6 ms·

I have never seen a remote worker trying to push an office worker to work from home because it's more efficient. I have seen plenty of office workers trying to

I have never seen a remote worker trying to push an office worker to work from home because it's more efficient. I have seen plenty of office workers trying to push remote workers into the office because of synergies and "water cooler chat". It's not the same thing.

paulcole 3y ago
I never mentioned efficiency or any other justification for remote/hybrid work. We’re talking personal preference here. If someone’s preference is to work in a company where 100% of the employees are in office, then someone at that same company who pushes for remote work or hybrid work is pushing their preference on someone else. But that is 100% fine. Just as it’s fine for someone to advocate against remote or hybrid work. Neither are right or wrong.
- ResearchCode 3y ago
  I think there is a big difference advocating for what's best for you and letting everyone else do their thing, and trying to control other people to please you better.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    Yes, it’s true that those are different things. But the remote vs. in-office argument isn’t as simple as “do your own thing.” Sure, it can be made that simple, but it doesn’t represent the situation well. Some subset of people who want to work in an office want to do so only with people who only work in an office as well. For these people, “everyone do your own thing” is not a satisfying solution. And it doesn’t have to be! Work doesn’t have to satisfy everyone. If you work with people like this and say, “just do your own thing, it works for me” then you are trying to control other people because it pleases you better. And again, there is nothing wrong with this. You are looking out for yourself, which is fine. It’s then up to your employer to make a decision on policy and then the employees decide if that’s a policy they want to work under.
    - ResearchCode 3y ago
      No, I am not controlling anyone in that case. I am treating other people as professionals and letting them structure their work the way they think is best. Maybe it would be even better for me if they all worked from home, but I am not telling them to. I am questioning why the office workers try to make other people return to office with bad faith arguments (water cooler talk and synergies), when remote workers seem just happy to be working from home, without pressuring office workers to come and join them.
      - paulcole 3y ago
        > I am treating other people as professionals and letting them structure their work the way they think is best Again, you're ignoring that the office workers preference isn't simply to work in an office. It's often to work in an office (only or primarily) with other people also in that office. > I am questioning why the office workers try to make other people return to office with bad faith arguments (water cooler talk and synergies), when remote workers seem just happy to be working from home, without pressuring office workers to come and join them. You're making the bad-faith argument that a person in the office and a person working at home is a win-win situation. The remote workers may be just as happy, but those in the office are not just as happy. I get it. People like remote work. People want to protect their right to work remotely. But at least acknowledge that some people are negatively affected by the push for remote work. The situation doesn't need to be a win-win! Somebody can lose out on what they think is best for them. That's 100% fine. It's up to the company to make a decision and then up to the employees to decide how they'll react to that decision.
        ResearchCode 3y ago
        They have plenty of other office workers to talk to. For some reason, that is not enough, and the office workers need a better argument than "real product development happens at the water cooler". For the employer to make an informed decision it's better if the arguments are honest. It can be a large win-small loss situation too. Remote workers gain two hours of commute back and forty hours of focused work. Office workers lose the open floor plan vibe (it's called back to office but tech workers don't have offices) and ability to push around their colleagues, or whichever the actual reason is. I don't understand it fully. It doesn't seem morally justifiable to me, and they encroach more on the professional autonomy on the remote worker than the remote worker does to them. The office workers wouldn't like it if they were being coerced to work from home for some BS reason.
- eropple 3y ago
  > If someone’s preference is to work in a company where 100% of the employees are in office, then Then they should get along great with the people whose preference is any number of other ways that they dictate terms to the rest of society. Fortunately, those people are losing, and this is good.
asoneth 3y ago
Remote workers do not push coworkers to work from home but they do push them to spend their workday in video conferencing software. You many not feel like this is a substantial imposition, but many people feel that it is easier to have discussions in a physical room with things like physical whiteboards and eye contact. Using digital analogues can be nearly as effective, but it requires everyone adopt new processes.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I worked with teams pre-pandemic which had rules to the effect of if anyone was on a video call, everyone should be on an individual video call, which I'd argue is really the only way to have the remote people be 100% participants. So, yeah, if 75% of people on a team are in an office they're forced to work as if they were remote to a significant degree whether they like it or not.
  - asoneth 3y ago
    Yeah. I vividly remember how it felt to drive all the way to the office one day only to spend my day in video calls. It was essentially like working from home with a longer drive and worse lighting.

paulcole 3y ago

I never mentioned efficiency or any other justification for remote/hybrid work. We’re talking personal preference here. If someone’s preference is to work in a company where 100% of the employees are in office, then someone at that same company who pushes for remote work or hybrid work is pushing their preference on someone else. But that is 100% fine. Just as it’s fine for someone to advocate against remote or hybrid work. Neither are right or wrong.

ResearchCode 3y ago
I think there is a big difference advocating for what's best for you and letting everyone else do their thing, and trying to control other people to please you better.
- paulcole 3y ago
  Yes, it’s true that those are different things. But the remote vs. in-office argument isn’t as simple as “do your own thing.” Sure, it can be made that simple, but it doesn’t represent the situation well. Some subset of people who want to work in an office want to do so only with people who only work in an office as well. For these people, “everyone do your own thing” is not a satisfying solution. And it doesn’t have to be! Work doesn’t have to satisfy everyone. If you work with people like this and say, “just do your own thing, it works for me” then you are trying to control other people because it pleases you better. And again, there is nothing wrong with this. You are looking out for yourself, which is fine. It’s then up to your employer to make a decision on policy and then the employees decide if that’s a policy they want to work under.
  - ResearchCode 3y ago
    No, I am not controlling anyone in that case. I am treating other people as professionals and letting them structure their work the way they think is best. Maybe it would be even better for me if they all worked from home, but I am not telling them to. I am questioning why the office workers try to make other people return to office with bad faith arguments (water cooler talk and synergies), when remote workers seem just happy to be working from home, without pressuring office workers to come and join them.
    - paulcole 3y ago
      > I am treating other people as professionals and letting them structure their work the way they think is best Again, you're ignoring that the office workers preference isn't simply to work in an office. It's often to work in an office (only or primarily) with other people also in that office. > I am questioning why the office workers try to make other people return to office with bad faith arguments (water cooler talk and synergies), when remote workers seem just happy to be working from home, without pressuring office workers to come and join them. You're making the bad-faith argument that a person in the office and a person working at home is a win-win situation. The remote workers may be just as happy, but those in the office are not just as happy. I get it. People like remote work. People want to protect their right to work remotely. But at least acknowledge that some people are negatively affected by the push for remote work. The situation doesn't need to be a win-win! Somebody can lose out on what they think is best for them. That's 100% fine. It's up to the company to make a decision and then up to the employees to decide how they'll react to that decision.
      - ResearchCode 3y ago
        They have plenty of other office workers to talk to. For some reason, that is not enough, and the office workers need a better argument than "real product development happens at the water cooler". For the employer to make an informed decision it's better if the arguments are honest. It can be a large win-small loss situation too. Remote workers gain two hours of commute back and forty hours of focused work. Office workers lose the open floor plan vibe (it's called back to office but tech workers don't have offices) and ability to push around their colleagues, or whichever the actual reason is. I don't understand it fully. It doesn't seem morally justifiable to me, and they encroach more on the professional autonomy on the remote worker than the remote worker does to them. The office workers wouldn't like it if they were being coerced to work from home for some BS reason.
eropple 3y ago
> If someone’s preference is to work in a company where 100% of the employees are in office, then Then they should get along great with the people whose preference is any number of other ways that they dictate terms to the rest of society. Fortunately, those people are losing, and this is good.

asoneth 3y ago

Remote workers do not push coworkers to work from home but they do push them to spend their workday in video conferencing software. You many not feel like this is a substantial imposition, but many people feel that it is easier to have discussions in a physical room with things like physical whiteboards and eye contact. Using digital analogues can be nearly as effective, but it requires everyone adopt new processes.

ghaff 3y ago
I worked with teams pre-pandemic which had rules to the effect of if anyone was on a video call, everyone should be on an individual video call, which I'd argue is really the only way to have the remote people be 100% participants. So, yeah, if 75% of people on a team are in an office they're forced to work as if they were remote to a significant degree whether they like it or not.
- asoneth 3y ago
  Yeah. I vividly remember how it felt to drive all the way to the office one day only to spend my day in video calls. It was essentially like working from home with a longer drive and worse lighting.