Hacker News Reader

Comment by mft_ | Hacker News Reader

Your argument seems to be that optimal/ideal office working is better than remote:

"An environment where people can find meeting rooms when they need them, can find peace and quiet when they need... and don't be a cubicle farm. Yes, if you think the alternative to remote work is an anonymous grey cubicle on the 5th floor of an anonymous office block (or just as bad, the 'trendy' exposed ducts open plan office)... I'd also recommend being somewhere with good public transport and have flexible working hours so people aren't forced into long commutes..."

Of course this ideal would be great!

But this also totally misses the point that in reality, the reason that people are often attracted to remote-working is precisely because their experience and environment fail on some or many of the ideals you list.

As such, you've not constructed an argument against remote working - just a (valid) argument against most office writing environments.

View on HN

I'm a remote worker. The office I was in is as described. Fantastic place to work. I went remote because I don't want to live in a high cost city and I don't want an insane commute. I was commuting 2-3hrs each direction for years to allow myself to live in the mountains and forest but still have a good job in Orange County, CA. I've now gone fully remote and it has been fantastic for my work life balance that I'm still trying to get right.

2-3 hours each way for years? That's pretty crazy. Depending on the road though, you probably had many moments of deep introspection by spending that much time alone in the car. And plenty of time for audiobooks / podcasts. Interesting life!

a fair bit was by train, and that was a tremendous help. I have consumed a whole lot of audiobooks, haha. I prefer multi-book series, where the longer each book is, the better. Plenty of 40hr+ books. I figure I went through maybe 150 such books. As part of the commute was by train, I could work or do other things there, but for driving, audiobooks all the way.

I assume I'm going to have to work with remote people now. In essence, the people in an office might as well be remote. There's almost always someone working from home. And when everyone is in physically in the office, many people don't like being disturbed, so you gotta hit them up on Slack and wait for people to respond.

What percentage of those remote work setups are “ideal”?

I would argue that if a remote worker is dissatisfied with the physical setup of their remote office, that's on them, not the employer. Having a team that does not prioritize remote-first-style communication is another situation entirely.

If the variance is tighter, it doesn't matter.

> the reason that people are often attracted to remote-working is precisely because their experience and environment fail on some or many of the ideals you list.

Disagree. They want to live someplace that doesn't have the highly paid jobs that, say a city or tech center would have. A San Francisco salary with a Modesto cost of living. Or they want to do the digital nomad thing.

Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible.

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible.

I kindly disagree. Open spaces are more prevalent than ever.

Dowtowns where office space are plenty are hell to commute.

In general I think companies want bullet points “we’re a great place to work” perks to recrute new people, but overall comfort or ease to work doesn’t seem to have gone up IMO.

Yeah, I see all these companies with open plan hell pits claiming to be a "Great place to work!", and I have to say "Compared to what, a sweatshop in the third world?"

The commutes are awful, the parking is expensive or non-existent, the office is noisy and crowded, the culture is repressive, the compensation is below market, but they all claim to be voted "Best workplace" or "Top ten place to work" or some such.

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible.

I’ve worked at many companies who spent a huge budget on the office, but I was never offered my own office with a door. Anything less is far from optimal.

When I was an intern at Microsoft in 2009, I had my own office with a door. A month into the summer, a teammate (another intern) moved in to share it, but we still kept the door closed and basically stayed out of each other's way (she was pretty awesome though, wish I'd stayed in touch). Productivity was incredible. And if I got stuck, it was more worth my time to stay put a few minutes at least trying to solve it on my own than to bug anyone else.

As a full time dev in one of the world's most valuable companies, I don't even have a cubical wall between me and my teammates. If anyone wants to speak, we all get interrupted.

I did not know how good I had it back then.

Even rooms of 4-5 people with a door would be an improvement on an open office if those environments bother you.

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible.

The "open office" has been repeatedly studied and proven sub-optimal on many aspects that impact both employees and companies. Yet companies continue to design new offices with these designs. I would love a fully-remote gig mostly because it would be respite from the open-office.

Fully remote requires a huge amount of discipline to not end up working 16 hr days 6-7 days a week.

I do agree open offices kill productivity but a blend of remote and onsite is best IMO.

disclaimer : I currently travel mon - thurs to be onsite everyweek

>Fully remote requires a huge amount of discipline to not end up working 16 hr days 6-7 days a week.

For you perhaps, I for one certainly do not have a problem Not Working All The Time.

I can see that. Different people work differently.

The opposite can sometimes be true. I work remotely about 1 day a week. Some days I get in about 4 hours of real work and others it's in the 12-16 range. In any case it's a different environment and requires some self-awareness to be effective.

After 9 coding jobs and a year or three in labor and service work at each end, I much prefer fixed schedules.

On-site is best, tho I think taking away time flexibility could actually be a boon and help make remote work tolerable.

Working for minimum wage now as a green waiter with people juggling 2-3 jobs and/or kids and a marriage in the Bay Area, more than any office colleague, I observe that fixed schedules work. The gig people I interact with are far more stressed than my colleagues.

Apparently tangental perhaps, I think this case helps isolate factors of logistics well when contrasting the more common cases; and I think it’s a wise way to go, and am building a life to support that type of engagements. Thanks for sharing.

I would love to hear more about your work history. You were a coder and now a waiter?

Like maybe a week ago there was an article on HN arguing that true blended remote/onsite is impossible. That at least some of your office co-workers won't be inclusive to remote workers (e.g. refuse to use slack).

I work remotely & onsite. This is a problem.

It's all about forcing in-person workers to use the same communication tools as remote workers - which is worse for those particular interactions, but better for the company overall.

"Remote work requires discipline" is true. Some people find it hard to stop working, others find it difficult to focus.

I'd say it's 100% different, but it's not necessarily difficult. We need to talk about how change is hard on the one hand, and how remote work is different on the other, and not conflate the difficulty of the two together to have an effective conversation.

There are fixes to just about all of the problems people mention including dedicated in-person time occasionally - just not all the time.

Based on your "onsite" it sounds like you're a consultant or with a pro-services firm servicing clients, rather than part of a product company. I don't think as consultants you can really have the same freedom because you cannot control your client culture, and the client culture will dictate how effective you can be when remote. I would argue that if you're a client-facing consultant you first have to put in the time before you can really consider going remote because you need to build the trust and understanding to do that. That can be hard, and many client cultures do not understand it and will have a hard time connecting delivered functionality to value. They value, instead sometimes, a butt in a seat.

Recently transitioned into consultant work, before that I was a silicon valley native who worked at big names and startups.

Remote work is difficult because when you are remote and care you feel pressured to do more work to make up for the missing office political presence you get from being onsite.

That human interaction is much more important than people want to acknowledge

Been there and understand that completely. I transitioned from full time on-site to a remote worker with the same organization which meant that I understood the things I needed to work to replace when I started working outside the office - that was a huge edge compared to folks that joined 100% remote.

While I don't feel pressured to do "more work" necessarily, I think where I have seen intensity increase is in making more of an effort to actually speak to other humans adjacent to your work. This might require taking time out of your day and end up causing you to spend more time.

Overall I find being remote allows you to focus more which means you can often get more done in less time (if you're on maker time) so hopefully this doesn't result in many extra hours.

If you're on manager time (which I often am) then this is a whole different challenge of course, but it's an interesting one.

Mainly I would say it's best to balance your self-pressure to do more (coming from a fellow person who cares). Doing more work probably won't help, but ensuring you have regular touch-points with the right people will go a long way toward people knowing you exist, what your value is, and providing you with context to execute effectively without guidance.

Probably saying something you already know but feels good to type it either way :)

I'd still prefer remote of an office fully optimized for what I'd want in an office. For me, remote just works so much better. I can live where I want, I can work hours that work best for me, I can spend time with my family rather than commuting.

Another benefit of remote work is that a company that's 100% remote has to spend time thinking through and improving communications and culture in ways that are optional for other companies.

> Another benefit of remote work is that a company that's 100% remote has to spend time thinking through and improving communications and culture in ways that are optional for other companies.

A really good point

"I can work hours that work best for me"

I have been working remote for years, and one reasons why companies hire me over a much cheaper resource in other countries is that I am US-based working US hours. If I started working crazy non-standard hours, I will no longer be employed.

Plus, the company saves by not having to pay for more office space, parking, cafeteria, yadda, yadda. Instead of cramming people into an open office like battery hens to save money on high SF office rents, people can work remotely, commute less, and save the company money on offices. The cost of communication software is far less than even the skimpiest open office rent and build out.

Hypothetically, if the going rate of a developer in San Francisco is $250K and that's what I have to pay to hire someone locally, but I can hire someone from anywhere in the country, if I know the going rate in Modesto is $120K, why wouldn't I offer them $140K? They would gladly accept it.

Companies also don't offer San Francisco salaries to people living in India even if they are equally qualified.

Why though?

> Why though?

Cuz they don't need to!

Gitlab gives few reasons in their handbook [1]. The obvious one is: "If we start paying everyone the highest wage our compensation costs would increase greatly, we can hire fewer people, and we would get less results."

[1] https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/people-operations/global-c...

So why doesn't GitLab fire all their high cost of living employees and replace them with someone cheaper?

They say then they’d only have people who live in low CoL areas and they want diversity. Seems odd to me.

Because I assume they have a headquarters which would be empty. Firing high-cost of living, high expertise employees to hire new ones (might be senior level, but not well versed in the problem) does not sound wise.

Why not? As a business owner why would I pay $90K more than I had to? Since my pool of candidates is basically the entire country, that means my pool of potential candidates who would happily take $140K and be able to work remotely has grown.

"As a business owner why would I pay $90K more than I had to?"

For the same reason might ask why they would take less than they have to.. although it is true that the candidate pool grows, the pool of jobs we can select from is also worldwide.

I mean, I can afford to work cheaper if I want to, but I don't have to because people will pay... the principle works both ways.

Why would I take a 140K/year job just because the people around me are living in abject poverty unless I have to work locally?

Theoretically yes, but most companies don’t allow remote work so it puts the company at an advantage.

Really a bit confused by the "abject poverty" bit you threw in there.

I'm remote working from a folk festival in rural texas. I have a cousin here who is homeless when she's off the ranch. I don't think it would be good for anyone for me to set my pay based off her pay.

Well yes, I agree. I don't think anyone would argue that though. I believe the argument being made though was that a company didn't need to offer Tech Hub market rate when they could simply offer above-market rate for a remote worker, and then both parties would come out economically ahead.

The way your comment was worded, I thought you meant accepting $140k/year was akin to being in abject poverty, which seemed like a very uninformed view of the world. I don't think that's what you meant though.

because the goal/interest of a company is different compare to individual.

as an individual, if you can demand more money, you should.

as a company, if you can spend less for the same amount of quality, they should.

The same reason no one offers to pay extra at the grocery store.

its a well established practice to establish compensation partly based on employee cost of living.

The employer doesn't care about an employee's cost of living. The employer wants to pay as little as possible. The employee wants to make as much as his local market will allow. What the employee will accept is based on his other alternatives which is indirectly based on the cost of living.

This is a good point. If everyone is working remotely, you will need to compete on salary with everyone in the world, not just in your area.

Which might mean you can't afford rent.

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible.

Sorry, but most companies nowadays use open offices, which are absolutely anathema to me.

Here's the thing: I absolutely want to work in a cube farm. I want to work in a traditional office environment with individual cubicles in a suburban office park. Unfortunately, there are very few companies like that anymore.

I like my current company. I like it a lot. We're a B2B telecom in the northern suburbs of Dallas with cubicles as far as the eye can see. I'm happy here.

But if I ever end up leaving (which isn't going to happen anytime soon, because I'm happy here), then my next job is probably going to be remote, because I seriously doubt I'll find another non-remote job that matches my criteria. Sadly, the kind of company I prefer working at is a dying breed, and I'd rather work remote than work in a trendy open office environment that caters to millennials (hell, I'm technically a millennial, but everything to do with millennial culture makes me cringe).

I don't think "most companies" use open offices. I think it varies.

I do agree with you, when I graduated from college, I explicitly didn't want to be in a cube farm. Graduating me was an idiot, and I very much do want to be in a cube farm.

Also, I don't think lumping "millennial" as the cause of open offices is the correct reason. I feel like it's initially attractive for a lot of college grads, but it's generally opposed by people with experience. If you're at a place that doesn't have the working conditions you like, it's because they don't (or can't) value you enough to provide those conditions. I'm a millennial as well, but have only worked in an open office once, and that was when I was younger and had less experience.

What is it you like about cube farms so much?

Individual offices I understand completely. Cubes? Seems like a very cheapskate version of a real office. I've never worked in one though, so I guess I can't quite understand it.

Better than open offices and hotdesking?

There is a hierarchy, IMO, best to worst:

1) Private office - I've had this, it was great

2) Shared office - had this too, it's ok if you have a good officemate

3) Team room - had this, larger office/conference room for one team, you have to be able to close the door

4) private cubicle, high walls - had this, pairing was easy

5) private cubicle, low walls - had this, a few more egregious interruptions

6) shared cubicle - haven't had this, still beats open office

7) open plan, big desks - at this now, it still lacks privacy and noise control

8) open plan, benching - had this, 36" of bench space, had to carry my laptop, mouse and office supplies with me

9) open plan, hot desking - IMO, this is just cause for a resignation letter on ergonomic and dehumanization grounds.

TL; DR: Cubicles are better for concentration and privacy than open plan, not as good as offices. Open plan makes me nostalgic for cubicles.

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible.

Ha! Not my company.

Why can't it be both? I want remote work because our office environment is horrible and my company isn't likely to change that AND I don't want to commute (after my company moved it's offices).

> Companies these days bend over backwards to make the office experience as optimal as possible.

My last 3 companies over the last 7 years (I'm new to one of them) have:

* open offices (2 of the 3) or short-wall cubicles. That latter actually had a noise meter to try and flag when people were too loud...but they had to make it mobile so it could be wheeled around to the area that was currently the most complained about.

* A constant battle to find open conference rooms. All 3 changed offices while I was there, and promised more meeting room space in the new office. All 3 quickly found it wasn't enough.

I don't doubt that the companies are trying to make the open office space as nice as they can, but you can only polish a turd so much - they are still committing to the open office spaces.

They make parts of it as optimal as possible (free food, nice facilities, readily available supplies). They do not bend over backwards to make the actual work environment optimal, as evidenced by all of the open office plans.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com