Hacker News Reader

Comment by spacehome | Hacker News Reader

Twice in my life I've been given an office upon joining a company later to be relocated to an open office, which I hate. After the second relocation, I thought that the next job I take I will try to negotiate upfront for an office in my contract, in writing. Has anyone ever heard of anything like this being done?

View on HN

My dad did this (in writing), but it was specific to the exact position he was in (something he didn't realize would be an issue). He got promoted, and a month later they took him from his private office to a cubicle. Admittedly, a cubicle isn't an open office, but it's still a downgrade from a regular office.

Cubicles at pretty good for productivity, if well built and not in a phone-heavy work environment. They combine audio dampening , partial visual blocking with visual airspace, natural light, and easy collaboration.

Yeah, they're not so bad overall; I think he was more upset with the fact that they took the office away from him more than anything else.

Yea, sort of. If, when I joined, the company had said upfront that they had open offices, I wouldn't have been quite so sore about it.

It feels like I agreed to work there under one set of circumstances and then the company unilaterally changed the agreement. It qualitatively felt like a bait-and-switch, but that's not quite the right analogy, because the two companies never said that the office situation wouldn't change. I just assumed, and that's on me.

I want to change the dynamic at the next job I take. And I am curious if anyone else here has made some think like that work.

Wow. How did he get that in writing? Was it his initiative, or came with the position by default?

I was pretty young when this happened, but if I remember it was basically listed in the accommodations/perks in his contract.

It could put the entire job offer in jeopardy if they read it as you being antisocial, entitled, incapable of being a teamplayer, arrogant, etc.

I also definitely wouldn't do that in a situation where I'd be part of a team that shares an office elsewhere. If you do get your private office your coworkers will harbour resentments against you for enjoying a privilege that they themelves do not enjoy and retaliate either consciously or subconsciously by keeping you out of the loop on information that they discuss amongst themselves in their office.

To be clear, I'd be fine with a shared office situation with up to 3~4 office mates. But the open offices as discussed here are abominations. Maybe it does seem anti-social of me? I guess I didn't consider that aspect of it.

It just seems duplicitous of the two companies that I've been at to verbally say one thing when I still haven't committed and am trying to decide and then do something else 6 months later ... like a bait-and-switch.

I am not at all saying that it's anti-social of you to think that way. I agree with you 100%. But what matters here is this: The people who make the hiring decision are likely to be the same people who decided to have an open office, or, at least, are closer to the people who made that decision than they are to you.

Now there are two possibilities. (a) Either they themselves are actually believers in the open plan office kumbaya social happy togetherness crap, in which case they will think you antisocial for not wanting to be part of that. (b) Or, they are fully aware that the company just wanted to save some money on not having walls and the kumbaya social happy togetherness is just the way that they are whitewashing that decision to make it seem desireable to still work there. In that latter case: You not drinking the kool aid will be a red flag to them, making them have doubts about whether they will be able to adequately keep you under control or whether you will turn out to be an unstable element with a mind of its own. They don't need to resolve those doubts. They just need to have them, in order to make them not want to hire you. -- In either case, it's a dangerous game for you to play.

In either one of those cases, it sounds like a company I don't want to work for anyways. Bullet dodged.

I would only really care about jeopardizing the offer if it's a company that wouldn't have an open office plan, anyways.

In any case: The right way to negotiate for an office is not when you're initially hired, but when you've been there a while, have somehow come into possession of a fair amount of bargaining power against them, and are renegotiating your deal.

You really think so? That doesn't match my experience. I have always felt the most bargaining power before accepting the position, where the company feels they have to sell themselves. In both companies I mentioned, they were quite happy to show me my (respectively private and shared) offices when I was considering joining. I just want to lock them into that attitude. After I've been there a while, there's a real personal cost to leaving, which hurts my bargaining position, and they know it.

The same as if I really cared about any other accommodation (like a salary). I wouldn't trust my salary to a handshake deal.

Edit: I'm not at either of those jobs anymore, but I think if I had tried to negotiate for a shared office after the company had moved to an open office plan, I would have been laughed out of the room.

> It could put the entire job offer in jeopardy if they read it as you being antisocial, entitled, incapable of being a teamplayer, arrogant, etc.

The point of the stipulation is to filter out toxic companies, so if it puts the job offer in jeopardy, then mission accomplished.

I think calling the companies toxic might be going a bit too far. For my next job search, having a private office or office shared with a small number of people will be for all intents and purposes a requirement for me. I am currently thinking that it's better to be upfront about it and get expectations in writing.

Sure, and any larger company will just decline and smaller companies will just terminate the contract. Not a lawyer, but I doubt you could sue even if they just violated the contract. All it does is tell them you agree to work there so long as your office exists. But nobody needs a reason to quit.

That's pretty much in line with my thinking. I want them to at least consider the fact that they agreed to something else that's in writing when they do office re-arrangements. And if they decide that I'm no longer worth an office, that's fine by me, but I want them to know they're making that decision rather than me springing it on them post facto.

As it is now, my thoughts on the matter are pretty much irrelevant to everyone besides me.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com