7 ms·

"I" "I" "I" This works great for you but for many it doesn't. Both are valid perspectives.

dogman144 4y ago
But one “I” is asking for others to center their life around work for the sake of socialization, the other “I” is happy for the extroverted employee to find that extroversion however suits them, just leave me out of it. Those don’t seem equal asks
- mym1990 4y ago
  No where did I see OP ask for others to center their life around work for socialization. They admitted that many companies are cut off from their job search as a result, BUT ALSO THAT THEY ARE OKAY WITH THAT. You're twisting it completely.
  - dogman144 4y ago
    No, see what I mean in another thread. Return-to-office is in large part steered by public opinion and commercial real estate issues. For every bold company that leans into remote, the majority rest check the public temperature and do what seems in line pending open revolt form their employees or competitors offering remote. So much of the public temperature around remote work is oriented around heavy support from public figures for return to office. By some employees supporting it as well, everyone risks getting swept back into office whether they like it or not and don’t have a job with enough power (like a talented dev) to go against the grain and protest. If you’re not in those jobs with leverage and at a company considering RTO or not, Employees supporting remote work are espousing very safe career views, and the employees who disagree risk going against the grain with mgmt who want the office back so stay silent. So this is what I mean by OP’s opinions mean everyone else gets swept in it as well.
    - mym1990 4y ago
      So you are advocating for the censorship of someone who supports return to office based on the fact that it would create a sweeping effect across the industry that would force you back into a cubicle? Yeah, no thanks.
      - dogman144 4y ago
        The sweeping effect is already happening. The Mayor of NYC and state governor are directly petitioning companies to “fill our downtown!” For Pete’s sake. So, with that in mind, I’m advocating for employees who want to go back to consider how their vocal opinions affect other employees who don’t want it, which based on the ghost-town hybrid office attempts and midtown NYC being at like 40% capacity are a critical mass of workers, to understand how their vocal-ness gets co-opted by entities that care a lot less about that worker’s having a friend group and more about commercial real estate, getting commuters back and generally abstract “well this is how it’s always done” logic, and to understand that they as employees add the final piece to making RTO happen in a way that harms all employees who aren’t in nimble jobs like SWE but should still be able to see their families grow up even if they don’t know how to code. On the remote work side, you have largely tech companies which are down for it no issue but aren’t most companies, and then you have employees who just want to see their families and soccer games and get to know their spouses before age 60. This population gets ignored by the somewhat very powerful stakeholders for RTO by wrapping up the argument in abstract “national /personal meaning” arguments as if the office is the only way to get those, and then the addition is that the stay-at-home employees are pajama-wearing slackers who don’t understand this greater good. But, as long as employees don’t budge by and large and hop companies for remote, this is in balance for both the employees that want to be remote and the ones that want an office. But when employees who want to RTO and start advocating for it, it’s changed. They add the final piece for employers and stakeholders who ultimately just want commercial rent paid and downtown lunch traffic to say “see, employees want RTO too!” This is all over LinkedIn and op-eds consistently. The sweeps start happening, and everyone comes in, all because Bob wanted easy access to after-work pub experiences. At the cost of other employees’ family lives and literal hours of their day on a commute. I’m not advocating for censorship, I’m advocating for candor in evaluating what’s going on.

But one “I” is asking for others to center their life around work for the sake of socialization, the other “I” is happy for the extroverted employee to find that extroversion however suits them, just leave me out of it. Those don’t seem equal asks

mym1990 4y ago
No where did I see OP ask for others to center their life around work for socialization. They admitted that many companies are cut off from their job search as a result, BUT ALSO THAT THEY ARE OKAY WITH THAT. You're twisting it completely.
- dogman144 4y ago
  No, see what I mean in another thread. Return-to-office is in large part steered by public opinion and commercial real estate issues. For every bold company that leans into remote, the majority rest check the public temperature and do what seems in line pending open revolt form their employees or competitors offering remote. So much of the public temperature around remote work is oriented around heavy support from public figures for return to office. By some employees supporting it as well, everyone risks getting swept back into office whether they like it or not and don’t have a job with enough power (like a talented dev) to go against the grain and protest. If you’re not in those jobs with leverage and at a company considering RTO or not, Employees supporting remote work are espousing very safe career views, and the employees who disagree risk going against the grain with mgmt who want the office back so stay silent. So this is what I mean by OP’s opinions mean everyone else gets swept in it as well.
  - mym1990 4y ago
    So you are advocating for the censorship of someone who supports return to office based on the fact that it would create a sweeping effect across the industry that would force you back into a cubicle? Yeah, no thanks.
    - dogman144 4y ago
      The sweeping effect is already happening. The Mayor of NYC and state governor are directly petitioning companies to “fill our downtown!” For Pete’s sake. So, with that in mind, I’m advocating for employees who want to go back to consider how their vocal opinions affect other employees who don’t want it, which based on the ghost-town hybrid office attempts and midtown NYC being at like 40% capacity are a critical mass of workers, to understand how their vocal-ness gets co-opted by entities that care a lot less about that worker’s having a friend group and more about commercial real estate, getting commuters back and generally abstract “well this is how it’s always done” logic, and to understand that they as employees add the final piece to making RTO happen in a way that harms all employees who aren’t in nimble jobs like SWE but should still be able to see their families grow up even if they don’t know how to code. On the remote work side, you have largely tech companies which are down for it no issue but aren’t most companies, and then you have employees who just want to see their families and soccer games and get to know their spouses before age 60. This population gets ignored by the somewhat very powerful stakeholders for RTO by wrapping up the argument in abstract “national /personal meaning” arguments as if the office is the only way to get those, and then the addition is that the stay-at-home employees are pajama-wearing slackers who don’t understand this greater good. But, as long as employees don’t budge by and large and hop companies for remote, this is in balance for both the employees that want to be remote and the ones that want an office. But when employees who want to RTO and start advocating for it, it’s changed. They add the final piece for employers and stakeholders who ultimately just want commercial rent paid and downtown lunch traffic to say “see, employees want RTO too!” This is all over LinkedIn and op-eds consistently. The sweeps start happening, and everyone comes in, all because Bob wanted easy access to after-work pub experiences. At the cost of other employees’ family lives and literal hours of their day on a commute. I’m not advocating for censorship, I’m advocating for candor in evaluating what’s going on.