5 ms·

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. Mayb

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.
  - paulcole 3y ago
    > For some reason, that is not enough, and the office workers need a better argument than "real product development happens at the water cooler". Here's the thing: they don't need a better argument. They don't need an argument at all. It's their preference. > 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. Here's the thing: it doesn't need to be morally justifiable to you or anyone else. It's a preference for working in-office with other people in-office. I think you do understand this it's just that you don't like it because you have your own preference.
    - ResearchCode 3y ago
      You don't need an argument for a preference. If you try to coerce other people according to your preference, you need an argument, as you would in any other context. For some reason, the RTO arguments are very bad. Is there some part the proponents can't say out loud? No. It's possible my stock options would be worth more if the office workers adopted the more efficient form of work from home. Maybe the hybrid meetings would be more enjoyable fully remote. I still wouldn't think about trying to coerce them into that with talk about synergy or the online version of water coolers. That's a bad thing to do. Let them enjoy the office, and others remote.
      - paulcole 3y ago
        > If you try to coerce other people according to your preference, you need an argument, as you would in any other context. You may think you're more likely to get your way if you have a compelling argument but history has proven that's not always true. The argument is, "I would like this better." > For reason, the RTO arguments are very bad. Is there some part the proponents can't say out loud? No, I believe the part being said out loud is, "We prefer to work at a company where all employees are in office." That's all you need to say. The only people I've ever heard talk about water coolers are the dismissive WFH people.
        3y ago
closeparen 3y ago
If we didn’t have to collaborate then that would be a fair statement. But when we have to work closely together, doing it on Zoom is excruciating.

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.
- paulcole 3y ago
  > For some reason, that is not enough, and the office workers need a better argument than "real product development happens at the water cooler". Here's the thing: they don't need a better argument. They don't need an argument at all. It's their preference. > 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. Here's the thing: it doesn't need to be morally justifiable to you or anyone else. It's a preference for working in-office with other people in-office. I think you do understand this it's just that you don't like it because you have your own preference.
  - ResearchCode 3y ago
    You don't need an argument for a preference. If you try to coerce other people according to your preference, you need an argument, as you would in any other context. For some reason, the RTO arguments are very bad. Is there some part the proponents can't say out loud? No. It's possible my stock options would be worth more if the office workers adopted the more efficient form of work from home. Maybe the hybrid meetings would be more enjoyable fully remote. I still wouldn't think about trying to coerce them into that with talk about synergy or the online version of water coolers. That's a bad thing to do. Let them enjoy the office, and others remote.
    - paulcole 3y ago
      > If you try to coerce other people according to your preference, you need an argument, as you would in any other context. You may think you're more likely to get your way if you have a compelling argument but history has proven that's not always true. The argument is, "I would like this better." > For reason, the RTO arguments are very bad. Is there some part the proponents can't say out loud? No, I believe the part being said out loud is, "We prefer to work at a company where all employees are in office." That's all you need to say. The only people I've ever heard talk about water coolers are the dismissive WFH people.
      - 3y ago

closeparen 3y ago

If we didn’t have to collaborate then that would be a fair statement. But when we have to work closely together, doing it on Zoom is excruciating.