6 ms·
Remote employees are a commitment So are on-site employees, who can screw off just as much as an off-site one. if the remote employees are not providing enoug
by sabat 14y ago
Remote employees are a commitment
So are on-site employees, who can screw off just as much as an off-site one.
if the remote employees are not providing enough value to justify that investment in remote workers
Then fire them. This kind of draconian move won't get Yahoo anything but an even bigger talent hemorrhage than it already has.
- cglee 14y ago> Then fire them. That's exactly what will probably happen if they don't comply. I think giving people an opportunity to comply before firing is a good move.
- jaggederest 14y agoNo, it's a terrible idea. The ones that don't have any other options will stay ( you retain a higher percentage of people who are not top performers ), the rest that you would want to keep leave ( the best employees can just get another remote job right away ) This is the classic problem with voluntary buyouts and other discretionary layoffs - you only keep the people without other options.
- btilly 14y agoIt happens on its own over time as well. See http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-dead-sea-effect/ http://brucefwebster.com/2008/04/11/the-wetware-crisis-the-d... for a fuller description.
- YZF 14y agoI think he meant fire them if they don't provide value. If they're remote and do provide value keep them remote.
- encoderer 14y agoWha? So they were wrong to give them a warning that they are expected to relocate to an office? They should've just fired them? That's really how you feel?
- sabat 14y agoThey're wrong to equate being remote with not producing value. If people are not producing value for the company, sure, fire them. If they are doing well, then why force them to relocate? What's the business sense in that?
- encoderer 14y agoOpportunity cost? They have $X in their budget. If the remote employees are producing $Y value, where $Y>$X, then they are earning their keep. But suppose Yahoo believes they can yield 1.5Y for the same $X budget by having on-site workers? It's not like companies are (or should be) altruistic democracies. I can see why a person affected by this would be sore, but they don't really have a valid gripe IMO. I'm personally a fan of at-will employment.
- zem 14y agoit's not a question of screwing off; it's that productive team dynamics are genuinely harder for remote employees to achieve.
- sabat 14y agoMy own experience, anecdotal as it may be, is that this is entirely untrue. What matters is communication, not facetime.
- CamperBob2 14y agoGood thing nobody told Linus Torvalds...