6 ms·

Money, but that has diminishing value. The quality of life I would lose by going into the office 5 days a week is too high.

SoftTalker 2y ago
I mean this is all completely relative to the other options available. If all/most employers start mandating a return to office then we'll find out where people really stand on the issue. Will they suck it up and work from the office to keep their generous paychecks? Will they stand on principle and try to find another employer who will let them work remote and who they like working for in other respects? Will they strike out on their own and become freelancers who work on their own terms? Have they already saved FU money and will just retire?
- irrational 2y ago
  I'll just do what I do now. Go into the office (I am fortunate that I live maybe 15 minutes away), card in, spend 30 minutes there so it detects my computer use on the network, then go home and work from there. Or, I just won't go in and keep doing my work until they call me on it. My work can easily be done 100% remote and most of my coworkers are in other countries, so it is crazy that I need to go into an office.
  - bboygravity 2y ago
    It's also crazy that any office worker needs to go to an office (and waste time in traffic and pollute, unpaid, for work). This could all be fixed within 1 day if government would mandate companies to pay you for the duration you're away from home for work (including travel time). It would fix pollution, traffic jams, housing shortages, fake employee shortages, mental/stress issues and potentially even declining birth rates. But I guess "because boss says so" is a more important argument to not fix all of those things.
    - tuna74 2y ago
      So if you walk to work you should get more pay than your neighbor that bikes to work if you work at the same location?
      - arcticbull 2y ago
        If an Uber Eats guy brings you food from down the street, they get some amount of money. If they bring you food from across town, they get much more money to cover the extra time they spend driving. In both cases they brought you McDonalds. That said, I think it's more like if you're expected to work 40 hours per week, and your employer mandates you come into work an hour each way, then you should either be expected to work 32 productive hours -- or you should be compensated for 48 hours. But I guess this has always been the difference between exempt and non-exempt employees.
        paulcole 2y ago
        > if you're expected to work 40 hours per week, and your employer mandates you come into work an hour each way then you should either be expected to work 32 productive hours -- or you should be compensated for 48 hours. That’s this person’s fault for choosing to live an hour from the office. I’ve always realized how stupid commuting is and the longest commute of my adult life (I’m currently 41) has been a 30-minute bicycle ride. Now the people who live an hour from the office want less work or more pay than me? I say just fire them instead. Or just let everybody negotiate the deal they want for themselves and let them price in their cost of commute or whatever into their ask. If somebody who lives an hour away wants to work 20% fewer hours or make 20% more money, let them shoot their shot and ask for it.
        arcticbull 2y ago
        Where do you draw the line between "it's the employees fault for not wanting to live next to work in an industrial office park adjacent to a homeless encampment" and "it's the employers fault for insisting people commute in when they can achieve just as much from home without?" Do you expect people who change jobs to only work at employers they're proximate to - or to sell their homes each time? What if moving means the kids have to change schools? Or a married couple, do they both have to change jobs? My employer happened to move offices, so my 10 minute walk turned into 45-60 minutes multi-modal. Does that mean I should be fired for their decision to move to a lower cost jurisdiction when I can provide the same value? In that case am I just being fired for not asking "how high?" I think in practice it ends up being "is this a hot job market or not" and if yes, then the employee gets to dictate, and if not the employer does. This doesn't really resolve the underlying issue though. I think a simpler model is just to allow employees to expense commute costs at the ~IRS rate. If the employer doesn't want that they can choose to hire only people nearby. If they move offices they should factor that into their cost estimates. But what do I know, maybe they should just fire everyone ;)
  - arcticbull 2y ago
    This has come to be known as "coffee badging" where I work, heh. I usually schedule my in-person meetings in a block, come in for that, then go back home to do my coding. It's nice to get a change of scenery. I am far less efficient this way of course since I lose 90-120 minutes a day, but if that's how my employer wants me to spend my time... I guess that's why they call it "compensation."
- geodel 2y ago
  The problem here is with multiple tens of thousands employees in IT/Software field in Amazon and their pay pretty close to top among employers at that scale, executives remain absolutely convinced no significant churn is expected. Further to that point people who are indispensable and absolutely want/need remote work have their managers and even 1-2 level above in confidence to get their demand fulfilled like always before. This leaves majority of employees who hate these rules but no leverage or wherewithal to get what they want from management which has no reason to listen. > Will they strike out on their own and become freelancers who work on their own terms A few of course can but to most no one including Amazon will pay that kind of money for writing API which calls API which calls API.. This is what most people do at the end of day. Retirement sounds most reasonable for people who have earned and saved enough and not trying to reach or compare to earnings of directors, VPs and above.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
    I will two additional points. Executives assume that the upcoming recession ( assuming it is a recession ) will make most people hesitate. It is a rational, if an annoying calculation. Separate issue that is semi-related to the timing, is the benefit of not having to lay people off -- some will quit. Naturally, some would question the wisdom of making people, who can quit, quit, but I get the feeling that the management,as a group, is pissed off about the whole WFH.
    - geodel 2y ago
      Indeed. Both points make total sense. Though on quitting part I am not sure if numbers would significant enough to meet any internal target.
- vikingerik 2y ago
  Well, the other outcome: it's moot because the employers don't have enough teeth to enforce the mandates. They're not firing workers who simply ignore the mandates and continue to work remotely anyway. Cutting workers with institutional knowledge and experience is a bigger loss than whatever lesser productivity there might be from not being in-person. Workers actually have the upper hand here and they're using it. It's like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy - the companies are saying "I declare RTO" but nothing happens.
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    I seem to remember quite a few examples posted to HN over the past few years of companies "declaring RTO" and then finding that rank-and-file employees largely just ignored it, and the companies never did anything about it because they can't fire everyone. "I declare RTO" can only work if you have critical enough mass of employees who believe the bluff and actually come into the office. This is definitely an area where a workforce that is organized and works together could hold out forever, but the tech worker mantra is "unions bad" so collective action is difficult.
  - Ferret7446 2y ago
    > They're not firing workers who simply ignore the mandates Citation needed. They may not be literally firing people for simply ignoring the mandates, but they sure as hell putting a mark on your performance record (at least at one big tech company). IIUC one of the reasons for the original RTO mandates was to get people to leave (either willingly or through perf review pressure).
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Market competition will decide which school of thought is right. IMHO, technology companies with stockholders will eventually have to explain why they spend so much money renting huge-ass random buildings for no good reason, and why their asses are being kicked by other companies that don't encumber themselves similarly.
- moomin 2y ago
  The joke is, this is what it comes down to: a question of who has the most negotiating power. It’s not a question of what’s best for the employees. It’s not even a question of what’s best for the company. It’s all about who has coercive power.
TuringNYC 2y ago
>> The quality of life I would lose by going into the office 5 days a week is too high. Putting aside quality of life (though I agree that is a huge consideration) -- even when people show up to the office, they are on Zoom calls most of the day.
- varispeed 2y ago
  But they are using the property, meaning it is keeping its value. The whole point of RTO, so that investment funds, landlords don't lose money they put into commercial property. Really people forced into office for no reason should at least be given share of the gain they make for the owners.
  - snapcaster 2y ago
    This argument has never made any sense to me. Why would this collusion happen? I don't see any incentive alignment unless you're claiming that landlords are primary investors in all these RTO companies and can force something like this

SoftTalker 2y ago

I mean this is all completely relative to the other options available. If all/most employers start mandating a return to office then we'll find out where people really stand on the issue. Will they suck it up and work from the office to keep their generous paychecks? Will they stand on principle and try to find another employer who will let them work remote and who they like working for in other respects? Will they strike out on their own and become freelancers who work on their own terms? Have they already saved FU money and will just retire?

irrational 2y ago
I'll just do what I do now. Go into the office (I am fortunate that I live maybe 15 minutes away), card in, spend 30 minutes there so it detects my computer use on the network, then go home and work from there. Or, I just won't go in and keep doing my work until they call me on it. My work can easily be done 100% remote and most of my coworkers are in other countries, so it is crazy that I need to go into an office.
- bboygravity 2y ago
  It's also crazy that any office worker needs to go to an office (and waste time in traffic and pollute, unpaid, for work). This could all be fixed within 1 day if government would mandate companies to pay you for the duration you're away from home for work (including travel time). It would fix pollution, traffic jams, housing shortages, fake employee shortages, mental/stress issues and potentially even declining birth rates. But I guess "because boss says so" is a more important argument to not fix all of those things.
  - tuna74 2y ago
    So if you walk to work you should get more pay than your neighbor that bikes to work if you work at the same location?
    - arcticbull 2y ago
      If an Uber Eats guy brings you food from down the street, they get some amount of money. If they bring you food from across town, they get much more money to cover the extra time they spend driving. In both cases they brought you McDonalds. That said, I think it's more like if you're expected to work 40 hours per week, and your employer mandates you come into work an hour each way, then you should either be expected to work 32 productive hours -- or you should be compensated for 48 hours. But I guess this has always been the difference between exempt and non-exempt employees.
      - paulcole 2y ago
        > if you're expected to work 40 hours per week, and your employer mandates you come into work an hour each way then you should either be expected to work 32 productive hours -- or you should be compensated for 48 hours. That’s this person’s fault for choosing to live an hour from the office. I’ve always realized how stupid commuting is and the longest commute of my adult life (I’m currently 41) has been a 30-minute bicycle ride. Now the people who live an hour from the office want less work or more pay than me? I say just fire them instead. Or just let everybody negotiate the deal they want for themselves and let them price in their cost of commute or whatever into their ask. If somebody who lives an hour away wants to work 20% fewer hours or make 20% more money, let them shoot their shot and ask for it.
        arcticbull 2y ago
        Where do you draw the line between "it's the employees fault for not wanting to live next to work in an industrial office park adjacent to a homeless encampment" and "it's the employers fault for insisting people commute in when they can achieve just as much from home without?" Do you expect people who change jobs to only work at employers they're proximate to - or to sell their homes each time? What if moving means the kids have to change schools? Or a married couple, do they both have to change jobs? My employer happened to move offices, so my 10 minute walk turned into 45-60 minutes multi-modal. Does that mean I should be fired for their decision to move to a lower cost jurisdiction when I can provide the same value? In that case am I just being fired for not asking "how high?" I think in practice it ends up being "is this a hot job market or not" and if yes, then the employee gets to dictate, and if not the employer does. This doesn't really resolve the underlying issue though. I think a simpler model is just to allow employees to expense commute costs at the ~IRS rate. If the employer doesn't want that they can choose to hire only people nearby. If they move offices they should factor that into their cost estimates. But what do I know, maybe they should just fire everyone ;)
- arcticbull 2y ago
  This has come to be known as "coffee badging" where I work, heh. I usually schedule my in-person meetings in a block, come in for that, then go back home to do my coding. It's nice to get a change of scenery. I am far less efficient this way of course since I lose 90-120 minutes a day, but if that's how my employer wants me to spend my time... I guess that's why they call it "compensation."
geodel 2y ago
The problem here is with multiple tens of thousands employees in IT/Software field in Amazon and their pay pretty close to top among employers at that scale, executives remain absolutely convinced no significant churn is expected. Further to that point people who are indispensable and absolutely want/need remote work have their managers and even 1-2 level above in confidence to get their demand fulfilled like always before. This leaves majority of employees who hate these rules but no leverage or wherewithal to get what they want from management which has no reason to listen. > Will they strike out on their own and become freelancers who work on their own terms A few of course can but to most no one including Amazon will pay that kind of money for writing API which calls API which calls API.. This is what most people do at the end of day. Retirement sounds most reasonable for people who have earned and saved enough and not trying to reach or compare to earnings of directors, VPs and above.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 2y ago
  I will two additional points. Executives assume that the upcoming recession ( assuming it is a recession ) will make most people hesitate. It is a rational, if an annoying calculation. Separate issue that is semi-related to the timing, is the benefit of not having to lay people off -- some will quit. Naturally, some would question the wisdom of making people, who can quit, quit, but I get the feeling that the management,as a group, is pissed off about the whole WFH.
  - geodel 2y ago
    Indeed. Both points make total sense. Though on quitting part I am not sure if numbers would significant enough to meet any internal target.
vikingerik 2y ago
Well, the other outcome: it's moot because the employers don't have enough teeth to enforce the mandates. They're not firing workers who simply ignore the mandates and continue to work remotely anyway. Cutting workers with institutional knowledge and experience is a bigger loss than whatever lesser productivity there might be from not being in-person. Workers actually have the upper hand here and they're using it. It's like Michael Scott declaring bankruptcy - the companies are saying "I declare RTO" but nothing happens.
- ryandrake 2y ago
  I seem to remember quite a few examples posted to HN over the past few years of companies "declaring RTO" and then finding that rank-and-file employees largely just ignored it, and the companies never did anything about it because they can't fire everyone. "I declare RTO" can only work if you have critical enough mass of employees who believe the bluff and actually come into the office. This is definitely an area where a workforce that is organized and works together could hold out forever, but the tech worker mantra is "unions bad" so collective action is difficult.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  > They're not firing workers who simply ignore the mandates Citation needed. They may not be literally firing people for simply ignoring the mandates, but they sure as hell putting a mark on your performance record (at least at one big tech company). IIUC one of the reasons for the original RTO mandates was to get people to leave (either willingly or through perf review pressure).
CamperBob2 2y ago
Market competition will decide which school of thought is right. IMHO, technology companies with stockholders will eventually have to explain why they spend so much money renting huge-ass random buildings for no good reason, and why their asses are being kicked by other companies that don't encumber themselves similarly.
moomin 2y ago
The joke is, this is what it comes down to: a question of who has the most negotiating power. It’s not a question of what’s best for the employees. It’s not even a question of what’s best for the company. It’s all about who has coercive power.

TuringNYC 2y ago

>> The quality of life I would lose by going into the office 5 days a week is too high. Putting aside quality of life (though I agree that is a huge consideration) -- even when people show up to the office, they are on Zoom calls most of the day.

varispeed 2y ago
But they are using the property, meaning it is keeping its value. The whole point of RTO, so that investment funds, landlords don't lose money they put into commercial property. Really people forced into office for no reason should at least be given share of the gain they make for the owners.
- snapcaster 2y ago
  This argument has never made any sense to me. Why would this collusion happen? I don't see any incentive alignment unless you're claiming that landlords are primary investors in all these RTO companies and can force something like this