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

RTO: WTAF

wordsrightman.beehiiv.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: RTO: WTAF

#51

Post by oytis »

olex wrote: post #38
pjmlp wrote: post #4

And the worse of all, is that in most cases the work is exactly the same, and there is no collaboration on the office, because the team is geographically distributed anyway, so the only thing changing are the location of the video calls, and with whom to chat during coffee breaks.

This is a thing I've been constantly bringing up with our company. I _do_ think that local collaboration in the office is vastly more effective than remotely, _but_ only given that the entire team is co-located. As soon as there are any remote members involved, the local collaboration benefits are lost, and a mixed team becomes less effective than a fully-remote one - because few offices offer the necessary space and…

But it's absolutely essential that you chat with HR and sales people at the coffee machine!

Re: RTO: WTAF

#52

Post by pitched »

EmilStenstrom wrote: post #18

Sigh This debate has been going on for years now. Remote is good for: People who work alone & People that don't like commuting Remote is bad for: People who work together with other people & People who like socializing IRL (including managers) Too many developers think they are working alone, while in fact they are part of a team and they would be better off working closer to that team.

“The medium is the message.” People who work remote become that person who doesn’t value their team, because that’s what the environment promotes. We work in companies because of the team and the community though, that is the whole point of them.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#53

Post by lnsru »

gabesullice wrote: post #9

I'm genuinely interested in why RTO is trending. I searched Harvard Business Review, Gartner, and other sources just last week trying to find the rationale, but I wasn't successful. In fact, I found those sources to be a little cautionary. E.g., they say "if you do switch to in-office or hybrid, make sure you actually have metrics to evaluate the effects" and "ensure it makes sense for the actual work to be done by e…

I was also studying many MBA books about decision making in corporate environments. Many cool things about data driven decision making. Costs and alternative costs, etc., many cool things, some even with scientific background. RTO is also analyzed in similar manner. The truth is that RTO is great way to ditch people with longer commute and/or kids easily and for free. And unions (as they’re in Germany) are happy.

But let’s get back to reality, the business decisions are made in the style “I like this” and “I don’t like this”. Only most obvious decisions are somehow backed up. And RTO is known to work well to ditch 2-3% of workforce in few months for free. Parents go first, high performers go afterwards. Headcount reduced, job well done!

The way with severance packages can go for years with many rounds when the packages are too small. Severance packages also involve social plan negotiations with unions… Somebody will go to court for sure and sue the company… So obviously let’s do RTO, it’s cheap and quick. And improves collaboration of course. First round with mandatory 3 days in the office and second one with 5 days in cheapest possible open office with chaos, distractions and noise.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#54

Post by dboreham »

bonoboTP wrote: post #26

It bears repeating that if you're a tech worker in the US, your greatest asset is your physical location. You might think you like remote jobs, but you will have competition from South America, Western and Eastern Europe, etc. as well as people in the US living in flyover states in the middle of nowhere with cheap rent. If the focus also shifts more to raw input-output task accomplishmentbas opposed to in person soci…

If the entire organization is offshore then fine, but the time zone difference between they west coast and Europe is too big for close collaboration. South America is ok but there aren't many software developers there.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#55

Post by [deleted] »

aeze wrote: post #35
EmilStenstrom wrote: post #18

Sigh This debate has been going on for years now. Remote is good for: People who work alone & People that don't like commuting Remote is bad for: People who work together with other people & People who like socializing IRL (including managers) Too many developers think they are working alone, while in fact they are part of a team and they would be better off working closer to that team.

I work together with my team and I socialize IRL with friends, family, or sometimes coworkers essentially every day of the week. I’ve been fully remote since 2018. Your comment makes no sense to me. Also, likes commuting? You can listen to your podcast anywhere.

[deleted]

Re: RTO: WTAF

#56

Post by [deleted] »

birdalbrocum wrote: post #21

What RTO and WTAF means? Who knows. I clicked on link to find out but looks like website blogs my IP range. I will never know this important information..

[deleted]

Re: RTO: WTAF

#57

Post by varispeed »

bonoboTP wrote: post #26

It bears repeating that if you're a tech worker in the US, your greatest asset is your physical location. You might think you like remote jobs, but you will have competition from South America, Western and Eastern Europe, etc. as well as people in the US living in flyover states in the middle of nowhere with cheap rent. If the focus also shifts more to raw input-output task accomplishmentbas opposed to in person soci…

The argument doesn’t hold water. Companies aren’t pushing RTO because they want to pay higher salaries to office-bound staff in expensive metros. If raw “input–output” and cheap labour were the only metric, they’d go fully remote, tap global markets, and slash payroll overnight.

RTO is about control and optics, not cost optimisation. It’s management preference, real estate sunk costs, and the illusion of productivity through visibility. Actual delivery of work is the only thing that matters in tech - and remote delivery has already proven itself at scale.

The idea that “physical location is your greatest asset” is backwards. If that were true, San Francisco developers wouldn’t already be competing with contractors in Bangalore and Bucharest. They are - yet the jobs remain, because employers value capability, not postcode.

In short: RTO doesn’t protect American tech workers from global competition. It just wastes time in traffic and props up bad management.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#58

Post by tallanvor »

gabesullice wrote: post #9

I'm genuinely interested in why RTO is trending. I searched Harvard Business Review, Gartner, and other sources just last week trying to find the rationale, but I wasn't successful. In fact, I found those sources to be a little cautionary. E.g., they say "if you do switch to in-office or hybrid, make sure you actually have metrics to evaluate the effects" and "ensure it makes sense for the actual work to be done by e…

The problem is that proper studies on this topic will take years to really understand the positives and negatives of having the majority of your employees working remotely. --Researchers need to be able to track people through their careers to understand whether or not WFH is a net benefit to them and/or their companies.

So you're really going to have to deal with only hearing what people think.

RTO is trending for many reasons - some are doing this for bad reasons, I'm sure, but I also know that some managers are pushing for this because they a) see that junior developers aren't getting the necessary mentoring to help them develop and grow into seniors, and b) because they feel that people are spending more time on tasks because they're less likely to reach out if they have to ping people, wait for a response, and try to work through things without benefits like being able to draw on a whiteboard and such. --Maybe some companies are handling this better than others, but they are valid concerns.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#59

Post by OgsyedIE »

gabesullice wrote: post #9

I'm genuinely interested in why RTO is trending. I searched Harvard Business Review, Gartner, and other sources just last week trying to find the rationale, but I wasn't successful. In fact, I found those sources to be a little cautionary. E.g., they say "if you do switch to in-office or hybrid, make sure you actually have metrics to evaluate the effects" and "ensure it makes sense for the actual work to be done by e…

You'll probably get better results than the level of Sloan from the NY Fed, the AEA or Glass Lewis. They point out that profit-seeking strategies outside of the concept of ordinary business[1] can exist on a spectrum from highly ethical to highly unethical, ideally[2] all pursued simultaneously in proportion to their risk.

[1] e.g. through leveraging class politics, hyperstition or militias.

[2] From the point of view of the responsible stakeholders, that is.

Re: RTO: WTAF

#60

Post by graemep »

gabesullice wrote: post #9

I'm genuinely interested in why RTO is trending. I searched Harvard Business Review, Gartner, and other sources just last week trying to find the rationale, but I wasn't successful. In fact, I found those sources to be a little cautionary. E.g., they say "if you do switch to in-office or hybrid, make sure you actually have metrics to evaluate the effects" and "ensure it makes sense for the actual work to be done by e…

> I want to see evidence of their rationale so I can put myself in management's shoes.

I think worthwhile evidence would only be available if two things, both questionable, were true:

1. an unbiased sample of companies implementing RTO are willing to disclose their reasons - e.g. make public announcements, or cooperate with academic studies. 2. they were honest about the reasons.

If common reasons for RTO would make the management look bad (and some might even be illegal in some places) then the first is less likely, and the second is highly unlikely.

Post reply on HN