7 ms·

> If what I wrote so far resonated with you, and especially if you can influence this, please stop this farce and start truly supporting remote work. It's not

> If what I wrote so far resonated with you, and especially if you can influence this, please stop this farce and start truly supporting remote work. It's not a farce, it's something else and you don't have to like it. Pick a good term and try to get it to stick, and then look for companies that don't use that term.

Draiken 4y ago
I have to disagree with this because that's not what I've seen in the wild. If everyone made a clear distinction between remote and async, I'd agree with you 100%. But the term "remote" is in my view intentionally conflated with async most of the time. Companies will advertise themselves as remote, remote friendly, remote first, etc and then have a culture of completely synchronous work. That's why I called it a farce.
- rsstack 4y ago
  > in my view > intentionally conflated I don't think you should have an opinion that people are misrepresenting something maliciously without being able to back it up. Your interpretation of the term "remote-friendly" is not the common interpretation. They don't need to change how they work. You don't have to work at those places. If you're confusing about what the terms mean _in practice_, talk to people who work at different places and look at job postings and try to infer from usage what the terms mean. A Google search for "what is a remote friendly job" can also be helpful. I strongly disagree with the jump from "I'm confused about what a term means" to "People should change what they do to match what I understand they say they do". I don't think you did that intentionally, as it's a common mistake when people are surprised by a term's meaning, but it's still a wrong reaction.
  - Draiken 4y ago
    >Your interpretation of the term "remote-friendly" is not the common interpretation. Maybe on a general level that's not the common interpretation, but in software that's a different story. You don't expect to join a remote-friendly company for software development and then have to work in a strict time regiment with meetings as one of the default means of communication, for example. Async is implied - at varying degrees - when you apply for a remote-friendly company. > You don't have to work at those places. You'll have a hard time finding a job opening where they say "we actually work as a typical office, just remotely". You can probably get that answered when interviewing, but that's not a guarantee by any means. I've joined multiple companies that were "remote-friendly" and boasted all the flexibility of async work, only to find out it's not quite real. Could I be unlucky and everyone else has a different experience? Sure. Is it likely though?

Draiken 4y ago

I have to disagree with this because that's not what I've seen in the wild. If everyone made a clear distinction between remote and async, I'd agree with you 100%. But the term "remote" is in my view intentionally conflated with async most of the time. Companies will advertise themselves as remote, remote friendly, remote first, etc and then have a culture of completely synchronous work. That's why I called it a farce.

rsstack 4y ago
> in my view > intentionally conflated I don't think you should have an opinion that people are misrepresenting something maliciously without being able to back it up. Your interpretation of the term "remote-friendly" is not the common interpretation. They don't need to change how they work. You don't have to work at those places. If you're confusing about what the terms mean _in practice_, talk to people who work at different places and look at job postings and try to infer from usage what the terms mean. A Google search for "what is a remote friendly job" can also be helpful. I strongly disagree with the jump from "I'm confused about what a term means" to "People should change what they do to match what I understand they say they do". I don't think you did that intentionally, as it's a common mistake when people are surprised by a term's meaning, but it's still a wrong reaction.
- Draiken 4y ago
  >Your interpretation of the term "remote-friendly" is not the common interpretation. Maybe on a general level that's not the common interpretation, but in software that's a different story. You don't expect to join a remote-friendly company for software development and then have to work in a strict time regiment with meetings as one of the default means of communication, for example. Async is implied - at varying degrees - when you apply for a remote-friendly company. > You don't have to work at those places. You'll have a hard time finding a job opening where they say "we actually work as a typical office, just remotely". You can probably get that answered when interviewing, but that's not a guarantee by any means. I've joined multiple companies that were "remote-friendly" and boasted all the flexibility of async work, only to find out it's not quite real. Could I be unlucky and everyone else has a different experience? Sure. Is it likely though?