would have basic survival problems.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#334

Post by HelloNurse »

lynx23 wrote: post #191
HelloNurse wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Nah, admin of course means rapist, didn't you know? WFH-advocates turning to "arguments" like your post is one reason why I oppose this new trend of entitlement. You people really think you are on top of the world and everyone has to dance to your tunes, right? I hope the market will fix this. Go and find a WFH company that lets you slack-off from home all day long. And then, shut up!

I'm afraid you just appear

1) pathologically envious enough to punish people because they work from home

2) motivated by ordering colleagues around, which becomes harder if not in person

3) unable to appreciate the comfort of working from home and the importance of having a life.

Do you, as an "admin", feel entitled to be "on top of the world"? Everyone has to dance to your tunes, right?

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#335

Post by n4r9 »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #331
n4r9 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point you seem to be making - that remote working is a cinch as long as all the managers already know what they need to do and how to do it - is both correct and missing the point. Studies in the UK demonstrate that feeling isolated and making connections with colleagues in a remote environment is a major concern for younger employees: https://universumglobal.com/blog/the-leadership-gap-young-wo... This is an org…

That's not the point I'm making and I have to say it's pretty outlandish if it seems that way to you. The point I'm making is that it's not because an organization is "not ready" that remote work is not permitted. Implying there is some set of steps or purchases they need to make and then they are ready. It's because the people who can make the decision don't want to. I thought that I repeatedly made it clear that I…

You've consistently asserted that most companies would find it easy to switch to remote work.

I absolutely disagree with this. At least I disagree that most companies can do so and be confident of maintaining productivity. I believe it requires a big shift in organisational and operational processes and attitudes within the company.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#336

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

jaclaz wrote: post #232
pvdoom wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's both. A farmer could do that, because they tend to own their farm. A worker usually has no ownership in the business. They're more like farmhands ...

If we go back in time it wasn't the case always. A common form of agricultural contract in many countries, up to the WWII and in some countries even after was a form of rent where the owner provided the farm, and the tenant worked on it and they divided the crop (or whatever the farm produced), in English it is called sharecropping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharecropping

So the owner did nothing and got have the crop? Ahh parasitic rent-seeking, the true foundation of civilization.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#337

Post by michaelcampbell »

I'm going through this. Was hired at 1/month in-office, and now they're saying 4x/month. My feel about this is that this is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, the solution doesn't work, and I'm having to pay for it.

We had an all-hands meeting recently. The message was essentially, "We have heard your feedback that most of you don't like this, but WE like it, so it's staying."

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#338

Post by swah »

querez wrote: post #196
NKosmatos wrote: post #103

Once you’ve tasted the fruits of WFH and you like the taste, you’ll never go back. It’s like going from a black and white TV to a color one, from a dummy phone to a smartphone, from dialup internet to fiber to the home. You never go the other way round, unless there is a very strong reason and personal decision. People like to improve their lives in whatever way is best for them and will strongly object to a “downgra…

To each their own. I find that WFH makes me incredibly unproductive, I'm glad I'm able to return to to the office. I think there are a lot of factors that affect this (e.g. I have a family with small children at home, and my commute is <15 minutes by bike).

Same - I had to rent a place outside for the mornings, when my kid is at home. Its great to know I won't be interrupted, I focus much better. Still miss some coworkers though. (Coworking spaces open much later than I like etc)

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#339

Post by GFischer »

sanderjd wrote: post #329
hdjjhhvvhga wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I agree, it all depends on the methods of communication. In a more or less standard scenario, with a daily sync with video and then async like Slack, it doesn't matter that much who's in the office. I tend to message my colleagues on Slack even if they are sitting next to me, for the same reason that public channels are recommended over private ones - nobody is excluded and it's easy to find information that wo…

> with a daily sync with video and then async like Slack, it doesn't matter that much who's in the office Unfortunately I think this is kind of a cope the remote people on the team use to feel ok about it (I've been that person quite a bit). But the people having coffee and lunch together more regularly just do form closer bonds and that matters. I don't think it matters as much as a lot of executives want everyone t…

I personally believe some sort of bonding period is great for remote people. I've worked in a kind of "worst of both worlds" setup where I went to an office 8-5 but I worked with a completely remote team (the office was basically a place for me to put on a headset and ignore everyone else).

But we met on a planned company trip (with the excuse of a Vegas trade show, we went and met one week early) and that helped immensely with bonding and team building.

If I manage a remote team, I'll push for a similar team bonding exercise whenever possible.

Re: The damaging results of mandated return to office

#340

Post by di456 »

ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #332
di456 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not sure what the point is there. > it's Amazon and its ilk that allow people to be at home all the time, not out running errands. I was addressing that line

Yeah but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. If people couldn't have stuff delivered, and couldn't shop during business hours, then what?

Shop during non-business hours?

I've found that I can shop during business hours fine. And if not during business hours I can shop for what I need in the evenings before stores close. It comes down to time management.

For example, yesterday I took an hour break for lunch and ran a couple errands while I was out. No big deal.

Post reply on HN