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

921–930 of 969 posts

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#921

Post by tracker1 »

dh2022 wrote: post #870
pharrington wrote: post #797

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May you explain why ruthlessly profit driven CEOs of megacorporations don't care about the commercial value of the real estate they own?

Because who are the profit driven CEOs (are there any other CEOs?) sell their buildings to? The value of their building affects the profit via the depreciation expense. Which is to say the more buildings you have for RTO the bigger the expense-and thus the lower the profit for the profit maximizing CEOs. From a profit only perspective RTO makes sense only if the cities gave businesses tax breaks tied to business occu…

You should also consider property taxes from where the employees live. In MS's case, plenty of the employees own or rent in the same town, or nearby. At least as a calculation/consideration of tax breaks. I can say that if it weren't for Intel, Wells Fargo and others deciding to build/employ in Chandler, AZ the town wouldn't be half that size in terms of residential population. I'm sure the same is true even for bigger cities relative to business size.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#922

Post by keeda »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #910
keeda wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the other comments (yes, very much a powerplay) it is also likely that employers simply realized remote work is a huge perk they had not accounted for, and RTO is simply a means of renegotiating: https://www.tiktok.com/@keds_economist/video/746473188419558... The video presents a compelling theory that post-Covid employers realized that employees CAN be productive remotely, but also put a pretty high p…

I like that theory, but where's the actual negotiations? This is a "get back to the office or you're fired".

Good point. I think a couple things are possible here:

1. They can't outright tell employees "we just realized you were getting a better deal than we bargained for, so now we are re-negotiating." Kind of like they couldn't tell us "you had too much of a good run during Covid and ZIRP, so now sit down," and instead did the layoffs. So they have to couch it in other terms like collaboration and watercoolers. I suspect most RTO policies will have some flexible language to the effect of "existing remote employees can figure it out with their managers," and part of that would be a renegotiation.

This is not without precedence: a similar thing that happened during the height of post-Covid remote work was that employees moved to very low-cost locations, so most BigTech (and other) companies then instituted pay bands that depended on your location. To be fair, they were still very generous salaries for the locations in question, but the reasoning they used was "our pay is competitive relative to the market, and your market just changed." Those must have been some fun conversations for managers but they happened and most employees accepted.

BTW a common argument then was "how does my location matter as long as my output provides the same value." Employers interpreted that as "Hmm, location doesn't really matter, so why not pay somebody across the world who can provide the same value at a fraction of the cost."

2. They are not interested in direct renegotiations and the RTO wave is still part of a "silent" layoff, which also has the side-effect of depressing salaries. Those who remain will be less likely to ask for raises, or be more willing to renegotiate to get back their remote perks. Those looking for new jobs will naturally enter a negotiation phase if they get an offer.

There may be other mechanisms at play too.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#923

Post by dh2022 »

tracker1 wrote: post #921
dh2022 wrote: post #870

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because who are the profit driven CEOs (are there any other CEOs?) sell their buildings to? The value of their building affects the profit via the depreciation expense. Which is to say the more buildings you have for RTO the bigger the expense-and thus the lower the profit for the profit maximizing CEOs. From a profit only perspective RTO makes sense only if the cities gave businesses tax breaks tied to business occu…

You should also consider property taxes from where the employees live. In MS's case, plenty of the employees own or rent in the same town, or nearby. At least as a calculation/consideration of tax breaks. I can say that if it weren't for Intel, Wells Fargo and others deciding to build/employ in Chandler, AZ the town wouldn't be half that size in terms of residential population. I'm sure the same is true even for bigg…

How would this be an incentive for Microsoft to require RTO though? Even if Microsoft would receive tax breaks from the city because employees own property and pay property taxes - the city would get the same amount of property taxes if employees work from home. Microsoft would receive the same tax breaks.

AFAIK Microsoft mandated RTO only for employees that live within 50 miles of an office. So far Microsoft does not require employees to move to a city - and bolster the property taxes the city collects.

I still do not understand the logic behind RTO.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#924

Post by tracker1 »

thinkharderdev wrote: post #813
dragonwriter wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RTO mandates are about many things, but actual business value of being in the office to the business doing the mandate is low on the list. Among the things it is about: (1) Executives with emotional attachment to certain leadership styles that are enabled by physical presence, (2) Interest in the investor class for the commercial real estate market. The business impacted may not be invested in it, but the businesses’…

My personal pet theory (based on no evidence other than personal experience) is that, if your job is in senior management then your day-to-day work is going to meetings. And spending 8-10h on zoom meetings every day is unbelievably soul-crushing.

I spent 7 months on a contract job last year like that... I'm in Phoenix (as well as half the employees involved) but the meetings were East Coast centered, so starting at 5am local. Roughly 38 hours of meetings a week, and in a position where I had to pay attention... It SUCKED so hard... I never got used to being up early and it just burned me up.

At least with actual people, in person there's more to the communication... I miss lunch with coworkers. I now pretty much have to work from home (vision decline, so I cannot drive), I wish it weren't the case.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#925

Post by tracker1 »

dh2022 wrote: post #923
tracker1 wrote: post #921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should also consider property taxes from where the employees live. In MS's case, plenty of the employees own or rent in the same town, or nearby. At least as a calculation/consideration of tax breaks. I can say that if it weren't for Intel, Wells Fargo and others deciding to build/employ in Chandler, AZ the town wouldn't be half that size in terms of residential population. I'm sure the same is true even for bigg…

How would this be an incentive for Microsoft to require RTO though? Even if Microsoft would receive tax breaks from the city because employees own property and pay property taxes - the city would get the same amount of property taxes if employees work from home. Microsoft would receive the same tax breaks. AFAIK Microsoft mandated RTO only for employees that live within 50 miles of an office. So far Microsoft does no…

I was stating that's a consideration of why a City/State offers the incentives... I can't speak to MS in this case in particular. It's far more likely a soft layoff strategy.

I'd also say, I've seen far more people just sandbag and slack off in WFH than in an actual office.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#926

Post by wpm »

gamblor956 wrote: post #525
wpm wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does MS Teams support dual video inputs yet? I refuse to do the whole "click through a powerpoint clumsily while in edit mode with private DM notifications popping off in the background" thing I see too damn often so I use the OBS Virtual Cam. Zoom picks this up easily. Last I ran Teams (admittedly two years ago), if I tried to do the same, it would just set my camera feed to the virtual cam.

It allows you to choose what screen or window you want to present if that's what your asking.

That's not what I'm asking. Any teleconferencing app lets you do that.

Specifically, in Zoom, I can share from a second camera. This could be a USB Webcam, or a USB/PCIe HDMI Capture Card, or OBS' Virtual Camera plugin. I prefer the latter as it gives me lots of flexibility, can present full screen Keynote/Powerpoints while keeping my desktop/windows arranged how I like, with presenter notes up, and switch to a USB HDMI capture card with the click of a button in OBS, with custom text, transitions, etc.

Last I checked, Teams assumed any camera input was for the "Camera", not for the screen share.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#927

Post by wpm »

LtWorf wrote: post #548
wpm wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is a culture thing that is easily fixed by mandating cameras on, buying everyone good microphones, and a consensus that you can ping someone with a question, go back and forth, and know that you aren't imposing by throwing a /zoom into the Slack DM…

So bring all the constant interruptions and inability to focus that is in the office at home as well? The fact that you think is good tells me you're probably some kind of middle manager with too little actual work to do.

Nope, just an IC. I have plenty of work to do.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#928

Post by wpm »

dml2135 wrote: post #787
wpm wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This is a culture thing that is easily fixed by mandating cameras on, buying everyone good microphones, and a consensus that you can ping someone with a question, go back and forth, and know that you aren't imposing by throwing a /zoom into the Slack DM…

Wow I’m surprised at the heavy downvoted here. I don’t think mandating cameras on and insisting on 100% is the right move, but I definitely think you want to aim for a team culture where camera-on is a default and most people have them on 80-90% of the time. Otherwise, yea participation and engagement seems to take a major hit.

I think some people are misinterpreting 100% as "even when you aren't on a call/Zoom/huddle" which is batshit.

Some people are just unhappy they're being called out for taking meetings while they take a dump.

The latter is precisely why attempting for 100% cameras on during meetings is a good idea. If you're uncomfortable being on camera in a meeting doing it, its a good sign you shouldn't be doing it.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#929

Post by wpm »

yepitwas wrote: post #916
yepitwas wrote: post #772

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Screw presentability, having a camera pointed at you and on all the time is creepy and awful. It’s not the same as being in a room with actual people, it’s way worse. Just meetings with 100% camera-on, even, are awkward and draining in ways that meeting in person or just having a call are not. Having a camera on you is like having a person making hard eye contact without blinking or looking somewhere else, ever . It’…

I can't edit this more but to temper this: I don't mind camera-on for 1-on-1 conversations, I don't mind camera-on while actively participating in larger meetings, that kind of thing, that's fine. Camera on all the time so someone could just pop in and start watching at any moment, even not during a call? Terrible, absolutely terrible. Camera on for larger meetings the entire time, even when I'm not participating? To…

>Camera on all the time so someone could just pop in and start watching at any moment, even not during a call?

That's not at all what I meant. I don't think it was how I typed it, I grant it could be, but you might want to read my original comment again. I am not advocating for just sitting there in your Zoom Personal Room, camera on, all day every day. That would be insane. But for synchronous work with others, a camera on that lets me know you're there, listening, providing feedback with body language? Thats why shit just gets done faster in person. Remote teleconferencing is low bitrate on the human communication spectrum. At least, lower bitrate than being in the same room. Cameras increase that bitrate.

In my meetings in Zoom, (scheduled, 1 hour, normal), everyone on my team has cameras on almost all of the time. I don't even turn mine off if I step away to grab the coffee pot from the kitchen, it lets people know immediately I'm not able to speak but can hear them fine.

Re: Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

#930

Post by lupusreal »

tracker1 wrote: post #920
lupusreal wrote: post #878

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's plainly senile, you can tell every time he talks. That Biden was even worse doesn't negate Trump's senility.

I don't think it's really senility. I'm sure you've probably read an article by a news author about a technical subject that you know very well that just gets a lot of basic details/pov wrong as a whole. I'm pretty sure it's that, but with someone who has to take in 10x the amount of information on a daily basis. Combine that with an outsized, fragile ego and you get what you get from Trump. A vague understanding of…

I don't read shit. I have had family members go senile. I have listened to Trump speak. He's senile.
Post reply on HN