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

471–480 of 969 posts

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#471

Post by scarface_74 »

bluGill wrote: post #390
dymk wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many employees do you think msft has that don’t live within that 50 mile radius? I’d bet it’s an incredibly small percentage. They chose 50 miles because it’s big enough to cover almost everyone. I’m within that but my commute is two hours one direction.

If it is really two hours by a reasonable route then you likely have a case that the commute is unreasonable and you would not have taken the job without them paying moving expenses if it offered that way. Therefore they need to offer moving expenses. I'd ask the boss first as they may have contacts in hr that can handle this. If they won't offer moving expenses odds are you can convince an unemployment judge this is…

$1019 a week - the maximum in Washington - is not nothing. But it’s not life changing.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#472

Post by kamaal »

mikestew wrote: post #223
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…

C suites are committed to spending as much as possible on real estate Executives often own the real estate and lease it back to the company. From Steve Ballmer to the owner of the tiny 85 person company I last worked at, it’s not uncommon. So, yeah, there’s often some financial incentive there.

>>there’s often some financial incentive there.

I know managers that were let go because it appeared like their only job was being host to that one stand up meeting everyday, and nothing else.

I guess they just want people to return to save their own jobs.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#474

Post by bottd »

bsimpson wrote: post #447
moralestapia wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At most tech companies, you can work 5 hours per week or 100 and your salary remains the same. If they see you working 5 hours per week and don't think you're productive enough, they can fire you, but you aren't paid any more for working more hours. That's what "salaried" means. It's why you've never heard someone getting paid "time and a half" for working weekends in tech.

I have yet to experience a role where workers are allowed to deliver while clocking less than 40 hours. 5 hours per week on salary is only if you do not tell management.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#475

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

Fraud.

There’s a shit-ton of people working multiple jobs and outsourcing themselves. Everything is SaaS now, so that creates a liability for many larger companies with .gov or healthcare contracts.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#476

Post by phil21 »

bluGill wrote: post #424
pm90 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s extremely pretty, there’s great food, lots of tech jobs, you meet diverse and interesting people, great public transit (for the US). There are many reasons for living in the Bay Area.

You can find the same in Minneapolis with a better cost of living. (At least the other reply mentioned weather). there are more people in the bay area, but in minneapolis you can find more people in minneapolis than you have time to meet. there are many other cities in the us that likewise have a great tech scene. The bay is not unique - it has a little more but it isn't unique-

Grew up in Minneapolis and spent most of my life in the twin cities.

You really can’t compare it to a tech hub, or even a major city like NYC or Chicago. It’s just a different league.

I miss the twin cities quite a lot and will likely eventually move back - but definitely not for professional reasons or the opportunity to expand my exposure to cultural diversity.

Living in both a few mid tier cities like MSP and a major “real” city comparing them is pretty tone deaf to me. Calling public transit even usable in Minneapolis is a joke - and I lived without a car for over 20 years there taking it every day. Not even a comparison to a large city with a rapid transit network.

The Bay Area may have fallen off since I’ve been there, but the tech density even 10 years ago gave opportunity for career growth that Minneapolis simply did not remotely have. If you were a super star developer doing Internet things in the early to mid 2000s you left a lot of money on the table by not being willing to move.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#477

Post by ocdtrekkie »

SoftTalker wrote: post #403
ponector wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> where it comes from It's a power play. To show regular folks their place. Big corpo is a modern feodal state, where CEO is an emperor, c-suites are kings, managers are barons, IC are peasants and external contractors are slaves(but leased from other owner). It's not only RTO, it's also about timetable and dress code. Yes, I had a beef with IT manager about dress code in the development office of a bank. Just becau…

The funny thing is, I get more done at the office than at home. And if I’m dressed professionally, I get more done and I get better responses from others than when I’m wearing shorts and a tee shirt. I’d prefer to work from home wearing pajamas but I can sympathize with why my employer wants me in the office and may even have a dress code. Be glad you didn’t work in the development office of a bank in the 1990s, you’…

I think it depends on the task. If I need to figure out a problem someone is having, being present, seeing them work, talking face to face, huge help.

When I have some engineering work to do where I know all the requirements and need to be left alone, staying home is a productivity win.

There's value in the flexibility but employers often do not trust their employees to make the best decision for the organization.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#478

Post by themafia »

Charon77 wrote: post #370
ivape wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are going lose everyone soon as hiring picks up. Short sighted.

Not short sighted if _that_ is the goal. Maybe it's just to cut off people they have overhired during the pandemic. Maybe they just need fresh faces without costly layoffs

I have a hard time believing this a 5th year correction of a past hiring bubble.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#479

Post by JustExAWS »

xtracto wrote: post #278

Just out of curiosity, how much compensation would people be willing to leave on the table in lieu of "Remote" work? (this is different to, how much would you ASK to go from remote to a new in-office job). 10%, 25%, 50%? I've worked remotely for 5 years now, and there is NO way I would return to an office based job. I even have moved to a small town where there are practically 0 tech jobs; and at this point there's N…

I’ll give some real world numbers. Right now I make a little over $200K. I am 51, never struck it rich in tech and make the same as former intern I mentored when I was in BigTech between 2020-2023 and when they got back. They got promoted to an L5 (mid level) earlier this year at 25. We both worked in the Professional Services department.

I’ve said no to opportunities that would have paid $250K - 280K that would have required me to relocate and be in an office. I can honestly say there is no amount of money that would convince me to go to an office.

See the story of the Mexican Fisherman

https://bemorewithless.com/the-story-of-the-mexican-fisherma...

My wife and I already travel extensively, I “retired her” at 44 years old in 2020. We have done the digital nomad thing for a year since then and we are planning to spend a couple of months in Costa Rica next year and be away from home during much of the summer.

I have the freedom to spend a week with my parents and work from there and fly to another city to see my friends and adult sons.

Why do I need more money? I’ve had the big house in the burbs built twice and we sold and downsized from the second one.

I also have a year savings in the bank outside of retirement savings

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#480

Post by chii »

steveBK123 wrote: post #350
ponector wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> where it comes from It's a power play. To show regular folks their place. Big corpo is a modern feodal state, where CEO is an emperor, c-suites are kings, managers are barons, IC are peasants and external contractors are slaves(but leased from other owner). It's not only RTO, it's also about timetable and dress code. Yes, I had a beef with IT manager about dress code in the development office of a bank. Just becau…

My friend is CTO of a smaller company say ~250 people, and RTO constantly comes up in the C-suite. He is only able to fend it off by pointing out that they do not pay as well as their larger competitors, so the remote flexibility is a recruiting advantage. He describes the push for RTO from the rest of the C-suite as basically a combination of unspecific vibes that it must be bad if employees like it, and of course..…

> unspecific vibes that it must be bad if employees like it

I read it as the feeling that they know somehow that the employees are not putting in 100% of their attention at home on the work assigned.

And i do believe it to be true - lots of people claim that WFH means they can "do the laundry" and/or go to the post office.

The fact is that there's very few self-starters and intrinsically motivated employees. Most are just there for the pay cheque, and will do the minimum work that is required of them - esp. if not under strict supervision.

Not to mention the fact that it is indeed much harder to have collaborative discussions that are spontaneous and unplanned in a WFH setting, compared to the office.

Post reply on HN