Ask HN: Do You Consider Remote a Working Perk? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Do You Consider Remote a Working Perk?

93 pointsdizzystar85 comments

I was contacted about a remote position today. They asked for my expected rate and I told them. They replied, "Can you consider coming down since this is a remote position?"

I really struggled to come up with a response to this. Yes, I'm willing to negotiate on principal, but it has nothing to do with being remote. In fact, I consider remote a reason to pay more money.

My thinking is that it's difficult to find the type of people who has the focus and skills (focus overrides skill, I think) to really do remote work well. The employer is not paying for the office, not giving me free coffee, not paying for the computer I'm using, and (if it's important) no ping pong, and no social interaction with coworkers. In return, I give full-on focused work with no cruft.

I understand that it is a trade off, but I'm never sold on the thought that remote is some exclusive benefit.

View on HN

No, working remotely isn't a perk, it's simply: work.

[Use of the term "telecommuting" seems like another common giveaway, where and when it appears.]

The teams I've worked with have never had difficulty with communicating and collaborating, meeting deadlines and "innovating," and I highly doubt that we're all ninjas (because surely I am not).

Typical was my last position: I never clocked in from 9-5, usually from the early morning hours until late at night, to provide time zone coverage and purely out of interest and the desire to be a contributing member of the team, with several breaks included for meals, exercise, etc. Flexibility meant I was more likely to contribute, rather than less. (So many entities fail to understand this basic human dynamic. Instead create a prison, and watch how the inmates adapt and behave.)

I'm mostly able to control my environment, which means a quiet space in which to work, free from the distractions of my cube-dwelling days (though at least those had walls).

It's simply natural to work together remotely at this point, and I frequently notice how it provides companies with other tangible benefits, which I think some fail to consider.

I'd say some are trapped in a twentieth century mindset, but perhaps we're stuck here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_system.

Yeah, I'm definitely like that at times too. Give 4 solid hours, take long break, then gun it when I'm at my most focused, which is often after 6pm.

My company recently went through a merger and did the typical rearranging of deck chairs, including renaming things arbitrarily. My department is commercial products (mobile apps). The new name for this department?

"Agile Build Factory"

They're literally telling us we're factory workers to them. My objections to this name were met with blinks and hand waves.

"Agile Build Factory"

Love it. Management probably thinks it is "cool, hip and edgy"

Maybe they could rename it to the Dynamic Agile Factory Team.

No. These days I consider it a requirement. Doesn't have to be full remote, but I want at minimum 2 days to be able to be out of the office and enjoying from the house I'm paying for using the salary you're (employer, not you, OP) are paying for. Have spent the last couple of weeks embroiled with an engineer who has made my Ops team almost 4 months behind on a specific deliverable.

Meanwhile, the rest of our deliverables that didn't involve this engineer and his team have shipped 90% ahead of time. That 10% was one deliverable that wasn't shipped ahead of time, it was shipped on time.

And my dept. is 100% remote.

I like your arguments though, working remotely sacrifices a lot that you would otherwise get by being chained to a desk, and the idea that you should take LESS money because of it is offensive.

We're getting hung up on semantics here. What's going on is really a negotiation tactic. Here's what the company is thinking:

- dizzystar would enjoy working remote

- it would be hard for dizzystar to find other remote-working opportunities

- hence, dizzystar would be willing to work for a discounted rate, in order to be remote

In their perspective, there is no "right or wrong". It's purely a matter of negotiation leverage. You have a couple options here:

- admit they are right, and accept a discounted rate

- claim that your rates are final and not negotiable

- claim that you don't value remote working, but because you value them as a client, you're willing to negotiate on your rate

Option 2 is more likely to get you a higher rate, but also more likely to drive them away. Option 3 involves accepting some discount, but at least you minimise the leverage they think they have over you.

This discussion over semantics is not helping anyone. Just treat it as a negotiation game, and play it the way you would any other negotiation scenario.

^this. While there is an objective and subjective truth, in this case it's just about negotiation.

If I were you, I would follow up on your thoughts with something like:

"I don't think it's appropriate for us to make remote or in-office location related to salary. You're hiring me to get things done. I incur higher costs by maintaining a higher office. What recompense do you offer for costs of running a remote office since your office costs are deferred?"

Or maybe softer, but that should take the idea off the table for them.

I wouldn't even go there. I would just say that my family needs, lifestyle, or need to take care of my parents requires $X. Make something up.

Right, I did go with a variant on option 3.

If it matters, I've only worked on site for one job. I've always been remote otherwise. I probably should have mentioned it in my OP, but really was wondering more about the general perspective on remote.

Another option is to work at a company for a year and then demand remote during a critical part of a project. If they don't give you remote they lose a valuable asset and are behind schedule.

I've been remote for a few years. I've negotiated remote offers from many bay area a companies. This is a pretty standard piece of hr bullshit you should ignore. The correct answer is to hold your ground.

If for some reason that doesn't work out, you've discovered that the company values you less based on your zip code which is something you definitely want to find out before you're relying on them for your livelyhood.

In my opinion, no you should absolutely do not come down in your rate because of remote work.

It is a perk... for the company.

Imagine not having to pay for office space? The company doesn't have to buy a desk and chair, or pay electricity to run your computer, or stock the coffee and snacks. And there is the added benefit that the work hours are completely blurred. There is no such thing as "work stops when you leave the office" when you live at the office.

Sure it has its benefits to you too. Easier to spend time with friends and family, less money spent on gas, etc but the company is saving way more money.

I'm personally extroverted (rare for a software engineer but we exist) so working home aline drives me crazy and I consider mandatory remote work a negative. I actually rent space in a co-working space (an added expense for me) in order to be productive. Some people use coffee shops for this purpose.

> There is no such thing as "work stops when you leave the office"

um...I dunno about _you_ but it sure as hell applies to me. I leave my home office for the day and work stops. Emergency fires that affect customers are the only exception and i would help with those even if i didn't work at home. Being able to set boundaries like that when you work from home is _critical_ to maintaining mental health and minimizing stress.

That was a bit of hyperbole. But I'd say it is true for 9/10 companies I am familiar with that do remote work. Stories of bosses calling people and expecting them to pick up at 8PM abound.

Stories of 8pm calls are not limited to work from home employees though.

Every programmer wants remote unless otherwise stated.

Work Remotely. Salary. Benefits. Software Stack. Chill Boss. That is what matters.

Just about anything else the startups have to offer is categorized as "meta". Not helping things ship.

Devs don't care about "culture". What does that mean? Mandatory stand-ups, weekly 2-hour meetings, signalling "values", and these group photos where everybody forces a smile? (You haven't exited. What is there to celebrate about?)

They don't want the politics. Colleagues trying to justify why they're there, instead of being in a conscience frame of mind to better the company. Anything else not helping the product to market (shipping), gaining users, and retaining them.

The requirement of "on-site", unless there's a legit reason, has become a red flag that invokes an image of a boss in a suit, reclining in their Aeron chair, that's an insecure, yapping, "expert beginner" micro manager who won't heed technical advice; a bozo.

So what makes a "Chill Boss" for programmers? A correlation worth testing is greater software development experience than employees. As opposed to just having a history going straight into management soon as possible.

It’s not a perk at all in 2018, IMO, except perhaps for some logistical issues you might personally have (eg dealing with your kids, etc). I speak from experience. If you are maintaining full-on focus, as you said, you’re only saving the company money. Every point you’ve made here is valid.

Working “remotely” actually puts the entire burden of managing an office and managing deadlines squarely on your shoulders.

EDIT: I mean managing your own deadlines of course

I value working remotely because it allows me to save time and live in an area that fits my lifestyle. And it costs my company money as they need to pay my travel expenses when I do visit the office, as well as some HR and legal overhead. Many managers also find an employee's presence in the office valuable in and of itself.

I work remote full-time because it's something that I negotiated up front my with employer, but most of my team members are required to come into the office every day (or at least most days). If they work from home too often their manager will notice and "have a chat" with them eventually.

So from that perspective it definitely feels like a perk, and something that I am fine negotiating over as part of a larger compensation package.

Think carefully about this negotiation. I've been down this road before, and I feel I was a bit too quick to decrease my salary. Many times companies will use the region you work remote from to compute your salary. So if you live in Colorado and work for a company in SF, they might try and pay you a Colorado rate.

The funny thing about that is, many times they will probably be offering to pay for relocation costs, and a full SF salary when you do relocate.

In my mind, if they are willing to pay for relocation, and a full salary AND the real estate costs of having you sitting in the office, then they should be willing to pay you the salary you expect.

This is a red flag. That company or manager probably assumes people doing remote work are doing their laundry or whatever and not doing work. Perhaps they had a bad experience with someone? Or was this an HR person just doing their "get the rate lower" job objective?

They aren't going to save much by having a remote worker, right? Yes office space but chances are a company leases an entire floor, used or not. The amount of electricity a laptop uses over a year can't be much either. A single person drinking coffee can't cost them that much either.

I would almost want to ask how they come to the conclusion that remote should pay less? Or a slightly different wording like how are pay ranges determined for <insert title here> position across the company? Does this also come into play with promotions, raises, bonuses, etc?

Because I'm firmly in the remote-first camp from my point of view remote should never be considered a perk or something that's graciously granted to you but rather the default case while on-premise work should only be required if or when it's truly necessary. I know that many companies are far from that assumed ideal situation but that's the way it should be in my opinion.

There of course also is an objective negotiation angle to this. You could calculate your personal cost of commuting to their office every day and add that on top of your usual rate. Then you could go down by that amount when asked that question during negotiations.

Bingo - you would think in an industry like tech this would be the common belief. Head into the office on days when meetings/ in-person collaboration / brainstorming /planning etc is cirtical. Spend the rest of the time remote (which is realistically about 80% of the time). IMO there is no reason - especially in tech - you need to be in the office every day. I say 50/50 is a good starting point. Can you imagine the traffic relief not to mention the stress relief (and health benefits of this) if this was common?

This is especially true in the bay area!

> Can you imagine the traffic relief not to mention the stress relief (and health benefits of this) if this was common?

Indeed, traffic is a major aspect of this. Remote work is the key to solving the traffic problems in large cities around the world.

Non-remote work also incurs ridiculously high costs both in terms of necessary public (railways, roads, parking space) and private (office buildings) infrastructure costs and hidden costs such as those caused by health issues and opportunity costs caused by the huge amount of wasted human lifetime.

I don't consider it a perk, but at this point you'd have to pay me a lot more to come to an office. I don't think that I would (have to?) take less just because they want to hire me.

I agree that "remote work" is a skill into itself, but no matter how much I value that, I don't see how it's costing my employer anything.

If anything they ought to pay me more because they don't ave to provide my office and coffee and whatnot.

"at this point you'd have to pay me a lot more to come to an office"

So then you're saying that you will work for less to work remote, because you value it as a perk.

I suppose that any point of negotiation is a perk?

I mean, I'd work with a live band playing in the room if you'd pay me enough and give me ear plugs, so I suppose "no live music at work" is a perk? I dunno?

It's not exclusively a benefit, but it does have some powerful upsides:

* Less commute time and cost (I save 8-10 hours a week, plus a few hundred a month in parking, fuel, and insurance)

* More freedom and flexibility (not every gig offers this, but many do)

* A bunch of focus time

* Communications (oddly) are greatly normalized as everyone has the same handicap. I find a fully remote team easier to manage than a mixed one, as no one has an advantage over another (as happens when part of a team shares the same office).

On the other hand, you're maintaining your office space and much of your setup (internet, wifi, heating, desk, chairs). Again, some jobs offer some compensation here, but some of it will be on the employee to maintain.

You're also more isolated, and team culture takes a bit more work to create and maintain.

Personally, I value the option to work remote as a net gain. I love my home office, I save time and money on the commute, and I have more time to focus than in the office. I understand the company benefits too, as they pay less rent, own fewer fixtures, and get more of my time. But I still see it as a net win for me.

As computers start to code themselves, remote work will become essential as people (in theory) will have more time to live their day to day lives. But remote working is not that big a perk per se. What is modern work going to be about when it is just metrics and data? we need to rebuild a lot of communities and networks with our new (hopefully) time rich societies.

You got shadowbanned. I'm vouching for you because you seem to be an earnestly new account.

I find a mix of working on premise and remote the best - on premise keeps you in touch with the company and your colleagues, remote is the best to get stuff done.

They introduced it a while back at my workplace, and tbh, I would not take a job these days where remote work isn't atleast partially on the table.

Saves me between 1 and 3 hours of commute (depending ont he location).

If you'd expect me to come to the office every day... either it has to be somewhere where commuting to is really easy, or pays significantly more. And I'm not even sure I'm willing to compromise on the remote work part.

Working remote is a perk. I don't see anything wrong with a negotiation based around perks vs income.

There are extremes and exceptions, of course, but the base assumption seems reasonable to me.

In some situations it would be said you are being too literal?

Sometimes when people negotiate they say "can you do x because y" where y is just a plausible way to ask for x.

It is often more graceful than just saying "we don't want to pay that much."

im not following, can you explain what you mean a little more thoroughly?

I think whiddershins means the "since it's a remote position" part of the argument is just a smokescreen, and that they really just mean "can you come down on price". Perhaps the OP should call their bluff and offer to work on-site.

He's saying that saying "can you do X because Y" sometimes is just another way of asking "can you do X". So in this case, them asking for the OP to lower salary may have nothing to do with the position being remote, even though that's what they said.

This is a common negotiation tactic. If you give someone _any_ reason when making a request, they are more likely to comply, even if that reason doesn't make sense.

Small example, at a coffee shop: "Can I cut in line?" might get a negative response, but "can I cut in line, I am late to pick up my son from school" is much more likely to get a positive response. I don't have a link, but there have been studies to show that even nonsensical justifications are more likely to get positive responses. "Can I cut in line, my grandmother is watching TV" is more effective than no justification at all.

In this case, by connecting the salary reduction to a feature of the job (remote), it makes it more acceptable to comply with the request than if it didn't have a reason attached.

I charge a 30% premium for my time on site. Working from a location of my choosing is more productive. When on site, I am endlessly harassed for meetings and chats and people coming to say hello (and oh btw can you help me with <insert issue>), whilst it is expected that my productivity remains the same. Some clients actually expect an increase in productivity. Being on site is more work, so the client pays more.

Nope. You've built a comfortable work environment and the discipline required to be an effective remote worker. No reason for the company to expect to capture all the value in this. They're already saving on office real estate. Very likely saving in taxes. You're also assuming all the risk in being in an area with limited local opportunities. Get what you're worth and don't settle.

Paying market prices for employees is a great way to cut costs and optimize profits by exploiting workers' living arrangements. If someone lives in a market where there is very little job competition, and their cost of living is low, pay them less money! Your business will save money, and it's more fair to your workers who live in more expensive neighborhoods.

^ This is basically the rationale I imagine when people pay the same worker less money just because of where they live. They obviously could hire someone local and would pay them more money. But they want to hire you. But they also think they can get away with screwing you on compensation, because you're remote. They save money and they get an employee. It's a win-win for them.

Fuck. That. Especially because they said "Can you consider ...". Uh, no, Mr. I Just Lost All My Negotiating Power By Asking Someone To Think About My Request Rather Than Insisting On It.

Remote is not a benefit. If they had a million qualified local candidates banging down their door, they wouldn't be negotiating with you. Tell them to put up or shut up.

I love working remotely.

It's not for everybody. Some people need the social interaction at the office.

But I love not having a commute to work, the convenience of having the extra time, saving on gas, meals, etc.

For me, it's become the primary perk of the job.

Just my two cents, but agree completely. Remote lets me focus on my work better, and skipping the commute is a huge benefit to my mood overall. Plus far less gas, car maintenance, I can go for a run during lunch...

It's also hard to overstate the freedom it gives you - you can literally live anywhere in the US you please. It's not for everyone but I don't think I could go back at this point.

And when you say "US" you mean "world", right? :)

It’s possible they are considering cost of living (e.g. you can live “as well” nowhere near Silicon Valley on half the salary, depending). If that were true though, they should also be expecting to “up” their offer if you were remoting from downtown Manhattan or something.

Ultimately, you decide if the offer is what you wanted.

I would think the company benefits from a purely financial point of view because they don't need to provide an office or any of the other amenities that go with one.

I personally hate working remotely. Most people don't though so it is viewed as a perk. I've interviewed people before who applied solely because we offered remote. Some of them even lived within a pretty easy commute to the office.

And along the same lines, it's not a great idea to respond to "why are you interested in working with us?" with "because it's remote" even if you really love remote work.

It depends on the type of work. Working remotely with fixed hours isn't a perk. However, usually working remotely gives you significantly more control over your own time and schedule, which IMO is a huge perk.

It costs me about 600 dollars a month to commute to work where I live. So yes, if push came to shove, I would take a hit roughly equivalent to that, all else being equal. I might even go above that, because I greatly value working from home.

That said, in a salary negotiation, I don't think I would let that slip. As you have pointed out, remote work is a mutually beneficial situation, and just as I save money, so does the company. It makes sense to share the savings, and charge about the same rate one normally would in the region in which one lives.

I wouldn't negotiate down because of a remote position. That's garbage. I mean sure, you're saving on commute, but what would that ultimately save you in gas money? $50-100/mo? That's $1200.

In office work = free coffee, work laptop, social interaction, and sometimes free food. Pretty sure that greatly outweighs $1200.

And it's not like you're going to get the time you spent commuting back. Likely their expectation would be that you work through those hours. So. Nope.

I only work remotely, 2-3 days/month on-site is fine. So no, it's not a perk, it's a requirement.

You are right: working remotely effectively requires a different skill set. Most of all, a remote worker has to be really good at self-motivation, focus and communication. I have been working remotely for a decade now and consider myself an expert in those areas, so no, I would not accept lower pay.

> They replied, "Can you consider coming down since this is a remote position?"

It's a perk in the sense that you're not paying bay area rents. If you're in a high CoL area and want to say, applying to remote positions is an uphill battle, as the chief reason most companies want to look remote is to expand their recruiting reach without raising wages, and hoping to lower them.

Meanwhile, companies like Basecamp are doing the opposite, and basing pay off of SF:

https://m.signalvnoise.com/basecamp-doesnt-employ-anyone-in-...

They are playing you because they know you want this. Hold your ground and walk away if necessary. Remember that you have the control. Not them.

No. I get more work done at the office, and since I am fortunate to work for a company that doesn't prescribe to an open office plan, it's actually fun being at work sometimes. It's no fun working at home when there's so many cats and dogs that need hugs, Netflix shows to watch, and everything else

I spend 3 hours a day in traffic. That comes up to a 8 hour vs 11 hour work day. Transportation cost is about 5% of the salary. The 3 hours is completely lost too - it's not hours I can spend in contemplation. The biggest thing I cut from those hours is exercise, cooking, and grocery shopping. So this would cost me some more in health later.

So remote work is definitely a perk/benefit.

But I think the question here is that it's also a perk to the company; they don't need to pay for office space and all those other things. And there are less people who can fit the remote worker requirements.

So I would say that remote work should pay roughly the same.

Personally, I would take a big hit to pay to work remote, but this is only because on site benefits here don't include computers and comfortable seating.

I think remote work is a benefit when you’re sitting in a cubicle farm 8 hours a day, some days of the week. I’m much, much happier when working from home and can focus much better when it’s required. Definitely not a “taxable benefit”, though, in the sense that you get a decreased salary in exchange for it.

You bring up very good points about working 100% remote, though. It should not constitute a decreased salary unless you’re not working full time remote.

If I were you I’d try to negotiate for the employer to pay for gigabit internet and buy you a nice new PC, then just take those things off the total compensation. Nice thing being that those things are now pretty much tax-free income for you. You’ll be saving on commuting costs, too. Also calculate what you can write off for a home office.

The expenses you list would be paid by the company for in-office work. They should not lower your compensation.

>>> You bring up very good points about working 100% remote, though. It should not constitute a decreased salary unless you’re not working full time remote

Why do you think this?

When you hear this, you say: "I appreciate your position, but I just can't find a business reason to justify lowering my rates."

Ultimately, it comes down to this. Do they view you as a someone special, a person who can really deliver value in a unique way, or do they view you as a commodity?

If they view you as a commodity, they'll try to pull all sorts of stunts like this one. But if there's a special bond, they will respect your rates and try harder to get you onboard.

So perhaps if you are getting asked this question, it's because they're too lazy to learn more about you and haven't really figured out that special thing you bring to the table. There isn't enough of a relationship yet.

It's entirely subjective. To some people it is a perk, to others it is a downside. If you don't consider it a perk, I would say so. Tell him that you appreciate the flexibility, but don't consider remote work to be an advantage.

Absolutely. I'd take on the order of 10-20% of my salary to never have to be in-office. It'd be a steal for the company, too since I'd get so much more done than if they were mandating 9-5 ass-in-seat time in the office.

From the point of view of the employer, it does not matter too much that you personally dislike remote work. Their negotiating position is based on the fact that other people think it is a perk, so because of the tradeoff between fun and wages[1], they can find a replacement just a little bit easier than if the position was not remote.

[1] https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/principles-economics-mi...

Everything comes down to each parties BATNA [0]. If the employer values on site employees more than remote then they will offer less (all other things being equal), if they value remote workers as being more valuable then they will offer more. The same applies to the employee.

The cost of living of where you live is not the employer's concern. Everything comes down to supply and demand.

0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_alternative_to_a_negotiat...

I have worked remote for most of the last 12 years. When looking for new positions I tell them my expected rate which is for remote. Then tell them my on site rate is my expected rate + 50% inconvenience fee.

> Yes, I'm willing to negotiate on principal, but it has nothing to do with being remote.

Why do you even care then?

> My thinking is that it's difficult to find the type of people who has the focus and skills (focus overrides skill, I think) to really do remote work well.

Are you basing that on anything other than wild fantasy? Have you heard of eastern Europe, where tons of people will work remote for far less money?

> In return, I give full-on focused work with no cruft.

All employees are expected to give that, remote or not, whatever "with no cruft" really means.

Working remotely is a skill. I negotiate my compensation based on all of the skills that I bring to the table. So should any prospective client/employer.

Think about how much money the company is saving by not reserving you a desk in an office space, etc. You may save some money on a commute, they definitely save money by you being remote. Since it's a money-saving move for them, why should you lower your salary? IMO salary should be dependent on other factors like what you're worth on the market and how much it would cost them to find an equivalent employee.

It’s mutually beneficial. It saves you time/money on driving, and saves the company on overhead (office equipment, electricity, office space, etc).

"I really struggled to come up with a response to this."

When faced with a request of the form 'can you please do X because of justification Y', people are by default more willing to do X than if there was no stated justification. If they refuse, they feel compelled to explain why justification Y doesn't apply.

But there's no need.

If the rate you've quoted is reasonable given the market, then just say so.

Not a perk but as This is a specific market it all comes to the balance between number of remote Job offers in your domain and number of people looking for a remote position in your domain. Anyway if you're experimented working remote you can explain that it makes you real productive and that you see no reason to lower your fees/salary

Your intuition is right that you shouldn’t come down because it’s remote unless that is an optional accommodation for them. It’s not like they would offer you the same position without the remote option for a higher rate. Your rate is based on the sum total value they can offer, right? It sounds like a poor negotiation tactic on their part.

If not a union we need developer training on negotiation, the hiring staff are too good at it. "Can you consider coming down since this is a remote position?" When I hear that now I'd see through the BS it is, back a few years ago I would thought, may be they have a point.

Maybe they feel like you will be saving money and time not having to commute? I don't know. You make valid points and I agree, they shouldn't use remote as leverage when they are already saving a lot on the position being remote.

The gas is valid if they only want to negotiate $3/hr or something like that. It's always more, of course.

Commuting cost time also. If your rate is $80/hour, that really adds up if you have a one hour commute each way with traffic.

I live in Los Angeles. If the company is in New York, does that mean I should take out the price of plane tickets for each way?

The comparison doesn't make sense in a vacuum.

If you live in Hollywood and the job you want is in Santa Monica, then you would add some time for that. If the remote ob is just as good, you could save some time and not go to Santa Monica.

If your ideal job is already down the street from where you live, then remote doesn't offer much commute advantage.

Yes, if the fuckers insist you be there for 8:00 AM EST meetings on a regular basis.

No, it's not a "perk". This industry has plenty of jobs that can be done (and done very well) by 100% remote teams. The location of a worker should have zero negative impact on the pay arrangement.

I don't think remote work is a perk, but I do find some employers either think or feel that they can pay employees less just because they are remote. I would never work at a place like that.

Yes. As someone who has to take a 1h30 bus twice a day I would jump ship if a company offers me remote work for even 50% of the month.

Work is something you do, not a place you're at.

The only good reason for an employer to require you to be at a specific place is if there are some levers or buttons there that needs to be pulled or pushed.

I've worked entirely from home before and I didn't really like it after a while. It was too hard to get motivated every day and keep to the schedule I'd set and I missed having coworkers even just being around even if we don't talk all the time. But I would enjoy being able to work from home while still having a workplace I needed to go to at leaat a few days a week.

Where I work, "working from home" is code for "checking email a few times during the day so it appears I'm at least somewhat engaged, while really doing very little at all yet not using a PTO day."

Too hard to get anything done when others you need to collaborate with are not there.

Yes, it only works (from the employers point of view) if the following are true:

1. the employee either genuinely enjoys the work or genuinely cares about the company

2. the employee has not become cynical about the company, even if (1) was originally true.

In most lines of work these are unlikely to be true for most people. However, software engineering can, if you're lucky, have an addictive quality and be intellectually enjoyable and intellectually meaningful. If that coincides with a decent company with decent people, then weirdly, remote working can result in people working hard away from the office. In my case, getting much more done away from the office because personally I can get nothing done in an open plan office with frequent meetings.

You left out the critical ingredient: the company has to have remote-first DNA. If they aren't set up to handle that style of employee, its going to result in a hire that feels isolated and who will very probably experience being passed over for anything interesting. Remote-first implies all kinds of things, up to and including having slack convos with someone sitting one desk over, and most companies just don't care enough to put the effort in to make a truly remote friendly workplace.

While I will agree that "working from home" can often be codewords for fucking around and slacking off, one day I actually work at home I usually get more done than in a good week at the office.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com