18 ms·

Microsoft is officially sending employees back to the office

• bluedino 1y ago
  If you search for "Return to office September" you see a bunch of companies announcing it. Microsoft, NBCUniversal, Ford Motor Company...
• toomuchtodo 1y ago
  https://code-cwa.org/organize https://code-cwa.org/organize Why Microsoft Has Accepted Unions, Unlike Its Rivals - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/business/economy/microsoft-corporate-progressive-labor.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/business/economy/microsof... | | https://archive.today/ES3SF https://archive.today/ES3SF - February 28th, 2024 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_and_unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_and_unions
  • matchbok 1y ago
    [dead]
• christhecaribou 1y ago
  Microsoft is committed to becoming as terrible as Amazon, I guess.
  • sublimefire 1y ago
    Folks at Amazon at least earn more.
  • SilverElfin 1y ago
    I think they’re realizing that there is no meaningful competition for these gigantic corporations. They’re worth 4 trillion. They saw Google got away without any consequence on the Chrome anti trust issue. They know they can keep bundling products, building new dark patterns, throwing up walled gardens, loss leading competitors (like Teams did with Slack), and all of that. And I’m sure Satya is currying favor with Trump like the rest of them to keep things that way. When you have such a situation, your company can get away with anything. If there was competition, workers and customers could go elsewhere.
    • christhecaribou 1y ago
      It just makes me sick growing up in the USA, hearing about the beauty of “competition”, and then growing up to see that not only does it not exist… they cannot even be bothered to pretend.
      • geodel 1y ago
        > It just makes me sick growing up in the USA, As always when feeling terrible check out other places to if and where better things exist.
        • gambiting 1y ago
          I mean, doesn't that just make you feel worse?
  • VirusNewbie 1y ago
    AWS SDEs are way more competent than Azure SDEs.
    • selkin 1y ago
      Both organizations have some great and some horrible engineers. I don’t think that is the cause for the difference in their products quality.
• incone123 1y ago
  Are they going to claim remote working is to blame for the unpopularity of Windows 11? Maybe getting together in the office will help come up with better ideas than just more ads and telemetry?
  • typewithrhythm 1y ago
    More likely they have decided popularity is irrelevant since they are so entrenched, so may as well try to find the cheapest possible maintenance engineer to manage the value extraction.
• SvenL 1y ago
  Maybe they don’t even want to rely on Microsoft Teams internally anymore…
  • sublimefire 1y ago
    No need for Teams, this was a Covid thing. Now all bets on Copilot. Bit with all that capex actual souls must leave the machine to make more space gor ai chips.
  • nisegami 1y ago
    Spoken like someone who hasn't witnessed 3 coworkers sitting a few feet apart do a teams meeting with each other (and no one else).
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • gamblor956 1y ago
    MS Teams for video teleconferencing...good. On a Windows PC, and using MS365, by far the easiest to set up (or change) a meeting and fewest issues with cameras across multiple devices. (Webex and Zoom are close seconds, Google Meet is a distant last due to constant camera issues.) MS Teams for IM...okay. Too much white space and too hard to find conversations that I know I've had recently. Very much prefer Slack. MS Teams for any of that other stuff...rage inducing. Especially the file sharing and other "team" features which break with every minor update. Somehow, even worse than using Sharepoint directly. Went back to email and using network drives to share/store team documents.
    • SvenL 1y ago
      I agree with every sentence! I would love to have a native app because the more teams/channels you have, the more resources it’s eating up and it feels pretty slow and laggy. Like a message comes in, you click on the notification and it takes like 15 sec until you can read it.
    • wpm 1y ago
      Does MS Teams support dual video inputs yet? I refuse to do the whole "click through a powerpoint clumsily while in edit mode with private DM notifications popping off in the background" thing I see too damn often so I use the OBS Virtual Cam. Zoom picks this up easily. Last I ran Teams (admittedly two years ago), if I tried to do the same, it would just set my camera feed to the virtual cam.
• matchbok 1y ago
  [dead]
• ortusdux 1y ago
  Don't have to announce layoffs if you can make a few percent quit.
  • rwmj 1y ago
    Particularly the older people who have settled and can't relocate. It's like age discrimination without all the annoying legal drawbacks.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • steveBK123 1y ago
    It's clearly a combination of stealth layoffs and "because we can" attitude by a lot of C-suite right now. Labor market is soft, so they will take as much as they can while they can, on the status quo bias of "in-office must be more productive, especially if employees don't like it". It's the dumbest form of stealth layoffs as it's random untargetted regarding the company's actual department/role staffing needs.
  • UltraSane 1y ago
    This also filters for subservience.
    • geodel 1y ago
      Yeah, nowadays missing those brave hearts who would turn post lunch walks in to protest walks whenever they saw injustice in the world.
• simanyay 1y ago
  Can't tell if this affects Github employees as well? I was under impression that they don't actually have offices to “return to”.
  • aaronbrethorst 1y ago
    I assume that any GitHub employee within 50 miles of a Microsoft office will be expected to commute.
    • simanyay 1y ago
      Would they have space? Considering that Github was always remote, that's a lot of people to fit into existing space. Though I guess it depends on how many Github employees are within 50 miles of Redmond.
      • ghaff 1y ago
        And, in my experience, a 50 mile commute into a big city isn't really sustainable--and that was with a fair bit of travel, etc. mixed in so I wasn't going in every day and pretty accessible commuter rail service if I was going in 8-5 or thereabouts.
    • bryanlarsen 1y ago
      Given that all GitHub teams are remote, the chance of having a team member at the same office is approximately 0. What's the point of commuting if you're not co-located with team members?
      • Rohansi 1y ago
        This does not stop every company from RTO mandates. My wife's employer is approaching full RTO and literally none of her team would go to the same office as her. And she was remote before COVID.
      • aaronbrethorst 1y ago
        I think you’re trying to logic a situation that is not logical.
• deburo 1y ago
  This seems paywalled, but there's a blog post from Microsoft: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/09/09/flexible-work-update/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/09/09/flexible-work-up... >With that in mind, we’re updating our flexible work expectations to three days a week in the office.
• gnabgib 1y ago
  Microsoft: Microsoft updates flexible work expectations to three days a week in the office https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45183560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45183560 Verge: Microsoft Mandates a Return to Office https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45184017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45184017 Geekwire: Microsoft sets new RTO policy, requiring employees in the office 3 days per week https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45184032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45184032
  • barbazoo 1y ago
    > Microsoft updates flexible work expectations to three days a week in the office Of all the "voices" I'd like to be able to do, corporate shitspeak is definitely the top one.
    • SOLAR_FIELDS 1y ago
      https://perchance.org/corp-bs https://perchance.org/corp-bs and https://www.bullshitgenerator.com/ https://www.bullshitgenerator.com/ can help out for practice!
    • ryandrake 1y ago
      I have updated the expectations. Pray I do not update them further...
• Jagerbizzle 1y ago
  This announcement is pretty much meaningless, as it's completely up to the VPs of a given org to set the policy. Many teams have already been back 3-5 days a week for over a year, and exceptions aren't hard to get if you're a senior+ employee or otherwise have considerations that prevent this from being feasible.
  • ourguile 1y ago
    Anecdotally, I'm at a larger multinational corporation and our site has been mandating a new RTO policy and have not been granting exceptions based solely on seniority. In my personal opinion I believe it's mostly a soft layoff, so they can approve exceptions on a case-by-case basis.
    • Jagerbizzle 1y ago
      No disagreements there (I'm at Microsoft). I should also note that in the part of the org I work, exceptions are re-evaluated every quarter.
      • geodel 1y ago
        Indeed. Apart from really aggressive, "love the bad press" type of employers most would try to appear reasonable from outside while largely rejecting wfh/remote requests lasting more than few months.
  • nlawalker 1y ago
    I don't think I'd call it meaningless; this sets the new default for the many orgs who haven't set a mandate already, and it seems to indicate that exceptions will now be harder to get.
    • Jagerbizzle 1y ago
      Fair point. I've wasted way too much time arguing about this in my org. The messaging is effectively that the "data" (which is never presented to anyone) indicates on-site is better, and if you disagree, feel free to go test the job market.
• sublimefire 1y ago
  It mentions this was based on some “data” (in emailsto employees) that it will yield better output but I somehow doubt it. I wonder what happens with the stock. It sort of makes it worse for the teams that are distributed and harms collab between sites in different zones like Europe/Asia and US/Europe. When you are working from home it is easy to stay later or start earlier and join calls. If you are in the office this is not that easy due to commute. Given that MS does not have top salaries, my bet is that folks will leave to other companies given that the main leverage like WFH is gone.
  • Izikiel43 1y ago
    > my bet is that folks will leave to other companies given that the main leverage like WFH is gone. Where though? I thought the current jobs market for tech wasn't in a nice spot for devs.
    • christhecaribou 1y ago
      Especially when big employers all collude in the open.
  • milesvp 1y ago
    It’s a common thing here on HN to believe that remote is superior for productivity, and I’m always reminded of Richard Hammond’s observations about open door vs closed door coworkers. He noticed over time that the closed door workers were more productive. He also noticed that the closed door workers were less impactful in their fields years later. His were observations in R&D settings, but I suspect they can be extrapolated. People who are interrupted get less done. This seems largely indisputable, but what is the other takeaway? People who don’t interract with peers don’t course correct enough, seems to be solid advice based on what we know about the OODA loop. People who don’t interact with coworkers don’t get enough time saving advice? I know I’ve saved lots of effort by having coworkers who know things I didn’t about related problems. What complicated things, is return to work will cause all the best to rethink their employment. I’ve seen HBR surveys that suggest the top talent is ending up places that allow them to stay remote. I think this leaves businesses in a tight place. I have every reason to believe that companies with lots of employee interactions have better acceleration/trajetory than fully remote, but it’s a big hit to lose top talent. And remote may have so much velocity from gaining this talent that they don’t care about the acceleration tradeoff. Further, concentration of talent in a region also cannot be discounted. Certain things can’t happen without the exchange of ideas (partly why I think cities/counties should ban non competes). I don’t know how much a given company can control this concentration of talent, but I know that Seattle wouldn’t be what it is without Boeing, and then Microsoft attracting very smart people.
• sugarpimpdorsey 1y ago
  The only thing I hated worse than going into the office was our remote employees, who never seemed to be available when you needed them, had their status set to Away (or wouldn't respond for hours if they were green). It was a privilege, people abused it, and now it's over. And managers were the worst offenders.
  • christhecaribou 1y ago
    And yet here you are, perpetuating the “crabs in a bucket” mentality that continues to be a blight on our industry.
    • titanomachy 1y ago
      A manager who’s not doing their job and is never reachable can be pretty demoralizing. That same manager would probably not be great in person either, but at least you’d know where to find them. As long as a company is able and willing to move out or correct low performers quickly, remote work is fine.
      • rgblambda 1y ago
        >but at least you’d know where to find them. In my experience, managers of that calibre tend to fuck off to a meeting room first chance they get and hide there until around 4 when they slip out.
  • SilverElfin 1y ago
    That seems like an issue of company leadership and culture. There are many remote companies where this isn’t true. I’ve seen comments from Amazon workers talking about they were much more productive in a remote work situation, even though their leader (Andy Jassy) chose to make the company go back to the office 5 days a week with invasive monitoring of how people badge in and out.
  • kokanee 1y ago
    Interesting. I've been remote for 5 years across three different companies, and if anything I've had the opposite experience: my remote coworkers are far more responsive than my on-site coworkers, who are always in meetings, in transit, having in-person chit chat, or taking a break.
• jaredcwhite 1y ago
  "As we build [employee replacements that are always 100% remote] that will define this era, we need the kind of energy and momentum that comes from smart people working [not remote because remote is too hard to manage]." Oh the irony! double facepalm emojis
• SilverElfin 1y ago
  Terrible. Especially given that the Seattle area has terrible traffic and also issues with safety on public transportation (like many other cities in America). What is the point exactly of getting workers into an office just so they can be on Zoom calls (or Teams, in this case)? This seems a lot like what Amazon was accused of - a way to shake out some workers and get them to quit when they cannot rearrange their life on a whim.
  • robotnikman 1y ago
    Remote work means traffic congestion gets better and also helps solves the affordable housing crisis, as people can then choose to live in areas with a lower cost of living but further away from the inner city.
    • stocksinsmocks 1y ago
      I think the return to office phenomenon is inevitable because employers externalize transportation costs, but internalize value capture from employees being in presumably a less distracting and more controlled environment. It’s a systems problem where the incentive only goes one way. I think you could have a balancing incentive of providing employers tax credits if they can prove that they are using remote or partially remote employment. I would even extend this incentive to employers that can show that their work hours are not overlapped with peak traffic hours. 20% of traffic volume might be in a single hour, and highway capacity is often built around accommodating need of only 2 hours of the day. Your state DOT is probably a top 3 expense for the state government.
      • coredog64 1y ago
        Pre-pandemic, I had multiple employers that were incentivized via the state and county government to push remote working, ride sharing, and transit utilization as a means of reducing overall government spending on roads and road maintenance. It typically showed up as small benefits to the employee, like a monthly drawing for a $50 Target gift card or preferential parking spots. Based on that, I got the sense that while it may have been helpful in the aggregate, it wasn't wildly cost effective.
• htrp 1y ago
  MS AI team is already at 4 days (Mustafa's org)
• buyucu 1y ago
  Microsoft Teams is such a horrible product that Microsoft employees need to be in the same office to collaborate.
• drivingmenuts 1y ago
  Well, they picked the right time - soft job market, AI takeovers, slumping economy … they could probably demand to mulch employees and people would just put up with it.
  • mxuribe 1y ago
    Oh, no, no...its not "mulching"...we don't dare mulch our employees! We simply streamline their corporeal shell in an effort to improve their ways of working. Its actually part of our new health care offering. In the past these would be called "diets"...but, no, no, we like to call it bodily optimization! And, hey, we hope that all employees participate in the mulching, er, um, i meant bodily optimization...Because, hey, someone needs to be fed to the AI...er, i meant someone needs to provide inputs to the ever-godly AI. ;-) /s
• javier_e06 1y ago
  Having to sit in the car, train, or even walking can be seen as a punishment when the 80% to 890 of your work is done sitting by yourself in front of a computer. At the office there where those who clearly wanted to minimize human interactions and people who thrived and performed better when interacting with others. And then there is liminal spaces (Severance) the place where hope and creativity comes to die. "There must be someway out of here."
• steele 1y ago
  Quiet Firing
• drowning_sushi 1y ago
  50-75% of the employees at MS HQ regularly work out of the office. (Source: I live close by). This mandate is not at all surprising given MS invested heavily in new, revamped offices, which they had started before the pandemic. How did folks who relocated to other areas not see this coming.
  • bluedino 1y ago
    Our company recently started RTO. The first 10-15 minutes of every meeting for the first month were people complaining about it. The first 10-15 minutes of every meeting for the second month were supervisors reminding people everyone they need to do it. The third month, people started coming in, and now everyone complains about how there's no parking, no open hotel desks, no open meeting rooms, and teams are scattered across offices and there's no meeting rooms so all the meetings are still on Teams.
    • whywhywhywhy 1y ago
      Just find a corner for it why do you need a "room"
      • wiseowise 1y ago
        Because such as important meeting as “daily standup” and “whothefuckknowswhat sync #69” deserved a room, what if there’s a very important discussion?
• hardwaregeek 1y ago
  I have mixed feelings cause on one hand moving from a remote first company to a primarily in person one has made a material difference in my general satisfaction and engagement. But also I wouldn’t want it to be forced. I like having the choice to work remote. And I like having coworkers who can work remote if they wish. I know many great engineers who live outside of the standard tech hubs and realistically won’t move to them. But for me remote work felt isolating and made my home feel too much like my office
  • jghn 1y ago
    I don't think this is what you're saying but when I've seen debates over choice the pattern I've sen is: 1) The people who feel more engaged at home can stay home, those who feel more engaged at work can go there 2) The latter group fails to feel engaged at work due to everyone being home. They complain. In other words, they weren't missing being in the office. They were missing being in the office *with others*. Which requires everyone else to either want to work in the office.
    • hardwaregeek 1y ago
      Yeah it’s tricky because there’s often a senior/junior dynamic here. Junior people really do benefit from structure and in person mentorship. They also tend to have worse home office setups and more free time. Whereas senior people tend to have families and nicer home offices, so understandably they don’t want to commute in. I’m sympathetic to both and realistically I don’t think management is acting in good faith. But I do think remote work benefits seniors at the cost of juniors
      • LadyCailin 1y ago
        So do LLMs, but Microsoft doesn’t have any problems with copilot existing.
• connicpu 1y ago
  Oh great more traffic in Redmond.
• tokai 1y ago
  Commute time should be salaried time. Then the whole office/home work discussion could be taken with the true costs involved.
  • HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
    Sounds a bit extreme, but OTOH this is what tradesfolk typically do - charge $100 to ring your doorbell and take it from there, since it does cost them money just to get to you. Still, even if there is some sort of justification (moreso if the company chooses to locate themselves away from residential/affordable areas), I'm not sure how you would avoid abuse. Maybe just pay employees a fixed amount for each day they are required to drive to the office ?
    • wongarsu 1y ago
      With tradesfolk you can choose who to call, and somebody from farther away will charge more for getting to your door. With workers that is not a consideration today (in most roles), but if companies had to pay for travel time it absolutely would be. But that leads to uncomfortable questions about moving. If you get children and move to an area with a better school, can and will your work now fire you because your commute got more expensive for them? A fixed payment for office days would remove that, but then how do you determine the price of that payment?
      • ghaff 1y ago
        I think my contractors have generally had a general service area. And, if you're out of it, they're probably not interested. Now, mind you, I often don't have a super-itemized bill. But I'm not sure I've seen a commute time/cost line item.
        • HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
          Yeah, I can't recall anyone ever putting it down explicitly as a line item, but a number of them will tell on the phone you there's a minimum charge for coming out. For some reason locksmiths seem to always do this.
• adabyron 1y ago
  AKA - Microsoft is trying to layoff employees without getting more bad layoff press while they make record earnings. A company where most employees work digitally with people across the world is requiring people to sit at a desk in a physical location. The irony is blinding & shows an utter lack of transparency by leadership.
  • ghaff 1y ago
    I certainly saw engagement, collaboration, etc. going down once things switched heavily to video calls (even before COVID) rather than meeting in-person in various ways--especially among people you didn't already know. Of course, in many situations, it's unavoidable. I'm probably not going to hop on an international trip at the drop of a hat--though I certainly attended events. But there's some subset of people that just don't want to travel or go into an office at all and IMO they're mostly mis-guided.
    • wiseowise 1y ago
      Have you ever thought that “engagement” and”collaboration” that you saw is as hollow as the statement from Microsoft?
    • adabyron 1y ago
      I’ve had the opposite effect. Meetings where everyone is on video run so much better. More on task, plus transcriptions & other features dramatically improve the meeting. I can more easily understand accents, read when people talk over each other, ai generated notes and tasks, and I can rewatch parts of the meeting by searching for something said. Also easy to detect who dominates the meeting and who might need to be included in talking more.
      • ghaff 1y ago
        I'm not sure big in-person meetings in rooms are especially useful but eating with people, having discussions in small conference rooms, social events, etc. were. Big online meetings never engaged me much and I certainly almost never rewatched parts of a meeting. And latterly it was sort of "Who are these people" if I hadn't known them before. I do agree that video conferences that have agendas, collaborative notes, and so forth matured during COVID (though we did them before) but don't require a video meeting. But people have different preferences.
• nphardon 1y ago
  > We’ve looked at how our teams work best, and the data is clear: when people work together in person more often, they thrive — they are more energized, empowered, and they deliver stronger results. Ah the data is clear, without reference to the data collected or metrics used.
  • zero_shift 1y ago
    The data is clear. So clear, I shall not insult your intelligence by providing it.
• vondur 1y ago
  Sounds like a stealth layoff, just like Amazon did a while back.
• neilv 1y ago
  > Microsoft's new approach is the latest sign of the company increasing performance pressure on employees. It has fired thousands of employees deemed low performers this year and introduced a new performance improvement plan meant to exit low performers more quickly. Claims who? These also sound like typical sketchy headcount reduction tactics. Also, it's throwing employees under the bus, because the company is tarring them as low performers, at the same time as the company dumps them onto a hostile job market. Those employees should talk to lawyers. > > Importantly, this update is not about reducing headcount. MS had to mention that in the memo, because that's what everyone reading it was thinking?
  • sharts 1y ago
    While sketchy and total crap move on MS. What recourse do employees really have? MS likely consulted with their army of lawyers before pulling this. Actions might be crappy but not illegal. Not a lawyer but employers are usually allowed to dictate the terms of the employment agreements and requiring someone to go into an office to work can be one of them. Even changing from permanent remote to onsite at a later time seems like another relatively protected decision. Unless someone somewhere higher up is on the record saying something like “Oh yeah let’s make them come into the office to actually make it really crappy for them so they leave on their own” I doubt any reasonably reliable legal case can be made.
    • neilv 1y ago
      To non-lawyer me, this sounds like something for which lawyers have a term: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal If I've heard of this angle, I assume that lawyers know many angles that may apply.
      • scarface_74 1y ago
        And? As long as it isn’t discriminatory, since 49 of the 50 states are at will employment, you can be let go at anytime for any reason or no reason. It might come into play with unemployment insurance but the weekly amount is so low it’s laughable.
• odie5533 1y ago
  Top employees, ones that can easily get jobs elsewhere, are just going to leave and find ones without RTO. Employees that don't feel confident in their abilities to perform in the job market are going to show up in the office to keep their job.
  • nphardon 1y ago
    If that's true, and the employees who can survive brutal tech interviews will leave, it's kind of like an algo for finding a local minimum of talent for the shop enforcing RTO.
  • aurareturn 1y ago
    Or maybe top employees see their remote coworkers slacking off and want everyone in the office. /unpopular opinion
    • wiseowise 1y ago
      If you “see” anyone else as a top employee - you’re not a top employee by definition. Literally all, without exception, top employees that I saw in my career never gave a single shit about anyone else besides themselves.
      • aurareturn 1y ago
        Really? The top employees I saw in my career had the ability to both lead others and be competent in individual tasks.
        • wiseowise 1y ago
          Ability to lead others is caring whether Lizz the Frizz is not delivering up to someone’s standards?
          • aurareturn 1y ago
            Yes. You know. Leaders.
• OptionOfT 1y ago
  50 miles is a lot. That can easily be 2h in most big cities. To do what exactly? Sit in an open office in Redmond, jump on Teams to call with someone in Fort Lauderdale? Funny thing, I had multiple interviews with them on explicit remote roles (which are different from roles that went remote during COVID). I wonder if the policy changes there.
  • geodel 1y ago
    > To do what exactly? To stay employed at Microsoft. After all many may want that some may not.
  • doom2 1y ago
    I live about 100 miles from NYC, which is 2-2.5 hours by car but only 1.5 hours by train. I think that that would be considered an acceptable commute time for companies with a hybrid work plan. However, every time I ask recruiters from NYC-based companies if their commute subsidy would cover the train, I get told employees have to live within a 50 mile radius of the office. Like you said, that could be 2 hours by car! For the right salary and benefits, I'd happily spend 3 hours a day on a train. At least I wouldn't be driving.
    • ghaff 1y ago
      I grudgingly did it for a while to Boston. And yes, it was something like $50/day to commute however I did it. It got old even on the train even though I didn't need to go in every day. Wouldn't have done it long-term.
    • nickjj 1y ago
      Yeah it's weird. I was just over 50 miles from NYC at some point. A place I worked remotely at was having a small team get together and they asked me to join. Given it's a ~2 hour journey from door to office (car + train + walk) I asked if I could leave early so I didn't have to put in a ~13-14 hour day. They said no, I had to work a full 9-6 day or use a PTO day. Meanwhile they flew a few people in from around the US and put them in a hotel. That was a principle level role where I survived multiple rounds of layoffs so it wasn't like I was treated poorly. It's just the company wouldn't budge on their policies.
• HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
  If "AI" S/W dev is going to be a thing, then companies are going to have to wean themselves off of the idea of human face-2-face colab being the key to success.
• nonameiguess 1y ago
  This is going to lead to these abstract discussions of subjective perceptual "productivity" as it always does, but by the actual economic definition of labor productivity, revenue per employee, Microsoft has gone from $143 billion with 163,000 in 2020 ($877,000 per head) to $282 billion with 228,000 ($1.24 million per head) so far this year. They've become the 2nd largest company in the world by market cap, in large part specifically because Microsoft employees are so economically productive. It says a lot about a team when they win, and instead of rewarding the players that got them the win, they do shit like this.
  • typewithrhythm 1y ago
    How much of that is product engineering and how much is leasing access to capital during a GPU demand spike?
    • dymk 1y ago
      Why does it matter? You're just describing another case where losses get spread around but gains are claimed by those at the top.
      • typewithrhythm 1y ago
        Because the idea of productivity per employee its relevant to look at capital spending as well. Otherwise people claim Microsoft is successful and hires well (with outsourcing or RTO or whatever), but in reality they are in a shift to a more capital intensive business.
  • fogzen 1y ago
    Great point. MS employee productivity as measured has improved. But who cares about facts anymore. This drove me nuts during all the hullabaloo about DOGE. People would confidently state that the Federal government is inefficient – while data showed the opposite! Federal workforce has remained largely the same since 1950, while administering more services, for more people, with a much larger budget. As measured, the government workforce is more productive than ever.
• jleyank 1y ago
  Not so stealthy headcount reduction. Admitting that their collaboration tools aren’t worthwhile.
  • 0cf8612b2e1e 1y ago
    Given this job market? I suspect few people will feel confident to take a stand.
• dr-detroit 1y ago
  [dead]
• jbm 1y ago
  Turns out even Microsoft can't get Teams to work.
  • boringg 1y ago
    This kind of commentary is more appropriate for Reddit but in this case I approve.
    • boringg 1y ago
      Also -- why is Teams such trash? It can barely fulfill its core responsibility.
      • PUSH_AX 1y ago
        Has Microsoft built anything in the last decade that isn’t of questionable quality/user experience?
        • yifanl 1y ago
          There's no question to the quality of Copilot.
          • PUSH_AX 1y ago
            I was under the impression GitHub built and maintained that, but perhaps that’s changed… If not I wouldn’t consider it a Microsoft built product like windows etc (yes I’m aware ms owns gh)
            • lawlessone 1y ago
              everyone that contributed a project to github built it.
          • fuzzy2 1y ago
            Is there? And which Copilot is that? Github? Office 365? Windows? Yet another?
• GiorgioG 1y ago
  Disappointed but not surprised.
  • 6c696e7578 1y ago
    Just MSFT laying off people, nothing new here. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Just this time they're extinguishing their less profitable projects.
• adamiscool8 1y ago
  >We’ve looked at how our teams work best, and the data is clear: when people work together in person more often, they thrive — they are more energized, empowered, and they deliver stronger results. Citation needed or this is just more vibe-xecutive decree.
  • datadrivenangel 1y ago
    They need to be in the offices to collaborate with their offshore counterparts...
  • at-fates-hands 1y ago
    Anecdotal evidence to counter this argument. Work at a fortune 200 company. We spent COVID all 100% remote WFH. After several quarters of their entire workforce working remotely, they were gushing about how productivity increased, satisfaction scores went through the roof and the company recorded several record breaking quarters in revenue during a time they expected the exact opposite to happen. This inevitably lead them to having one helluva hard time trying to get people back into the office since they owned about a dozen buildings where the majority of their employees were supposed to be working. After a year and several attempts, they instead sold most of their real estate holdings and have since consolidated everybody into just a few buildings. The new rule is that if you are less than 30 mins from the office, you need to come in at least twice a week. Not a huge hurdle and so far, has been met with little if any resistance. I have to give them credit. They tried ordering people back in, and ultimately pivoted and sold their real estate instead.
    • AnimalMuppet 1y ago
      1. Will you name? Sounds like some sane management; those looking for jobs might find that a useful datapoint. 2. I think making it proportional to the length of the commute is an interesting idea. And even for those who don't like the office... two days a week with a short commute isn't terrible.
      • at-fates-hands 1y ago
• t14000 1y ago
  Link ought to be https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/09/09/flexible-work-update/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2025/09/09/flexible-work-up...
• Mobius01 1y ago
  I work in a large company that mandated 4-day RTO last year. Even taking a completely objetive point of view on the situation leads to the conclusion that something else is needed. We spend our days at our desks, on Zoom calls. People won’t get up to join in person - mostly because the conference rooms are all blocked by “special projects”, but mostly due to the offshoring of positions and distributed workforce post-pandemic. We are all spending valuable time on commutes to do what was possible from home. Now I suspect the C-suite has noticed the discrepancy between attendance and occupancy, and I fully expect that their solution in this job market to be a 5-days, monitored attendance RTO soon. We are regressing at an alarming rate.
  • fzeroracer 1y ago
    Same thing happened where I worked, though that was mostly from what I heard from coworkers since I maintained my WFH status. It's all CEO theater designed to layoff folks while also forcing people who RTO to take an effective pay cut. People need to recognize that and demand more from where they work, whether it's in the form of unionizing or otherwise.
    • ponector 1y ago
      There is always an answer to unionizing and other demands: hiring freeze plus offshoring overseas. Eventually even unionized people will be replaced with offshore buddies.
      • fzeroracer 1y ago
        Offshoring always ends in disaster, companies have tried this time and time again but the end result is an awful product that requires more money to fix than they needed to make it in the first place. And that also doesn't solve the problem of dealing with institutional knowledge loss if you decide to aggressively cull employees trying to unionize. In either scenario the solution is for union workers to become even more aggressive with their demands and force companies to acquiesce.
        • 1y ago
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• black_puppydog 1y ago
  50 miles 3 times a week? That seems like a lot. Or maybe I'm getting my miles>km conversion wrong here. Not a commute I'd accept if it's not by high speed commuter rail (and even then...)
  • ghaff 1y ago
    From my experience, even with fairly reasonable commuter rail--if not exactly high-speed--about 10 minutes from my house to the rail station or a fairly long drive into an outlying subway station. Plus some walking. You were close to 2 hours each way with a 6am start at the latest. Latterly if I went into another company's Boston office it was about the same.
  • dymk 1y ago
    Yeah, I'd be spending 30% of my 40-hour work week in traffic if I were to commute in (~2 hours each way).
• zero_shift 1y ago
  At $org, we too are undertaking a mandatory RTO order, enforced with door access logs. People are up in arms, particularly those in our smaller locales, where the offices we have are perfunctory at best. The rationale is the usual one: collaboration, watercooler chat, unspecific evidence / "research" about productivity (that we are told definitely exists, but is yet to be shared). I remain baffled by executives' obsession with RTO... C suites are committed to spending as much as possible on real estate and geographically limiting their talent pool. Whilst making workers more tired and less productive. I still have no idea where it comes from. My best guess is that nobody at that level wants to break ranks with the "collective wisdom" of "investors", which creates a kind of groupthink. (An RTO mandate is also an excellent thing for a CEO to show investors they are doing, if they are not making money and lack better ideas.)
  • vjvjvjvjghv 1y ago
    At the same time they are offshoring to countries on the other side of the globe so working hours never overlap.
  • a99c43f2d565504 1y ago
    Maybe some positions are or feel worthy only when performed in physically social context. Jobs dealing with human problems have this tendency more often than those dealing more with non-human problems.
  • grepfru_it 1y ago
    Sounds like Dell. Michael Dell owns a lot of commercial real estate, especially around main campus hq. More employees in the office, better returns on his commercial real estate. That’s my opinion anyway
    • userbinator 1y ago
      How does that make sense? "Now that my employees don't need to occupy the space all the time, rent out (possibly parts of) the office for even more $$$" would be how I'd think if I were in his shoes.
• kkfx 1y ago
  I suggest anyone to read https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/19/starling-bank-staff-resign-after-new-chief-executive-calls-for-more-time-in-office https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/nov/19/starling-ba... and then decide: when 90%, but also 80% of workers quit no business could survive.
• awill 1y ago
  Working at a company that did the same thing earlier, it's incredibly frustrating. This would have made sense when the company was all at one site, but over the last 5 years my company (and microsoft) have massively expanded. So now I drive to the office and video call my colleagues in other sites. Brilliant.
• outside1234 1y ago
  You just know this is disproportionately going to lead to women quitting too. Which we spent YEARS trying to recruit. Just the dumbest era to be alive. :)
  • johnnyanmac 1y ago
    Sorry, we don't have to pretend to care about DEI in 2025. You even get compliments for not doing so!
  • wiseowise 1y ago
    DEI? That’s so 2022.
• moneycantbuy 1y ago
  unionize
  • johnnyanmac 1y ago
    Maybe one day. My industry is slowly starting to establish unions. But not without a lot a pushback.
• jleyank 1y ago
  It’s hard on two professional couples, as it’s not always easy or even possible to find two jobs in many areas. But such couples tend to be older and we all know how that goes down in the biz. Especially if they’ve committed parenthood.
  • _mu 1y ago
    > committed parenthood. I like this phrasing because that really feels like how the employer looks at it ultimately. "Why, it's as irresponsible as calling in sick!"
• Uptrenda 1y ago
  Tech industry dumpster fire keeps getting hotter. Nothing unexpected here.
• KronisLV 1y ago
  Oh great, can't wait until this is used as something to back up other justifications to strong arm employees into quite often meaningless commute that doesn't increase their quality of life, nor their productivity for many.
• diego_moita 1y ago
  Well, thanks. I'll cut Microsoft out of my list of places to apply.
  • Vaslo 1y ago
    Not sure what they will do without you
• pfdietz 1y ago
  I believe a purpose of this is to discriminate against older workers with families. This is also a reason to put your facility in a high cost of living area: young single people who don't need as much floor space can live there more easily.
  • nunez 1y ago
    How so? People with families worked in the office for decades
• xtracto 1y ago
  Just out of curiosity, how much compensation would people be willing to leave on the table in lieu of "Remote" work? (this is different to, how much would you ASK to go from remote to a new in-office job). 10%, 25%, 50%? I've worked remotely for 5 years now, and there is NO way I would return to an office based job. I even have moved to a small town where there are practically 0 tech jobs; and at this point there's NO way I would relocate for a new job. Maybe it is my age (44), or maybe I am even in a privileged position financially; but at this moment in my life I would rather quit my job if they made me return to office (even for one day a week, as it would mean having to move to wherever the office is). Fortunately I am in a position where I can go several months without a paycheck, and I have some passive income.
  • Aurornis 1y ago
    This question isn't very revealing because it almost entirely depends on this one variable: > maybe I am even in a privileged position financially; but at this moment in my life I would rather quit my job Someone closer to retirement with a lot of savings and low expenses will have a completely different answer than a younger person with low savings and a family. The second variable it depends on is their current salary. Someone who currently earns a huge number can afford to give up a higher percentage than someone who earns barely enough to make ends meet. The question becomes a proxy for the person's financial situation and current salary, not their remote work preferences. This is also a question where people's claims don't match their actions. Similar to every election season when a lot of people declare they're going to move to a different country if their party loses, but the number of people who actually do it is much smaller.
    • xtracto 1y ago
      You got the underlying reason for my question almost in passing: I've been involved in hiring Software devs from US and LatAm for several years in different management positions. I wondered how feasible would be for say, a company in Mexico to compete on hiring a dev in the USA at a lower cost (normally, a Mexico dev is between 1/3 to 1/2 the price of a US one), by leveraging the value of [allowing] working Remote. EDIT: Which actually made me think of a crazy idea: A job board called something like "Work for Less", where small companies or companies from overseas offer jobs that have compensations more focused on Quality of Living vs compensation. So for example, a job opening might have "We offer: 70% of your last salary. 3 day weekends, remote work". Or if it is say, a Mexican company, "We offer: 80% of your last salary. Comprehensive relocation help to live/work in a Mexican beach for 4 months a year. Medical Tourism coverage (don't know what this is called, but basically, help in say, taking people to high quality medical places)". Maybe it is a stupid idea, but at the end of the day, Remote Work is one of several "Levers" for Quality of Life, and although historically the US has focused on monetary compensation, maybe newer generations value other aspects more.
• Ancalagon 1y ago
  MSFT employees - better make sure not to work from home anymore considering your jobs can’t be done from there. Close your laptops at 5pm, do not re-open them until you are back in office at 9am the next day.
  • j-bos 1y ago
    This is the way.
  • intrasight 1y ago
    This, or just go work somewhere that better fits your lifestyle - including WFH.
  • Robdel12 1y ago
    Hell, leave the laptop!
• gardenhedge 1y ago
  Look at any Microsoft products. They all suck in their own way to be honest. Remote vs in-office won't change that. They'll still be churning put bing, 3d paint, teams etc etc. Doesn't matter that they don't hire the best, the corporate agreements they have are the only thing that matters.
• steveBK123 1y ago
  Last two places I’ve worked had CEOs mandating this while working by themselves from super small non-HQ “offices” in their state of tax residence…
• hsuduebc2 1y ago
  Forcing people back into the office for no real reason is just a power play from middle management trying to justify their pointless existence. What really bothers them is not culture or collaboration, it is that nobody is sucking up to them, because it is usually done in person and not on Teams. When they are not sitting in the same section as their peons pretending to boost efficiency and hard work, it becomes obvious that people can manage perfectly fine without them. That is the real threat, someone might notice how utterly useless these bozos are and finally cut them off. Especially in software development, where focus and silence are everything, this mandate is beyond ridiculous.
• hyperliner 1y ago
  [dead]
• Incipient 1y ago
  I'd say Microsoft has deliberately lined this up with the "AI boom" as a way to reduce headcount, without the PR hit of reducing headcount.
• notepad0x90 1y ago
  Why don't they just pay people less if they think WFH causes less value to the company? Give them an option to RTO or take a pay cut. Why would you want people who don't want your company to succeed anymore working for you? I can't imagine anyone used to 3-4 years of WFH (and liking it) wanting the company to succeed after RTO. If they stay, it's probably because they don't have a choice and they'll probably be the least motivated and minimally productive employees. OTOH, I've noticed the "disruptors" of yesteryears are now full-on right-wing jerks whose mission is to preserve wealth instead of create wealth by doing new and disruptive things. This tells me one important message if nothing else: There is no shortage of talent for the perceived wealth-creating opportunities. The gold rush is over. I fear this is less about ZIRP and more about complacency (in general) and would-be investors and VC's not having faith in the possibility of high ROI investments.
  • Rohansi 1y ago
    > Give them an option to RTO or take a pay cut. How much of a pay cut? They could (and probably do) claim that WFH employees are not doing anything so they are worthless.
    • whywhywhywhy 1y ago
      Well if you're remote you're in competition with the rest of the world right as they're all remote too and will do they same job cheaper so probably a decent one.
    • notepad0x90 1y ago
      Makes sense. I would say if productivity is below 30% of RTO then it's RTO. I can't imagine that though. Most people are productive 3-4h at most in office jobs, it shouldn't that difficult to measure output/productivity. Just meetings normally takes at least 1-2h on average out of most people's work days.
• ThinkBeat 1y ago
  What always shocks me on these threads is the naiveté a bunch of Über privileged tech workers have about the job market in general. This is it folks. Corp screws you when they can. Welcome to the machine. For most working people, showing up at the office (or place of work) is the absolute minimum requirement. People here seem to talk about what legal right a company has to let people go just because they didnt want to shop up at work, at the office If you go to a restaurant, do you worry about how many hours the waiter, the chef, etc had to travel in the morning to put food in your face? It is not for you like. It is doing what your employer requires.
  • wiseowise 1y ago
    > If you go to a restaurant, do you worry about how many hours the waiter, the chef, etc had to travel in the morning to put food in your face? I don’t give a shit how long they work a day and from where, as long as I have food my plate. If they could deliver food from their home, I would certainly take this option over forcing them into the restaurant kitchen. Knowledge workers do not have to be in the office to deliver value, period.
• non_aligned 1y ago
  I've seen this from both sides, and I think there's about the same amount of bad-faith arguments on both sides. Now, line workers have less power here than the execs, so I'm inclined to side with the former group, but... the whole thing is a bit of a mess. You can essentially divide IC employees into three categories. First, those who are about as productive from home as they are from the office, but are on average happier working remotely (no commute, etc). That's probably circa 80%. Second, those who are well-intentioned but fall behind over time, because they are less proactive about maintaining soft skills - communications, cross-functional relationship management, etc. That's the bulk of the rest. And third, there are people who actively exploit the situation in ways that the company is going to have an allergic reaction work (outsource their work to a dude in India, half-ass three jobs at competing companies, etc). That's typically <1%, but it's obviously a weird / scary new thing. Further complicating this picture is the fact that line managers are not perfect either; there is an "out of sight, out of mind" aspect to it, and if a WFH worker is underperforming, it will on average take longer to address the problem, which has some ripple effects. And on some level, the exec perspective is that the intangible gains in the happiness of the 80% that was previously willing to work for you in the office is not worth the horrors on the bottom end. So there is something resembling a credible argument for RTO. At the same time, there is a degree of lazy thinking / bad faith on the exec side because the problems can be solved in other ways. You can retrain managers, you can improve performance management, you can monitor for certain types of grift, and you can accept some degree of added risk. In fact, you probably should if it keeps your top performers happier. But the overwhelming preference is for the easy choice of RTO.
  • t-writescode 1y ago
    You missed the people more productive at home because they have less overall life stress, no pain of commute, disabilities which make commute painful or hard, etc. And I suspect that’s a *LOT* more people than you’re giving credit. To be very clear, I’m in that group, and probably so. Several engineers I’ve worked with are in that group, as well. I suspect it’s actually quite common in software.
    • non_aligned 1y ago
• rr808 1y ago
  Be thankful you can go to the office. If you're working from home you have a lot more competition. Our company has started getting Indian workers into Mexico working US hours, you're competing with them if you're working online.
• zoeey 1y ago
  Over the past few years, a lot of teams have shown that remote work can be productive and stable. But as the market cools and power shifts back to management, return-to-office policies are quietly making a comeback. It feels less about actual performance and more about a need for control. Some of these companies even invested in remote tooling during the pandemic, and now they’re choosing to ignore it. You start to wonder if they’re really looking at output, or just want people back in seats so things look like they’re under control.
• alliao 1y ago
  WFH got stuck and commercial real estate took a haircut and it's investors took a bath and the sharks moved in and want some blood with whichever way they can
• penguin_booze 1y ago
  I wonder why people with requisite entrepreneurial skills aren't setting up enough remote-(only|friendly) businesses. Clearly, there's a demand for such roles. With RTO policies implemented across the globe, I imagine there'll be a surplus of high-quality talent for hiring as well. This seems like clear case of market inefficiency.
  • thedevilslawyer 1y ago
    Or they have tried and failed, and market is working as intended. I'd argue this is the case since there have been a surge of companies the past 3 years, and barely a handful are remote, and none at large scale.
• QuiEgo 1y ago
  Personal observations: - There are times when in-person collaboration is invaluable. - There are times when having quiet focus time alone is invaluable. - Every team and job is different. Sitting on Zoom all day in an open office full of strangers doesn't make sense. Getting blocked because I bricked my proto board and I need a tech to rework it but I'm wfh and the tech is wfh and now we have to do a mail dance and burn a week for something that used to take a 5 min walk down the hall to deal with doesn't make sense. YMMV. - The industry seems to be converging to hybrid. I feel like this is kind of like the debates over being mandated to use AI in dev - love it or hate it, it's happening, and there's no point trying to swim against a rip current.
  • aurareturn 1y ago
    Hybrid is the worst of both worlds. Go into the office just to sit in a Zoom call.
    • sabellito 1y ago
      Hybrid is ok if the WFH days are set for everyone, otherwise I agree it's a waste of time, since people are randomly in the office.
• senderista 1y ago
  Just like DEI, companies never believed their own rhetoric about WFH.
  • wiseowise 1y ago
    I’m surprised anyone really believed them.
• moneycantbuy 1y ago
  Does this mean they will pay us enough to live nearby?
• NoPicklez 1y ago
  Could be a push my tech companies to push backup the value of their real estate investments
• renewiltord 1y ago
  In some sense you can guess the demographics of this site based on their reaction to various things. This particular comment section reveals that few startup people inhabit this site and it’s mostly /r/technology 2.0. Interesting. Everyone here is an employee.
• whinvik 1y ago
  Threads like these are always one sided with people against RTO. What I would really like to see is arguments from the other side. Can someone steelman RTO. Preferably with evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
  • mxkopy 1y ago
    Under RTO new grads enjoy less competition because they’re willing to relocate
  • wiseowise 1y ago
    The other is too busy managing burnout to argue.
  • beezlebroxxxxxx 1y ago
    I work a 2 in 3 out style schedule. During the 3 days I wfh, I get the most work done. I can focus and organize my day around executing a plan. During the 2 days I'm in the office, I can get answers from people much quicker. Some people (new hires in particular) don't know how to describe their problem, or they're just really bad at it. My solution to endless teams convos is to just say "I'll head over to your desk" and then we work it out in person. I think working with people in person can be very powerful. Is it essential though? No. Most corps don't even bother though. And most managers are bad at management. Working entirely wfh requires good managers with actual project management skills. Most corps are unwilling to train or prioritize hiring for that.
    • socalgal2 1y ago
      I find the progress is much faster at the office because me and my coworkers can more easily consult with each other on both major and minor stuff. On chat wfh they might answer immediately or 4 hrs from now. so, I can’t get in a semi flow because of long interruptions waiting for answers. also chat is slow and annoying. I know someone is going to chime in a claim those conversations break flow. That might be true for some particular deep problems but I’ve never seen it affect any team I’ve been on and I have 40 years of work experience. Not saying my experience fits everyone else but I’ve seen no real evidence of it being an actual problem.
• noremotefornow 1y ago
  I have worked for 7 years in the office and 7 years remote, and for me the 7 years remote were not as enjoyable. I like the routines and processes that I adhere to more when I have a separate work location; I find it more difficult to adhere to those same processes when I can roll out of bed and walk to my computer half asleep and zone in on work. For example, I find it much more likely I’ll consistently shower, get dressed, eat breakfast etc, when I go into the office than when I work from home. Additionally, when working remote, I find that there’s often more of a bias towards threads or messages starting off related to something work related; I do try to ask about colleagues weekends occasionally for example, but when remote it often feels more like you’re consuming their bandwidth or attention vs just minor conversation in passing. Sometimes things take time to compile, or conversations over text-mediums are difficult; having a manager nearby that can sense when things are difficult and more effectively help is great. I’ve had many times where I’ve sighed about something and my coworker heard and asked what got me flustered and explaining it helped lead to resolution. What I would suggest is that perhaps some teams should be remote and some local if possible to facilitate different types of employees. I totally get working remote, I’d probably do it if I was back in a relationship and/or had kids.
  • valleyjo 1y ago
    I strongly prefer RTO for myself personally. I can’t stand working from home. I believe the solution is have a shorter commute and live closer to the office (even though I live far away, I am trying to convince my wife to move). I have mixed feelings about forcing RTO because I know some strongly prefer WFH. Maybe 2 or 3 days is the best middle ground. Personally I miss when everyone was at the office 5 days a week.
    • b3kart 1y ago
      > solution is have a shorter commute and live closer to the office With a short commute, a private office, and environment conducive to both focused work and collaboration as required, I imagine a lot more folks would be happy to RTO. However, this is not the reality for most who are asked to waste hours commuting (or uproot families to move closer) to sit surrounded by noise and distraction. I suspect “I miss when everyone was at the office 5 days a week” is behind many of these RTO mandates, and I am not sure the sacrifice made by people (like you) who don’t get to see colleagues quite as often is balanced against the sacrifice made by folks who have to uproot their whole lives or waste hours per day commuting.
• lz400 1y ago
  What I find repugnant (but not surprising) is that with the same earnestness and confidence they're announcing that RTOs are for the betterment of their own workforce, they were announcing the same thing about WFH just a couple of years back.
• neonate 1y ago
  https://archive.ph/EguQ5 https://archive.ph/EguQ5
• testaburger 1y ago
  1) until the fed lowers interest rates (and thus makes it easier for small to mid size companies to bring on more employees), hriing will be nowhere near the peak of 2022? where employees had all of the leverage 2) trump tarrif's are probably limiting the ability of the fed to do serious interest rate cuts needed to spur hiring 3) on top of this, AI is imo undoubtedly reducing demand in tech hires (esp. software engineers, but soon most white collar fields imo), something that wasn't the case just a couple of years ago. 4) the latest US revision just showed a downward revision of 1 million less employed than previously posted over the last year or so, last month(?) was revised to job losses and the msot recent job month was basically flat as well. 5) an arguement can be made that RTO, while crappy, greatly benefits cities by forcing a lot of highly paid tech workers to commute downtown, helping restaurant workers, cleaners (sorry the proper term escapes me at the moment), and other workers in support roles for offices keep their jobs (the spike in SF homeless during covid was caused by a big spike in high earning tech workers suddently working remotely causing layoff in these office reliant industries). In summary, employee leverage is really non existent in this climate, and you should think long and hard about quitting out of emotion. If you want long term freedom, your only hope is to take a big risk and start something on your own, with the added risk of now knowing that the job you left might not be there should you fail either because of AI or company layoffs/hiring freezes (greatly increasing your risk vs normal times). I've been long term unemployed in the past and I wouldn't wish this on my worst enemies in terms of how much stress can impact your life, and how it can easily wreck your sense of self-worth and self-confidence (luckily have been doing relatively great in the past few years).
• TrackerFF 1y ago
  The only "problem" I've noticed in office vs. remote mixes, has been that it really unevens the playing field as far as office politics and influence goes. The long short of it is that the remote workers become alienated, while the office gang has a good chance of becomes a good ol' boys club.
  • alchemical_piss 1y ago
    > The long short of it is that the remote workers become alienated, while the office gang has a good chance of becomes a good ol' boys club. This is what it becomes anyway whether I’m in office or not.
  • mystifyingpoi 1y ago
    This is unfortunately very true. So often decisions were made only among the in-office part of the team. It is so tempting just to make a quick meeting in the office or even in the stereotypical kitchen, and discuss something, than to send out invites to remote guys, make sure they are available (even though they supposedly work 9-5 as everyone else), find a meeting room, click buttons etc.
• philipwhiuk 1y ago
  Whether this amounts to anything will depend on this line: > If needed, you can request an exception by Friday, September 19. Often the exceptions to this sort of policy override the rule.
• misiek08 1y ago
  Seeing how many Slackers were hired during and after pandemic (they were hired before, but were forced to work from office) I can totally understand the moves. It’s sad, but there are way too many unskilled people, currently carried by AI to hide themselves in corporate worlds that the companies are already affected in a real, calculable way. Also this is great proxy for layoffs, but only for those that have options - as already mentioned. So it is a lose-lose for the companies that will make it the most stupid, direct way.
• fergie 1y ago
  I cant believe that they are also going to apply this to software engineers.
• blacklion 1y ago
  It is funny to see how in one (IT) culture there is two narratives, often supported by same people: 1) Office is bad, people more productive working remote from their homes, and corporate C-levels issue and enforce RTO, which is silly and anti-productive. 2) All jokes about Zoom/Meet/Teams, with all these «Each meeting consists of “are you hear me?” questions», etc. Maybe, I'm unique (I'm sure I'm not), but I was twice less productive at remote (when it was mandated by anti-COVID measures of my Government) and I've happily returned to office as soon as I was allowed to. For me, there are multitude of reasons to want to go to office, including endless number of shelves I need to mount at home (it is easy to procrastinate when you have OTHER real things to do, like home improvement, and not only meme-scrolling), mental resource to prepare one more meal each day (I have canteen at the office and lunch becomes no-brainer and takes 15-20 minutes instead of additional shopping & cooking at home), etc. But main and most important reason is, personal meetings and, yes, this proverbial cooler chats. I'm 10x more effective in communication in person than all these videocalls. I dread planned calls, I cannot «read» counterparts well via videocall and it takes me much more time to explain ideas, problems and opinions via any remote communication. Also, a lot of «small» questions are postponed indefinitely because there is no this cooler, when you can ask somebody opinion or bounce off half-backed ideas against your colleague without scheduling yet another meeting and WITHOUT throwing your colleague out of the flow (because you know that he leaved flow to drink some tea already!). I'm glad, that I can visit office every day, but also I'm glad that I can WFH for one day if I needed to (for example, when I need to meet plumber or alike). Yes, there is commuting, but my commute is 15-20 minutes one way :-)
  • tigeroil 1y ago
    I think the simple and boring answer is it really depends. As you say, your commute is short, but also I think there's just a personality element to it. Some people absolutely thrive and are way more productive remotely (and I think HN skews towards that type of person), and other people are the opposite, losing their minds if they don't have colleagues beside them to talk and collaborate with.
    • blacklion 1y ago
• farceSpherule 1y ago
  Microsoft, like other tech companies, over hired during COVID. This is their way of fixing that glitch while lessening the financial burden of severance packages handed out during layoffs. It's a standard McKinsey & Co. playbook that is going around the various tech companies as a way to reduce headcount. And, productivity is going to tank. If you force me to RTO, I will show up exactly at 8am, take my 1 hour lunch away from the office, and leave exactly at 5pm. And, when I do leave the office at 5pm, my work phone gets turned off and I will not do anything work related until 8am the next morning. You would think these tech companies would do something innovative. A f*cking monkey can cut costs by firing people. How about you stop over hiring? How about you stop leasing building space and use the products you create that enable remote collaboration?
• farceSpherule 1y ago
  Another anecdote. I have a friend who manages his families (started by his father and grandfather) private market investment company. The family is worth nine figures. He pulled his people back into the office because he said he "felt" like they were not working. Despite graduating from Harvard and from Harvard Business School he could not offer any qualitative or quantitative data to back up his "feelings." He lets his people WFH on Friday's but says he schedules video calls on that day to make sure they are working. He said, "When they are working from home, I do not know if they are walking their dog for an hour but if they are in the office, I know they aren't." What made this conversation laughable was that he and I were at a country club having lunch and bullshitting for half the day, on a weekday, while our kids (who had the day off from school) were playing a sport together. He stepped away more than once for "meetings" that he took from his cell phone. It was laughable.
• mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Smart societies would tie RTO with tax dollar incentives to support demographic growth.
• xyst 1y ago
  Why anybody would want to waste their time with working at MSFT is beyond baffling to me. Interned at Redmond, WA and despised it after a few weeks. Looks great on resume at time but definitely set me on a path to avoid large corporate firms like MSFT
• NullPrefix 1y ago
  All that watercooler chat, network effects and so on, how do you log it in the time tracker? Or is that unpaid work?
• amradio1989 1y ago
  Generally I believe RTO is about control. Secondarily, I believe that the corp office culture is still a thing many execs take pride in. Most of them have dedicated their lives to getting that sweet corner office with the mahogany L-desk. Then theres that sweet nameplate. I don’t think there’s any reliable data on RTO vs Remote productivity.
• jdlyga 1y ago
  Like anything, remote vs in-person work is multifaceted 1) For experienced high performers, remote work definitely increases productivity. They're much likely to work longer hours and get more done when they're not in the office. 2) For people who are on the low end or need more guidance, it's more likely for them to slip or get left behind with remote work. 3) It takes longer to onboard new hires working remotely. 4) There's more barriers to cross-team collaboration working remotely. You don't have that natural bumping into each other in the office and unintentional communication that you do on Slack or Teams. 5) Remote work allows you to pull from a much greater talent pool, and you don't have to spend money on office space. This is really beneficial for startups. 6) For larger companies, remote work is excellent for teams that need to support a live product 24/7 since you can pull from many different time zones. 7) For managers and senior leadership, your meetings are all on zoom. And they're all back to back. The natural food or bathroom breaks you get working in an office don't exist. And they're more likely to exist later into the night. This all leads to high performers picking up a lot more of the team's slack. They tend to thrive. Meanwhile, there's a certain percentage of staff that aren't doing a lot or are struggling. Managers are totally overloaded with meetings and don't have much time to give direct support. And because these are the decision makers, they're more likely to be in favor of RTO. What I expect to happen with RTO is that junior staff and new hires will pick up more work (hopefully), the meeting burden on managers will be me more reasonable, and there will be better collaboration. But the high performers who teams rely on will be unhappy, will get less done, and are more likely to leave. Productivity will dip at first, and there might be a brain drain. It might be a good decision longer term. But there are tradeoffs any way you do it.
• lazyfanatic42 1y ago
  I prefer the Office.
• demaga 1y ago
  I wonder what the situation is like for Ukrainian employees. It seems from the article that you can request an exception, but will it be actually approved? If anyone here is Microsoft employee living in Ukraine, I'd love to heat your take