"Working from home is too convenient"

[ysette9]

I think there is the potential consequence of people reevaluating their living situation due to more WFH. We used to be fine in a small house but we are definitely drawn to the clown house now that we need a guest room that is distinctly separate from the office as well as considering a separate space for kids to do school work. I wonder if this will help prop up the market for the larger Boomer houses as they want to downsize, though it doesn’t address the issue of millennials not being able to afford them.

I don't understand why kids should have a seperate place for school work. After COVID I presume kids will go back to school. And after that, they can do homework in their bedroom, like they used to pre-COVID.

In our current setup the bedroom is too small to have room for a desk. My kids also share a room so it is less likely that it will be a quiet spot for one to focus on school work due to siblings.

[johndoe]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

[boarder42]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

That's the side the CEOs are betting on. Not sure what generation you're from though bc the younger generations have no loyalty to a company and are more likely to move frequently or take random amounts of time away from jobs for personal reasons. I think short term people do what they're told but with some level of resentment. Which will produce worse work products. And they will be looking to move or when presented an offer from a head hunter with more flexible remote work options will entertain it.

Companies forcing people back will not understand the impacts of their decision for 3-5 years and by then it may be too late for some.

[Metalcat]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

???

They'll be motivated to do it if they see other companies doing it and saving money, not just as some kind of carrot.

Covid has proven to a lot of companies that WFH doesn't affect productivity nearly as much as they expected. Some will conclude they need to being people back, but many won't.

What will be interesting, is how this affects jurisdictional employment laws.

[boarder42]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

???

They'll be motivated to do it if they see other companies doing it and saving money, not just as some kind of carrot.

Covid has proven to a lot of companies that WFH doesn't affect productivity nearly as much as they expected. Some will conclude they need to being people back, but many won't.

What will be interesting, is how this affects jurisdictional employment laws.

Kinda crazy how this is overlooked by my employer right now we're privately held by the employees and I'm really pissed they aren't cutting our overheads. Free increase to bottom line at 20-30% by my calcs

[By the River]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

???

They'll be motivated to do it if they see other companies doing it and saving money, not just as some kind of carrot.

Covid has proven to a lot of companies that WFH doesn't affect productivity nearly as much as they expected. Some will conclude they need to being people back, but many won't.

What will be interesting, is how this affects jurisdictional employment laws.

I'm also interested in how WFH is affected by state tax laws.  Wife's company has a draft policy that requires that you work in states that they have operations in already. So zoom background shot will have to be picture of home office when we are on the road. 

[boarder42]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

???

They'll be motivated to do it if they see other companies doing it and saving money, not just as some kind of carrot.

Covid has proven to a lot of companies that WFH doesn't affect productivity nearly as much as they expected. Some will conclude they need to being people back, but many won't.

What will be interesting, is how this affects jurisdictional employment laws.

I'm also interested in how WFH is affected by state tax laws.  Wife's company has a draft policy that requires that you work in states that they have operations in already. So zoom background shot will have to be picture of home office when we are on the road.

i know the city i work in has an income tax and they lost a lot of revenue with WFH and are trying to figure out how to recoup it.  Initially they said they weren't going to offer refunds to people but that didn't fly so i wonder how they modify it in the future.

[jeromedawg]

Regarding the "war of WFH" power struggle, I think there's a lot of old-school mentality driving the resistance against WFH - the older generation folks at the C-level insisting that WFH is *not* the way of the future and can't possibly be good for work socialization/watercooler chat and mentoring younger employees. I have a feeling that, assuming companies start pulling back on it, WFH may be somewhat 'limited' to those who are higher performing (as @johndoe mentions) at least starting out.
It was pointed out in another thread that Google, who was previously fully against WFH, has backpedaled on that and is now saying that 20-30% of its workforce can WFH indefinitely... the thought behind this too is that it likely would be the most productive/highest performing employees who are allowed to WFH. But I do think a lot of it depends on the industry and role - not everyone can or should WFH obviously. It's just figuring out which roles and who should/shouldn't.

That said, I still think there are always going to be those old-school (as well as micro-managerial) types who want strictly butt-in-seat so they can keep a close eye on their employees.

I feel like this whole is similar to companies offering 'free lunch' to employees - there are varying levels of it across the board (from full spread to nil) depending on the company. Some companies will allow full on WFH (or work from wherever you want as long as you get your work done), some will allow WFH X times per week, some will allow WFH requests, and some just won't allow it.

On a personal note: I've been WFH since 2016, about half a year after our first was born. It's been great being able to stick around and watch the kids grow up... definitely something priceless I wouldn't have traded for even a lot more $$$ plus a commute. Before COVID hit, we had a new CIO come onboard and immediately started talking about relocation/colocation strategy to essentially eliminate WFH all together. Everyone was pissed and everyone still is, because they've subtly kept up with the rhetoric even amidst the pandemic.
At this point, I'm planning to just stick it out until the point that they lay me off/tell me I have to relocate or if I find another WFH job that pays as well or better (I feel doubtful about this though).

[WGH]

On the government side we are moving to a hybrid 2 days at home 3 in the office on a permanent basis. A consultant was hired recently that will be meeting with several departments to gauge the pros and cons of the last year as some employees were considered essential and had to be on site and others were completely WFH and many in between.

My opinion is it does depend on your role and tasks. I find I am able to concentrate better from home but I only reach out to my coworkers when I really need something rather than to just build rapport, give attaboys, praise, feedback, etc. Some employees don't care about that but others do and WFH makes it more of a challenge to have those spontaneous opportunities to mentor and recognize employees and just bounce off thoughts and ideas.

So to me the hybrid is the way to go.

I was talking to my 77 year old Dad last night about Gen Z and my 2 teens who interact primarily over social media, facetime, and their online video games. When they are my age driving an hour each way to sit in a cubicle will probably seem like a ludicrous waste of time for those that grew up with Zoom and are used to digital interaction. Couple this with the bottom line savings on rent, janitorial, maintenance, furniture, equipment, utilities, etc. that companies will surely love and WFH seems to be on a strong path as the future.

[AlanStache]

On the government side we are moving to a hybrid 2 days at home 3 in the office on a permanent basis. A consultant was hired recently that will be meeting with several departments to gauge the pros and cons of the last year as some employees were considered essential and had to be on site and others were completely WFH and many in between.

My opinion is it does depend on your role and tasks. I find I am able to concentrate better from home but I only reach out to my coworkers when I really need something rather than to just build rapport, give attaboys, praise, feedback, etc. Some employees don't care about that but others do and WFH makes it more of a challenge to have those spontaneous opportunities to mentor and recognize employees and just bounce off thoughts and ideas.

So to me the hybrid is the way to go.

I was talking to my 77 year old Dad last night about Gen Z and my 2 teens who interact primarily over social media, facetime, and their online video games. When they are my age driving an hour each way to sit in a cubicle will probably seem like a ludicrous waste of time for those that grew up with Zoom and are used to digital interaction. Couple this with the bottom line savings on rent, janitorial, maintenance, furniture, equipment, utilities, etc. that companies will surely love and WFH seems to be on a strong path as the future.

Had not thought about "kids these days" looking at commuting into an office as being dumb as they are virtual natives. 

[jeromedawg]

On the government side we are moving to a hybrid 2 days at home 3 in the office on a permanent basis. A consultant was hired recently that will be meeting with several departments to gauge the pros and cons of the last year as some employees were considered essential and had to be on site and others were completely WFH and many in between.

My opinion is it does depend on your role and tasks. I find I am able to concentrate better from home but I only reach out to my coworkers when I really need something rather than to just build rapport, give attaboys, praise, feedback, etc. Some employees don't care about that but others do and WFH makes it more of a challenge to have those spontaneous opportunities to mentor and recognize employees and just bounce off thoughts and ideas.

So to me the hybrid is the way to go.

I was talking to my 77 year old Dad last night about Gen Z and my 2 teens who interact primarily over social media, facetime, and their online video games. When they are my age driving an hour each way to sit in a cubicle will probably seem like a ludicrous waste of time for those that grew up with Zoom and are used to digital interaction. Couple this with the bottom line savings on rent, janitorial, maintenance, furniture, equipment, utilities, etc. that companies will surely love and WFH seems to be on a strong path as the future.

I interviewed for a CA state position and got an offer from them and they were quite flexible with the WFH aspect - I was told I could WFH indefinitely even though the position is based out of Sacramento but I would need to come into the office probably at least once per quarter (I think travel expenses *might* have also been covered but they were iffy on it). During the interview they were really pressing on whether or not I'd be open to relocating... I was actually surprised I got the offer but it was underwhelming and so I ultimately decided not to pursue it - it would have been a significant pay reduction and I've just been hesitant about taking the plunge from private sector, especially because I'm *hoping* to FIRE no later than within the next 5-10 years..

I think the govt is realizing that WFH opens up a lot of possibilities especially regarding expanding their search to a larger pool of talent vs being restrictive to searching in a specific locale where the talent pool is significantly smaller. Hopefully more companies realize this, but at the same time I really don't think this applies to every single position out there...

[JLee]

On the government side we are moving to a hybrid 2 days at home 3 in the office on a permanent basis. A consultant was hired recently that will be meeting with several departments to gauge the pros and cons of the last year as some employees were considered essential and had to be on site and others were completely WFH and many in between.

My opinion is it does depend on your role and tasks. I find I am able to concentrate better from home but I only reach out to my coworkers when I really need something rather than to just build rapport, give attaboys, praise, feedback, etc. Some employees don't care about that but others do and WFH makes it more of a challenge to have those spontaneous opportunities to mentor and recognize employees and just bounce off thoughts and ideas.

So to me the hybrid is the way to go.

I was talking to my 77 year old Dad last night about Gen Z and my 2 teens who interact primarily over social media, facetime, and their online video games. When they are my age driving an hour each way to sit in a cubicle will probably seem like a ludicrous waste of time for those that grew up with Zoom and are used to digital interaction. Couple this with the bottom line savings on rent, janitorial, maintenance, furniture, equipment, utilities, etc. that companies will surely love and WFH seems to be on a strong path as the future.

I interviewed for a CA state position and got an offer from them and they were quite flexible with the WFH aspect - I was told I could WFH indefinitely even though the position is based out of Sacramento but I would need to come into the office probably at least once per quarter (I think travel expenses *might* have also been covered but they were iffy on it). During the interview they were really pressing on whether or not I'd be open to relocating... I was actually surprised I got the offer but it was underwhelming and so I ultimately decided not to pursue it - it would have been a significant pay reduction and I've just been hesitant about taking the plunge from private sector, especially because I'm *hoping* to FIRE no later than within the next 5-10 years..

I think the govt is realizing that WFH opens up a lot of possibilities especially regarding expanding their search to a larger pool of talent vs being restrictive to searching in a specific locale where the talent pool is significantly smaller. Hopefully more companies realize this, but at the same time I really don't think this applies to every single position out there...

It definitely opens up the workforce pool - makes me ponder if I should consider abandoning my HCOL area before everybody realizes that the metro NYC firms can hire people in the midwest for vastly fewer dollars.

[PDXTabs]

...

I was talking to my 77 year old Dad last night about Gen Z and my 2 teens who interact primarily over social media, facetime, and their online video games. When they are my age driving an hour each way to sit in a cubicle will probably seem like a ludicrous waste of time for those that grew up with Zoom and are used to digital interaction. Couple this with the bottom line savings on rent, janitorial, maintenance, furniture, equipment, utilities, etc. that companies will surely love and WFH seems to be on a strong path as the future.

Had not thought about "kids these days" looking at commuting into an office as being dumb as they are virtual natives.

We'll see. My two gen-Z teenagers hate distance learning and both have and want in-person jobs.

[boarder42]

...

I was talking to my 77 year old Dad last night about Gen Z and my 2 teens who interact primarily over social media, facetime, and their online video games. When they are my age driving an hour each way to sit in a cubicle will probably seem like a ludicrous waste of time for those that grew up with Zoom and are used to digital interaction. Couple this with the bottom line savings on rent, janitorial, maintenance, furniture, equipment, utilities, etc. that companies will surely love and WFH seems to be on a strong path as the future.

Had not thought about "kids these days" looking at commuting into an office as being dumb as they are virtual natives.

We'll see. My two gen-Z teenagers hate distance learning and both have and want in-person jobs.

I think the lesson here is all people are different and their opinions on this may change over time as well so companies should offer all options. Clearly the popularity of the fire movement alone shows just because it's been one way doesnt mean it should stay.

[Travis]

I'm with Dilbert.

Our office (which I only went to once a month, on average) was sold a few months ago, and everyone is either going to work from home, or be assigned to a different office. The new location sucks for 99% of people, so our VP had told us we would all be full-time WFH employees. However, apparently big cheese thinks people should show up at the office, so now it's all up for debate again. They asked for everyone's commute time and distance to/from the new location given a start time of 8:30am. For most people, that's 90 mins to two hours, depending on traffic. We're hoping that puts a stop to the idiocy, but...idiots.

At least they're asking you. I imagine some smaller businesses will be reexamining their office space leases if WFH proves to be the better business decision.

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

???

They'll be motivated to do it if they see other companies doing it and saving money, not just as some kind of carrot.

Covid has proven to a lot of companies that WFH doesn't affect productivity nearly as much as they expected. Some will conclude they need to being people back, but many won't.

What will be interesting, is how this affects jurisdictional employment laws.

I'm also interested in how WFH is affected by state tax laws.  Wife's company has a draft policy that requires that you work in states that they have operations in already. So zoom background shot will have to be picture of home office when we are on the road. 

It definitely opens up the workforce pool - makes me ponder if I should consider abandoning my HCOL area before everybody realizes that the metro NYC firms can hire people in the midwest for vastly fewer dollars.

I saw a few stories of people doing this for San Francisco employment and living in my hometown area. They were already commuting from the Sacramento area with their SF salaries, but now that expensive commute is completely cut out of the equation and they could move even further away if they wanted.  I wonder if a few key locations will become inter-state WFH hotspots (with an expected amount of hate from the locals)? 

There's paperwork in place to be a resident of one state and being employed in another, but I wonder if it changes the tax dynamic for the business if the majority of the employees aren't in the same state as the headquarters?

[prudent_one]

I'm with Dilbert.

Our office (which I only went to once a month, on average) was sold a few months ago, and everyone is either going to work from home, or be assigned to a different office. The new location sucks for 99% of people, so our VP had told us we would all be full-time WFH employees. However, apparently big cheese thinks people should show up at the office, so now it's all up for debate again. They asked for everyone's commute time and distance to/from the new location given a start time of 8:30am. For most people, that's 90 mins to two hours, depending on traffic. We're hoping that puts a stop to the idiocy, but...idiots.

It's not as if we haven't all been WFH since March 2020, so I think we can handle it. Even the old location was a nightmare of a commute for me. 31 miles each way, which could take anywhere from 40 mins (leaving the house at 5am) to two hours (leaving at 7am). Coming home was always a crapshoot. Could be an hour, could be two hours, and it was never an easy drive - very stressful, bumper-to-bumper the whole way.

You should share this video with your VP (well, maybe not your VP hah.. but your coworkers would appreciate it).

https://twitter.com/find_evil/status/1384180643886604289

In the '90s, traffic was getting bad in our town at rush hours, so they implemented "core hours" - you had to be there between 9-3 but beyond that you could do flex hours as long as your manager knew your schedule (IOW, you couldn't freelance your hours day to day on a whim).

One day, at an all-employee meeting, the CEO made some remarks about people slacking and not putting in a full day. "I look out the window at 3:45 and the parking lot is 70% empty. I expect people to work a full day and you can expect your managers to be more attentive to when people are working. Just giving everyone a heads-up."

Everyone in my group worked 7-3:30 except one person who did 8-4:30. There were no slackers. I would know. So a week later  when meeting with the CEO, he asked me what I was doing about people not working a full day. I explained the situation. He got heated and said he looks at the parking lot, there's no way all these people are putting in 8 hour days. I explained that I get there at 6:30, I know if people aren't there at 7. No issue. And said we all know what the core hours are and everyone is in compliance.

And he said he just doesn't like it when so many people leave at 3:30. I didn't know what to say to that, so I said nothing.

[scottish]

He wants everyone to be a workaholic, just like him.     Glad I don't have to deal with that anymore.

[RetiredAt63]

And he said he just doesn't like it when so many people leave at 3:30. I didn't know what to say to that, so I said nothing.

Everyone is starting at 7?  Just tell him to come in at 7 and he will see a full parking lot.  I bet he doesn't show up until 9 or a bit later.

[Imma]

I'm with Dilbert.

Our office (which I only went to once a month, on average) was sold a few months ago, and everyone is either going to work from home, or be assigned to a different office. The new location sucks for 99% of people, so our VP had told us we would all be full-time WFH employees. However, apparently big cheese thinks people should show up at the office, so now it's all up for debate again. They asked for everyone's commute time and distance to/from the new location given a start time of 8:30am. For most people, that's 90 mins to two hours, depending on traffic. We're hoping that puts a stop to the idiocy, but...idiots.

It's not as if we haven't all been WFH since March 2020, so I think we can handle it. Even the old location was a nightmare of a commute for me. 31 miles each way, which could take anywhere from 40 mins (leaving the house at 5am) to two hours (leaving at 7am). Coming home was always a crapshoot. Could be an hour, could be two hours, and it was never an easy drive - very stressful, bumper-to-bumper the whole way.

You should share this video with your VP (well, maybe not your VP hah.. but your coworkers would appreciate it).

https://twitter.com/find_evil/status/1384180643886604289

In the '90s, traffic was getting bad in our town at rush hours, so they implemented "core hours" - you had to be there between 9-3 but beyond that you could do flex hours as long as your manager knew your schedule (IOW, you couldn't freelance your hours day to day on a whim).

One day, at an all-employee meeting, the CEO made some remarks about people slacking and not putting in a full day. "I look out the window at 3:45 and the parking lot is 70% empty. I expect people to work a full day and you can expect your managers to be more attentive to when people are working. Just giving everyone a heads-up."

Everyone in my group worked 7-3:30 except one person who did 8-4:30. There were no slackers. I would know. So a week later  when meeting with the CEO, he asked me what I was doing about people not working a full day. I explained the situation. He got heated and said he looks at the parking lot, there's no way all these people are putting in 8 hour days. I explained that I get there at 6:30, I know if people aren't there at 7. No issue. And said we all know what the core hours are and everyone is in compliance.

And he said he just doesn't like it when so many people leave at 3:30. I didn't know what to say to that, so I said nothing.

One of my coworkers used to work 6.30-3 so they could pick up the kids from school. Their spouse dropped the kids off to school and then worked from 9 or 9.15. This way they could both work fulltime and pay no childcare. Every day when my coworker started packing up, some "funny" guy would say "enjoy your free afternoon!" as if she was taking half a day off. You know how those guys are able to work late every day? Because their wives make sure they are home when the kids have finished school and then do the chores and the cooking. The men can leave work at 6.30 and can sit down for dinner the second they come home.

[Tjat]

Best thing I did for my mental health was switching from five days a week on-site to two days a week on-site and one remote.  60% less commuting time and cost has made me a much happier and more productive human.  The on-site days are necessary (though I could probably have fewer of them and be just fine), but the remote days are always more productive.  Fewer interruptions, meetings, or other bullshittery.  I don't mind some farting around with coworkers, but I also like getting shit done.

Agree with the picture you attached. Don’t forget the people that hang out in the bathrooms on their phone.

[Flat9MKE]

In the '90s, traffic was getting bad in our town at rush hours, so they implemented "core hours" - you had to be there between 9-3 but beyond that you could do flex hours as long as your manager knew your schedule (IOW, you couldn't freelance your hours day to day on a whim).

One day, at an all-employee meeting, the CEO made some remarks about people slacking and not putting in a full day. "I look out the window at 3:45 and the parking lot is 70% empty. I expect people to work a full day and you can expect your managers to be more attentive to when people are working. Just giving everyone a heads-up."

Everyone in my group worked 7-3:30 except one person who did 8-4:30. There were no slackers. I would know. So a week later  when meeting with the CEO, he asked me what I was doing about people not working a full day. I explained the situation. He got heated and said he looks at the parking lot, there's no way all these people are putting in 8 hour days. I explained that I get there at 6:30, I know if people aren't there at 7. No issue. And said we all know what the core hours are and everyone is in compliance.

And he said he just doesn't like it when so many people leave at 3:30. I didn't know what to say to that, so I said nothing.

Be in all the earlier on Sunday! That's the old-school baby boomer mentality that hours in the office = work.  Paying people to browse Facebook and Barstool Sports while they are in their office seats is somehow better I guess!

We have more of an old school mentality at the company I am at and I have been back in the office since June of 2020.  I didn't love working at home and the thought of sitting in a bedroom for the next 5 years as an office was not great.  I enjoy talking to co-workers, nice office equipment, mental break from being at home all the time.  I do not enjoy the commute. 

If a company gave no warning and said "all employees must return to the office tomorrow" I could see how that would cause discombobulation.  But if they work with you and give you a timeline, what is the complaint?  You were going to an office before COVID and didn't have issues.  Your only options are to ask for flexibility, quit, and/or start looking for a new company that offers work from home options. Beyond that, it doesn't seem unreasonable for companies to require physical presence in the office. 

Advancing in an organization (if those are your goals) seems harder if you are not putting in face time with managers, owners, etc.  Relationships are important and in the electronic age, face to face interactions make a difference.

I think offering work from home will be one of the "benefit package components" that companies use to compete for employees going forward.

[By the River]

...That's the old-school baby boomer mentality that hours in the office = work.  Paying people to browse Facebook and Barstool Sports while they are in their office seats is somehow better I guess!

I definitely browse the web more when I'm "working" at work than working at home.  I would say that 95% of my posts here or on Reddit are made when I'm in my office (like I am today).  When I needed a break at home, I would walk the dog for a few blocks, pull a few weeds, clean a little etc. 

[boarder42]

In the '90s, traffic was getting bad in our town at rush hours, so they implemented "core hours" - you had to be there between 9-3 but beyond that you could do flex hours as long as your manager knew your schedule (IOW, you couldn't freelance your hours day to day on a whim).

One day, at an all-employee meeting, the CEO made some remarks about people slacking and not putting in a full day. "I look out the window at 3:45 and the parking lot is 70% empty. I expect people to work a full day and you can expect your managers to be more attentive to when people are working. Just giving everyone a heads-up."

Everyone in my group worked 7-3:30 except one person who did 8-4:30. There were no slackers. I would know. So a week later  when meeting with the CEO, he asked me what I was doing about people not working a full day. I explained the situation. He got heated and said he looks at the parking lot, there's no way all these people are putting in 8 hour days. I explained that I get there at 6:30, I know if people aren't there at 7. No issue. And said we all know what the core hours are and everyone is in compliance.

And he said he just doesn't like it when so many people leave at 3:30. I didn't know what to say to that, so I said nothing.

Be in all the earlier on Sunday! That's the old-school baby boomer mentality that hours in the office = work.  Paying people to browse Facebook and Barstool Sports while they are in their office seats is somehow better I guess!

We have more of an old school mentality at the company I am at and I have been back in the office since June of 2020.  I didn't love working at home and the thought of sitting in a bedroom for the next 5 years as an office was not great.  I enjoy talking to co-workers, nice office equipment, mental break from being at home all the time.  I do not enjoy the commute. 

If a company gave no warning and said "all employees must return to the office tomorrow" I could see how that would cause discombobulation.  But if they work with you and give you a timeline, what is the complaint?  You were going to an office before COVID and didn't have issues.  Your only options are to ask for flexibility, quit, and/or start looking for a new company that offers work from home options. Beyond that, it doesn't seem unreasonable for companies to require physical presence in the office. 

Advancing in an organization (if those are your goals) seems harder if you are not putting in face time with managers, owners, etc.  Relationships are important and in the electronic age, face to face interactions make a difference.

I think offering work from home will be one of the "benefit package components" that companies use to compete for employees going forward.

this concept that being in the same box as managers etc is necessary for advancement is highly flawed esp. in an ever increasing distributed workforce.  Companies have offices everywhere the logic that follows the concept  you stated would mean you have to be at corporate to succeed.  I see this line of thinking with our upper management.  Fact of the matter is companies cannot actually gauge performance well outside of butts in seats time.  and we keep hiring more Bosses to think that way vs leaders.  - B/c the leaders are in forums like this leaving the rat race.

Its also completely absurd to say well this is the way it was before so you shouldn't care that your company wants you back now.  Before there was no other way, remote work wasnt a big thing, but the cat is out of the bag now.  Some people liked it some people hated some people like both.  that statement is the statement failing companies use to continue their downward spiral and stay stuck in their old ways.

[Flat9MKE]

this concept that being in the same box as managers etc is necessary for advancement is highly flawed esp. in an ever increasing distributed workforce.  Companies have offices everywhere the logic that follows the concept  you stated would mean you have to be at corporate to succeed.  I see this line of thinking with our upper management.  Fact of the matter is companies cannot actually gauge performance well outside of butts in seats time.  and we keep hiring more Bosses to think that way vs leaders.  - B/c the leaders are in forums like this leaving the rat race.

Its also completely absurd to say well this is the way it was before so you shouldn't care that your company wants you back now.  Before there was no other way, remote work wasnt a big thing, but the cat is out of the bag now.  Some people liked it some people hated some people like both.  that statement is the statement failing companies use to continue their downward spiral and stay stuck in their old ways.

Good points.  By the same token, one could say it is absurd to think that because you worked from home (often mandated by the government) during a temporary pandemic, you will now be able to work from home forever.

I am all about flexibility and having an open mind to better ways of doing things.  I would love to work from home for even (1) day per week.  Many companies have embraced work from home going forward for employee happiness and potential cost savings for real estate, etc.  Some companies prefer collaboration in person. 

This is all very new...I think it is too early to say companies that believe in-person attendance improves productivity, customer service, etc. are on a downward spiral.

[boarder42]

this concept that being in the same box as managers etc is necessary for advancement is highly flawed esp. in an ever increasing distributed workforce.  Companies have offices everywhere the logic that follows the concept  you stated would mean you have to be at corporate to succeed.  I see this line of thinking with our upper management.  Fact of the matter is companies cannot actually gauge performance well outside of butts in seats time.  and we keep hiring more Bosses to think that way vs leaders.  - B/c the leaders are in forums like this leaving the rat race.

Its also completely absurd to say well this is the way it was before so you shouldn't care that your company wants you back now.  Before there was no other way, remote work wasnt a big thing, but the cat is out of the bag now.  Some people liked it some people hated some people like both.  that statement is the statement failing companies use to continue their downward spiral and stay stuck in their old ways.

Good points.  By the same token, one could say it is absurd to think that because you worked from home (often mandated by the government) during a temporary pandemic, you will now be able to work from home forever.

I am all about flexibility and having an open mind to better ways of doing things.  I would love to work from home for even (1) day per week.  Many companies have embraced work from home going forward for employee happiness and potential cost savings for real estate, etc.  Some companies prefer collaboration in person. 

This is all very new...I think it is too early to say companies that believe in-person attendance improves productivity, customer service, etc. are on a downward spiral.

That's why this site exists. So I can walk away from that company.  Companies have little power in today's market if people stood up for what they wanted. There is a labor shortage in almost every industry right now.

[BlueHouse]

One of my coworkers used to work 6.30-3 so they could pick up the kids from school. Their spouse dropped the kids off to school and then worked from 9 or 9.15. This way they could both work fulltime and pay no childcare. Every day when my coworker started packing up, some "funny" guy would say "enjoy your free afternoon!" as if she was taking half a day off. You know how those guys are able to work late every day? Because their wives make sure they are home when the kids have finished school and then do the chores and the cooking. The men can leave work at 6.30 and can sit down for dinner the second they come home.

I used to have a boss who regularly worked until 2 or 3AM, but then wouldn't show up to the office until noon or even later.  One day he saw me getting on the elevator at 6:30pm and he said "leaving early?"  Funny.  I responded "Late lunch" and pressed the door close button.  HAHAHAHAHA. 

That was the one time in my life where I had the exact right comeback at the exact right moment.  I don't care that it was 20 years ago.  I'm holding on to that memory as if it were yesterday!

[Linea_Norway]

Yesterday I was visited by a friend who just started going back to work this week, after more than a year with WFH. She had to walk a long way to the train station, for a ling train commute. She noticed that she can't do that anymore. Therefore she bought a house to move into that is close to a train station with a much faster en shorter train. She also plans to work from home much more than earlier.

[dcheesi]

Yesterday I was visited by a friend who just started going back to work this week, after more than a year with WFH. She had to walk a long way to the train station, for a ling train commute. She noticed that she can't do that anymore. Therefore she bought a house to move into that is close to a train station with a much faster en shorter train. She also plans to work from home much more than earlier.

Can't do it because of age/illness? Or is she simply out of shape/practice? We're facing similar endurance issues with some of our favorite activities that were curtailed during the pandemic; dancing hurts the next day, and walking tires us out more quickly. But I fully expect both of those to improve as we continue doing them regularly.

Maybe this is one example where a little more inconvenience in commuting was good for someone?

[MilesTeg]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

[JLee]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

For me it's led to implied 100% availability.  When we were in the office, we'd typically at least have lunch as a sacred time barring any emergencies, but now meeting requests and other demands for attention occur regardless of the hour, across an ever-widening timeframe.

Less activity and less socializing has happened because of covid - at least in my case, it's had nothing to do with working from home.

[GuitarStv]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

For me it's led to implied 100% availability.  When we were in the office, we'd typically at least have lunch as a sacred time barring any emergencies, but now meeting requests and other demands for attention occur regardless of the hour, across an ever-widening timeframe.

Less activity and less socializing has happened because of covid - at least in my case, it's had nothing to do with working from home.

Fuck 100% availability.  Unless there's a critical problem and I'm working overtime, I turn off my computer and phone at 5:00 these days.

[JLee]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

For me it's led to implied 100% availability.  When we were in the office, we'd typically at least have lunch as a sacred time barring any emergencies, but now meeting requests and other demands for attention occur regardless of the hour, across an ever-widening timeframe.

Less activity and less socializing has happened because of covid - at least in my case, it's had nothing to do with working from home.

Fuck 100% availability.  Unless there's a critical problem and I'm working overtime, I turn off my computer and phone at 5:00 these days.

We're nearly 24x7 production environment with a small team, and upper management has the philosophy of "all one team" which means we get everyone else's problems when they can't handle their own issues. Oddly enough nobody else tends to fix our stuff, though...

I won't be here forever though :D

[jinga nation]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

For me it's led to implied 100% availability.  When we were in the office, we'd typically at least have lunch as a sacred time barring any emergencies, but now meeting requests and other demands for attention occur regardless of the hour, across an ever-widening timeframe.

Less activity and less socializing has happened because of covid - at least in my case, it's had nothing to do with working from home.

Fuck 100% availability.  Unless there's a critical problem and I'm working overtime, I turn off my computer and phone at 5:00 these days.

We're nearly 24x7 production environment with a small team, and upper management has the philosophy of "all one team" which means we get everyone else's problems when they can't handle their own issues. Oddly enough nobody else tends to fix our stuff, though...

I won't be here forever though :D

That is plain lazy management, who wants problems resolved internally at the lower level.

This was the attitude at my last work place, where management had the dumbass idea that all sysadmins and engineers were USB plug-n-play.
It got so bad, I upped and quit (had FU money stream from my rentals).

@GuitarStv if the problem is going to prevent the globe from spinning, then it is a problem. Otherwise I work on it tomorrow. That's my attitude. Because if my customer doesn't plan for failure despite giving them the report on what, how and why, then the turd is in their pocket, because when just happened to you know who.

[Imma]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

For me it's led to implied 100% availability.  When we were in the office, we'd typically at least have lunch as a sacred time barring any emergencies, but now meeting requests and other demands for attention occur regardless of the hour, across an ever-widening timeframe.

Less activity and less socializing has happened because of covid - at least in my case, it's had nothing to do with working from home.

For me it's absolutely the other way round. I'm very glad that we're currently not planning on going back to the office for more than 2 days a week.
At work, it's the expectation that you spend your lunch break with coworkers, talking about work - we either take a walk outside together or we eat together at our desks. I've never worked anywhere where you had a lunch break or you would not be considered antisocial if you didn't join the group for lunch. Even though my unpaid lunchbreak is 20 minutes, everyone only takes about 20 minutes.

When we work from home, people log off for 45-60 minutes and no one complains, and you can actually close your laptop, not pick up your phone and just stroll around the neighbourhood or chat with family. Due to opposing work schedules, Mr Imma and I never meet on work nights, he returns home after I've gone to bed. I have started to love our lunch breaks (lunch for me, breakfast for him) and I would really hate to be back in the office fulltime and go back to only seeing eachother during weekends.

Not having to leave the house to drag myself to work has actually led to increased activity for me. On an office day, I leave the house at 8, come back at 6, put one of my mealprep containers into the microwave, eat it, lie on the sofa for a bit, flicking through my phone and I'm often in bed before 9. That's how tiring my days are. On work from home days, I have so much more energy to cook, garden, take walks, read books etc after work.

[JLee]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

For me it's led to implied 100% availability.  When we were in the office, we'd typically at least have lunch as a sacred time barring any emergencies, but now meeting requests and other demands for attention occur regardless of the hour, across an ever-widening timeframe.

Less activity and less socializing has happened because of covid - at least in my case, it's had nothing to do with working from home.

For me it's absolutely the other way round. I'm very glad that we're currently not planning on going back to the office for more than 2 days a week.
At work, it's the expectation that you spend your lunch break with coworkers, talking about work - we either take a walk outside together or we eat together at our desks. I've never worked anywhere where you had a lunch break or you would not be considered antisocial if you didn't join the group for lunch. Even though my unpaid lunchbreak is 20 minutes, everyone only takes about 20 minutes.

When we work from home, people log off for 45-60 minutes and no one complains, and you can actually close your laptop, not pick up your phone and just stroll around the neighbourhood or chat with family. Due to opposing work schedules, Mr Imma and I never meet on work nights, he returns home after I've gone to bed. I have started to love our lunch breaks (lunch for me, breakfast for him) and I would really hate to be back in the office fulltime and go back to only seeing eachother during weekends.

Not having to leave the house to drag myself to work has actually led to increased activity for me. On an office day, I leave the house at 8, come back at 6, put one of my mealprep containers into the microwave, eat it, lie on the sofa for a bit, flicking through my phone and I'm often in bed before 9. That's how tiring my days are. On work from home days, I have so much more energy to cook, garden, take walks, read books etc after work.

Oh we generally had lunch as a group, but we weren't in meetings etc.  With WFH, people happily schedule meetings whenever they want so we end up eating at our desks at home while on calls (or sometimes I'll eat lunch at 3:30pm).

[boarder42]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

For me it's led to implied 100% availability.  When we were in the office, we'd typically at least have lunch as a sacred time barring any emergencies, but now meeting requests and other demands for attention occur regardless of the hour, across an ever-widening timeframe.

Less activity and less socializing has happened because of covid - at least in my case, it's had nothing to do with working from home.

For me it's absolutely the other way round. I'm very glad that we're currently not planning on going back to the office for more than 2 days a week.
At work, it's the expectation that you spend your lunch break with coworkers, talking about work - we either take a walk outside together or we eat together at our desks. I've never worked anywhere where you had a lunch break or you would not be considered antisocial if you didn't join the group for lunch. Even though my unpaid lunchbreak is 20 minutes, everyone only takes about 20 minutes.

When we work from home, people log off for 45-60 minutes and no one complains, and you can actually close your laptop, not pick up your phone and just stroll around the neighbourhood or chat with family. Due to opposing work schedules, Mr Imma and I never meet on work nights, he returns home after I've gone to bed. I have started to love our lunch breaks (lunch for me, breakfast for him) and I would really hate to be back in the office fulltime and go back to only seeing eachother during weekends.

Not having to leave the house to drag myself to work has actually led to increased activity for me. On an office day, I leave the house at 8, come back at 6, put one of my mealprep containers into the microwave, eat it, lie on the sofa for a bit, flicking through my phone and I'm often in bed before 9. That's how tiring my days are. On work from home days, I have so much more energy to cook, garden, take walks, read books etc after work.

Oh we generally had lunch as a group, but we weren't in meetings etc.  With WFH, people happily schedule meetings whenever they want so we end up eating at our desks at home while on calls (or sometimes I'll eat lunch at 3:30pm).

I just blocked 11-1 as focus time so this would stop happening. And I'd go surfing or paddle boarding over lunch.

[Sibley]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

That's the side the CEOs are betting on. Not sure what generation you're from though bc the younger generations have no loyalty to a company and are more likely to move frequently or take random amounts of time away from jobs for personal reasons. I think short term people do what they're told but with some level of resentment. Which will produce worse work products. And they will be looking to move or when presented an offer from a head hunter with more flexible remote work options will entertain it.

Companies forcing people back will not understand the impacts of their decision for 3-5 years and by then it may be too late for some.

Boarder, I don't think you intended this, but it came off like you were dissing the younger generations for not being loyal. The reason that I don't have loyalty to a single company is that the company doesn't have loyalty to me. Maybe my grandparents could work for a single company for their entire lives, but I saw my parent's generation try that and then get burned by layoffs, cutting pensions, etc. Now I see far too many companies who don't do raises, don't do the training or development, don't have advancement potential, etc. Loyalty is a two way street. If companies change, then I'll change in response.

[GuitarStv]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

That's the side the CEOs are betting on. Not sure what generation you're from though bc the younger generations have no loyalty to a company and are more likely to move frequently or take random amounts of time away from jobs for personal reasons. I think short term people do what they're told but with some level of resentment. Which will produce worse work products. And they will be looking to move or when presented an offer from a head hunter with more flexible remote work options will entertain it.

Companies forcing people back will not understand the impacts of their decision for 3-5 years and by then it may be too late for some.

Boarder, I don't think you intended this, but it came off like you were dissing the younger generations for not being loyal. The reason that I don't have loyalty to a single company is that the company doesn't have loyalty to me. Maybe my grandparents could work for a single company for their entire lives, but I saw my parent's generation try that and then get burned by layoffs, cutting pensions, etc. Now I see far too many companies who don't do raises, don't do the training or development, don't have advancement potential, etc. Loyalty is a two way street. If companies change, then I'll change in response.

Loyalty to a company is treated by most companies as a negative - where they pay 'loyal' employees less and give them fewer benefits.  Because of that, I see 'disloyalty' to a company as being a somewhat positive trait in younger people.

[Imma]

I actually agree with the sentiment. Every time I have worked from home (about a decade ago and then again curing COVID, it has indeed been too convenient. Not having to leave the house makes it all to tempting not to leading to less activity, less socializing, less, etc.

Granted, not a problem for those with more out of the house responsibilities (such as spawn) but for those of us with few...

And, of course, I'm sure TFA has other motivations than personal happiness, hah.

For me it's led to implied 100% availability.  When we were in the office, we'd typically at least have lunch as a sacred time barring any emergencies, but now meeting requests and other demands for attention occur regardless of the hour, across an ever-widening timeframe.

Less activity and less socializing has happened because of covid - at least in my case, it's had nothing to do with working from home.

For me it's absolutely the other way round. I'm very glad that we're currently not planning on going back to the office for more than 2 days a week.
At work, it's the expectation that you spend your lunch break with coworkers, talking about work - we either take a walk outside together or we eat together at our desks. I've never worked anywhere where you had a lunch break or you would not be considered antisocial if you didn't join the group for lunch. Even though my unpaid lunchbreak is 20 minutes, everyone only takes about 20 minutes.

When we work from home, people log off for 45-60 minutes and no one complains, and you can actually close your laptop, not pick up your phone and just stroll around the neighbourhood or chat with family. Due to opposing work schedules, Mr Imma and I never meet on work nights, he returns home after I've gone to bed. I have started to love our lunch breaks (lunch for me, breakfast for him) and I would really hate to be back in the office fulltime and go back to only seeing eachother during weekends.

Not having to leave the house to drag myself to work has actually led to increased activity for me. On an office day, I leave the house at 8, come back at 6, put one of my mealprep containers into the microwave, eat it, lie on the sofa for a bit, flicking through my phone and I'm often in bed before 9. That's how tiring my days are. On work from home days, I have so much more energy to cook, garden, take walks, read books etc after work.

Oh we generally had lunch as a group, but we weren't in meetings etc.  With WFH, people happily schedule meetings whenever they want so we end up eating at our desks at home while on calls (or sometimes I'll eat lunch at 3:30pm).

Lunchtime digital meetings are absolutely not a thing in my company. And I would totally refuse any invitation for one. I think I hate in-person lunches with coworkers more though. Maybe it's because I'm an introvert but digital meetings take up a lot less energy than in-person meetings, and in-person socializing is even worse than meetings. Just having to remember all of my coworkers' personal lives, names of children, spouses, pretending to be interesting in what they're going to get for their MIL's birthday... maybe I'm antisocial :) Lunch breaks at home with Mr Imma and all devices off are just the best. 

I don't have any loyalty to any company. Not just my parents, even in my grandparents' generation working for the same company for one's entire career was a pipe dream for most people. People were frequently laid off when they became disabled through work, without any of the financial protections the law gives us these days, my grandfather's pension fund actually went bankrupt so he lost it all, which is another thing that can't happen anymore. Back then, the job-for-life with a golden watch after 50 years of service and a full pension was not something the majority of people were able to achieve.

[boarder42]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

That's the side the CEOs are betting on. Not sure what generation you're from though bc the younger generations have no loyalty to a company and are more likely to move frequently or take random amounts of time away from jobs for personal reasons. I think short term people do what they're told but with some level of resentment. Which will produce worse work products. And they will be looking to move or when presented an offer from a head hunter with more flexible remote work options will entertain it.

Companies forcing people back will not understand the impacts of their decision for 3-5 years and by then it may be too late for some.

Boarder, I don't think you intended this, but it came off like you were dissing the younger generations for not being loyal. The reason that I don't have loyalty to a single company is that the company doesn't have loyalty to me. Maybe my grandparents could work for a single company for their entire lives, but I saw my parent's generation try that and then get burned by layoffs, cutting pensions, etc. Now I see far too many companies who don't do raises, don't do the training or development, don't have advancement potential, etc. Loyalty is a two way street. If companies change, then I'll change in response.

I think disloyalty is a positive trait of younger generations. I think the negative is the boomers biases and alot of top talent at my company is questioning being here bc we don't want a large portion of our assets tied to a company who can't even make this small adaptation to societal change. Our company is employee owned and the only way to divest is to leave

[Metalcat]

It is really, really hard to put the genie back in the bottle. Companies have spent a year+ working remotely, and there are a lot of people who do not want to return to the office full time. They will push back. I'm already hearing about it - my previous company the execs were very anti-wfh, and were going to pull everyone back into the office. They've now announced that it will be hybrid. Basically, enough people said they'd quit if they had to be in the office full time.

This is the interesting part to me- how much "power" the employees will have to morph policies.  I'm sure every industry is different, but in mine I just can't see the majority of people changing jobs for WFH policies.  Will they SAY they will? Sure, but I'm skeptical many would actually do it.  It's like Milton getting moved one more time... in real life he doesn't burn down the building, he groans and heads down to his new cube.  If I were a CEO or whatever I'd look around at similar companies (I assume similar industries would offer similar policies) and call their bluff, at least for "average" employees.  Maybe offer WFH as a benefit to high-performers as a way to get better work out of folks. So to me the genie will absolutely go back in the lamp if employment depends on it.

That's the side the CEOs are betting on. Not sure what generation you're from though bc the younger generations have no loyalty to a company and are more likely to move frequently or take random amounts of time away from jobs for personal reasons. I think short term people do what they're told but with some level of resentment. Which will produce worse work products. And they will be looking to move or when presented an offer from a head hunter with more flexible remote work options will entertain it.

Companies forcing people back will not understand the impacts of their decision for 3-5 years and by then it may be too late for some.

Boarder, I don't think you intended this, but it came off like you were dissing the younger generations for not being loyal. The reason that I don't have loyalty to a single company is that the company doesn't have loyalty to me. Maybe my grandparents could work for a single company for their entire lives, but I saw my parent's generation try that and then get burned by layoffs, cutting pensions, etc. Now I see far too many companies who don't do raises, don't do the training or development, don't have advancement potential, etc. Loyalty is a two way street. If companies change, then I'll change in response.

I think disloyalty is a positive trait of younger generations. I think the negative is the boomers biases and alot of top talent at my company is questioning being here bc we don't want a large portion of our assets tied to a company who can't even make this small adaptation to societal change. Our company is employee owned and the only way to divest is to leave

Exactly. Saying the younger generation lacks loyalty to their employers is not a negative statement about the younger generation.

DH is firmly Gen X and I'm a millenial, and I've had to teach him a whole new way to operate within the workplace. He was floundering and burning out professionally when we got together 7 years ago, but since I've taught him the way of working for himself, not for his employer.

He's now much more senior and far more successful.

Giving people or entities loyalty that they haven't earned isn't honourable, it's stupid and wasteful.

Now, that's not to say that young people don't work hard, they just work hard for purposes that suit their own goals. The hardest I ever worked in my life was when I worked for a boss who I saw only two or three times a year who never said anything other than "keep up the amazing work". I was the taskmaster in that role. Hard work served me, so I did it. I had no loyalty to my employer, I didn't know her.

[gaja]

The Norwegian government has launched new policy regarding government jobs, and are planning to offer "as many as possible" with location: Norway. They are also considering establishing local governmental coworking spaces, to ensure that people have some possibility for social interaction. Moving public jobs out of Oslo has been an issue for decades, and it has usually been solved by moving entire bureaus to weird places like Brønnøysund and Leikanger. Due to this, you can find whole villages where every other inhabitant has a legal degree, are experts in cultural heritage, or are tax accountants. Opening for WFH/local offices sounds like a much better solution - I would find it fun to share offices with a wide range of public employees. For my type of work it would be a great advantage to have access to experts in agriculture, aquaculture, international relations, etc.

[By the River]

The Norwegian government has launched new policy regarding government jobs, and are planning to offer "as many as possible" with location: Norway. They are also considering establishing local governmental coworking spaces, to ensure that people have some possibility for social interaction. Moving public jobs out of Oslo has been an issue for decades, and it has usually been solved by moving entire bureaus to weird places like Brønnøysund and Leikanger. Due to this, you can find whole villages where every other inhabitant has a legal degree, are experts in cultural heritage, or are tax accountants. Opening for WFH/local offices sounds like a much better solution - I would find it fun to share offices with a wide range of public employees. For my type of work it would be a great advantage to have access to experts in agriculture, aquaculture, international relations, etc.

I wish the US government would move things out of DC.  Maybe the bureau of land management in Casper, Wyoming; education department in Plano, Texas; Corps of Engineers in St. Louis; etc. 

[pound_foolish]

I wish the US government would move things out of DC.  Maybe the bureau of land management in Casper, Wyoming; education department in Plano, Texas; Corps of Engineers in St. Louis; etc.

There was a recent episode of Freakonomics (https://freakonomics.com/podcast/work-from-home/) where they discussed working from home. They spent a good bit of time on the US Patent Office's move to being entirely remote some time ago, so clearly some parts of the US government are reconsidering the need for all their employees to be in DC.

[Imma]

The Norwegian government has launched new policy regarding government jobs, and are planning to offer "as many as possible" with location: Norway. They are also considering establishing local governmental coworking spaces, to ensure that people have some possibility for social interaction. Moving public jobs out of Oslo has been an issue for decades, and it has usually been solved by moving entire bureaus to weird places like Brønnøysund and Leikanger. Due to this, you can find whole villages where every other inhabitant has a legal degree, are experts in cultural heritage, or are tax accountants. Opening for WFH/local offices sounds like a much better solution - I would find it fun to share offices with a wide range of public employees. For my type of work it would be a great advantage to have access to experts in agriculture, aquaculture, international relations, etc.

I wish the US government would move things out of DC.  Maybe the bureau of land management in Casper, Wyoming; education department in Plano, Texas; Corps of Engineers in St. Louis; etc.

We do that in our country as well, they try to move entire offices to deprived regions. It's a hassle though, because if they move a department to the edge of civilization you're bound to lose half of your staff, probably the best ones, and when you're located there it's extremely hard to find staff willing to live there. It didn't work out that well in the Netherlands. Recently the move of a military barracks to one of those remote locations was cancelled because almost all staff considered resigning. The conservative forces in the army hadn't figured out that these days not all military staff are men whose wives are obedient housewives. Most military families are dual income and since the non-military partner would be unlikely to find a job in that area, most families wouldn't be able to make ends meet after the move.

[Villanelle]

I think there is the potential consequence of people reevaluating their living situation due to more WFH. We used to be fine in a small house but we are definitely drawn to the clown house now that we need a guest room that is distinctly separate from the office as well as considering a separate space for kids to do school work. I wonder if this will help prop up the market for the larger Boomer houses as they want to downsize, though it doesn’t address the issue of millennials not being able to afford them.

How often do you have guests?  It seems like combining these three functions into two shouldn't be very challenging.  Can the kids work the the "guest room" except when you actually have guests, which for most people is rarely more than a few weeks during the school year?  Can kids do work on a dining table? 

~~~

I have a friend who, as I mentioned in another thread, was told that she won't be returning to the office any time soon and that they may never have most people back full-time.  She's job hunting because of it.  She finds she's more productive with work when *at* work.  She's a very social being and misses those 5 minute chats with the woman in accounting when she's up dropping off a Purchase Request, or just the morning greetings while getting coffee in the break room. Or, when she has a question about something, being able to pop into a senior coworker's cube to ask a quick question and get back to it.

I think there may also be some gendered roles and expectations here.  She was the one still doing the majority of the emotional labor and child-minding, as seems to have been the case in many of the Covid WFH-with-kids situations I've observed around me.  Even when the dads are great an involved, it's still 75% mom (in most, but certainly not all cases).  If they kids have a homework question and mom is in her office, they do ask mom.  Some of this will ease when kids return to in-person school full time, but many of these women still feel pressure (often self-imposed) to shove a vacuum and start meal prep during their lunch break or a gap between Zooms.  That's time they'd have coffee with a coworker if in the office. 

So I definitely understand why some people are eager to return to in-office work, and why some people do better and are more productive that way.  But I think that the OP article goes too far.  Ideally, companies would have both kinds of roles and at least when hiring (because there will be a transition time), they can make it clear and hopefully allow people to self-select into roles that are good fits for them, just as companies do now.  An extreme introvert doesn't usually take an aggressive sales role because they know they aren't a good fit. And hopefully someone who needs a commute to decompress or needs the social stimulation or the focus created by a work-specific environment doesn't take a WFH role, and vice versa.  Sure some people will take jobs whose structure isn't a good match.  I'm not sure how that's different than pre-Covid, when sometimes people took jobs that weren't a good match for other reasons.  You let people self-select and then you promote, retain, and reward those who made the right decisions, and hopefully help those who didn't but are probably otherwise solid employees find a new role.  The shy sales guy moves to the Purchasing Department where he is a much better fit. 

[ysette9]

I think there is the potential consequence of people reevaluating their living situation due to more WFH. We used to be fine in a small house but we are definitely drawn to the clown house now that we need a guest room that is distinctly separate from the office as well as considering a separate space for kids to do school work. I wonder if this will help prop up the market for the larger Boomer houses as they want to downsize, though it doesn’t address the issue of millennials not being able to afford them.

How often do you have guests?  It seems like combining these three functions into two shouldn't be very challenging.  Can the kids work the the "guest room" except when you actually have guests, which for most people is rarely more than a few weeks during the school year?  Can kids do work on a dining table? 

~~~

I have a friend who, as I mentioned in another thread, was told that she won't be returning to the office any time soon and that they may never have most people back full-time.  She's job hunting because of it.  She finds she's more productive with work when *at* work.  She's a very social being and misses those 5 minute chats with the woman in accounting when she's up dropping off a Purchase Request, or just the morning greetings while getting coffee in the break room. Or, when she has a question about something, being able to pop into a senior coworker's cube to ask a quick question and get back to it.

I think there may also be some gendered roles and expectations here.  She was the one still doing the majority of the emotional labor and child-minding, as seems to have been the case in many of the Covid WFH-with-kids situations I've observed around me.  Even when the dads are great an involved, it's still 75% mom (in most, but certainly not all cases).  If they kids have a homework question and mom is in her office, they do ask mom.  Some of this will ease when kids return to in-person school full time, but many of these women still feel pressure (often self-imposed) to shove a vacuum and start meal prep during their lunch break or a gap between Zooms.  That's time they'd have coffee with a coworker if in the office. 

So I definitely understand why some people are eager to return to in-office work, and why some people do better and are more productive that way.  But I think that the OP article goes too far.  Ideally, companies would have both kinds of roles and at least when hiring (because there will be a transition time), they can make it clear and hopefully allow people to self-select into roles that are good fits for them, just as companies do now.  An extreme introvert doesn't usually take an aggressive sales role because they know they aren't a good fit. And hopefully someone who needs a commute to decompress or needs the social stimulation or the focus created by a work-specific environment doesn't take a WFH role, and vice versa.  Sure some people will take jobs whose structure isn't a good match.  I'm not sure how that's different than pre-Covid, when sometimes people took jobs that weren't a good match for other reasons.  You let people self-select and then you promote, retain, and reward those who made the right decisions, and hopefully help those who didn't but are probably otherwise solid employees find a new role.  The shy sales guy moves to the Purchasing Department where he is a much better fit.

In our case our family is either out of state or in another country, so visits are on the order of two weeks to two months. So no, what used to work as double duty guest/office back when we lived closer to extended family and did most work at the office no longer cuts it when family visits are longer and all work is done at home. I get where you are coming from though.

[ExShredder89]

This is a great article, because this "just-because" reasoning is a hallmark of a shitty boss we're working towards FI to avoid dealing with.

Lifting weights is hard, but it makes us stronger. Similarly, it is more convenient not to have a commute or change out of our pajamas, but that doesn’t mean it’s good for us.

This is an amazing line because resistance training (or running, biking, whatever) isn't good for you because it's tough, it's good for you because it pushes the body to adapt into a more optimal baseline state. The more muscle I have from doing deadlifts and pull-ups in a controlled environment, easier it is for me to carry furniture and groceries in my daily life. The better your heart and lungs function from cardiovascular exercise, the easier it is to run for the train or run after your dog when he slips off the leash or whatever. There's benefits to coming into an office, but "just because" isn't one.

Given all this, is it possible to have a well-functioning workforce that is largely but not entirely remote and only occasionally comes together? Only with a great deal of effort.

Sounds like building a team that works well remotely is embracing discomfort! I'm not a manager yet, but from working with candid and effective managers, I've seen that you start off a good relationship with your people by trusting them. You'll occasionally screw up, but experimenting and allowing yourself to fail is how you learn.

Most people definitely hold back on Slack and video chats - I don't feel like I've met a colleague until I've grabbed lunch with them and had a casual chat with them. I like the people who've joined my company since we started WFH, but it's to their detriment that we've never sat down face to face for lunch or a beer. The flexibility of remote work way outweighs that, IMO.

Who is this guy, anyway? As far as I can tell, he's one of those LinkedIn famous-for-being-famous guys.

[atlbrew]

I think the WFH culture will shift (at least for manufacturing, retail, service sectors) more quickly as resentment grows from frontline employees who don't have a "virtual" option.

[PDXTabs]

Due to my previous job I was familiar with this data before the pandemic. But:

Gallup discovered that engagement climbs when employees spend some time working remotely and some time working in a location with their coworkers. Weekly face time with coworkers and managers seems to affect engagement: the optimal engagement boost occurs when employees spend 60% to 80% of their time working off-site -- or three to four days in a five-day workweek. - https://www.gallup.com/workplace/283985/working-remotely-effective-gallup-research-says-yes.aspx

This is consistent with my own experience and also how I try to work nowadays.