Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanSrich | Hacker News Reader

I say this with all seriousness, and I understand some people don't have this luxury, but if you do, please quit.

These companies will continue to punish their employees if they are allowed to do so. The only way to create change is through leverage.

This goes for anyone facing this decision. If you have the ability to quit, you should absolutely do it. Take a year off, find another company that doesn't support archaic business practices, start your own business.

You owe it to the people that don't have that option. The people that are forced into commuting. The people that are forced into depression because they have to continue to pay their massive rents in absurdly expensive cities. The people that have incredibly poor mental health because they're pulled into gross office politics that pit employees against each other.

We must force these companies to change their bad behavior.

View on HN

The things you describe are far from the charged language you're using, and also much of your description may not apply at all to the post you responded to.

How does someone quitting their job because their work is playing a global pandemic step by step help any of the things you listed? This approach is a very logical decision and honestly complaining this loudly about that step is incredibly privileged in a time where many are facing layoffs and pay cuts. Oh no! Your company has kept paying you, you're working remote for a job you were hired for in person, but you can't get a guarantee of when you'll be back in the office because of a pandemic? The horror!

That's not to take a "be happy with what you get and lick the boot" approach at all, but many companies have quite nice policies in regards to how COVID-19 is being handled.

Your issue appears to be with non-remote work in general, but you also make it seem like high COL cities are the only option. If someone is not able to be mentally stable working in the bay or Seattle or NYC etc, there are plenty of small cities with tech jobs that will pay good money with low COL and a short commute they can go work at. They absolutely should quit, for themselves. That was true before any pandemic.

> The people that have incredibly poor mental health because they're pulled into gross office politics that pit employees against each other.

Again, where was any of this mentioned? It sounds like you are projecting the issues of some companies. These companies should absolutely change their behavior, but again, this was true before the pandemic. I'm not sure how someone quitting will tech them a lesson either as those places probably already have high turnover and they won't have much issue hiring n the current market.

You say you create it through leverage, but I see no such leverage being developed in quitting even if all of this was true.

> This approach is a very logical decision and honestly complaining this loudly about that step is incredibly privileged in a time where many are facing layoffs and pay cuts.

I addressed the privilege in my post. It's in bad faith to bring it up as if I didn't, also gaslighting.

> How does someone quitting their job because their work is playing a global pandemic step by step help any of the things you listed?

Playing a global pandemic step by step is not the issue. The pandemic exists. As a business, you were forced to do away with your archaic work-location policies. To then go back on those is repugnant. Simply keep the change the pandemic forced.

> That's not to take a "be happy with what you get and lick the boot" approach at all, but many companies have quite nice policies in regards to how COVID-19 is being handled.

For jobs that can be done remote, anything less than the option to work 100% remote forever is corrupt.

> These companies should absolutely change their behavior, but again, this was true before the pandemic.

Every company that forces employees into an office has gross office politics. The power dynamic of the commute is a self-fulfilling prophecy for this very issue. Asses in seats are office politics.

> I addressed the privilege in my post. It's in bad faith to bring it up as if I didn't, also gaslighting.

You addressed it in respect to the ability to quit. I'm talking in terms of the standard you are setting and projecting onto all companies. I don't see how that's in bad faith or gaslighting. I don't think you know what that term means based on your use.

> For jobs that can be done remote

This might be the key issue - it sounds like you are massively undervaluing aspects of non-remote work that are beneficial to both workers and companies.

> Every company that forces employees into an office has gross office politics.

We're gonna have to agree to disagree. I'm all for more remote companies existing, but offices are not inherently corrupt.

> I don't think you know what that term means based on your use.

You made me second guess if I did in fact address the issue. I did.

> it sounds like you are massively undervaluing aspects of non-remote work that are beneficial to both workers and companies.

You're right. I am undervaluing it. Being in person has no inherent benefits over being remote. Maybe 20 years ago, but the internet has fixed those issues. Low-fidelity remote work is a cultural issue. Not a technology issue. Companies refuse to do remote work correctly so they can continue archaic co-located work.

> Being in person has no inherent benefits over being remote.

Socializing. Clearer communication with better nonverbal interpretations. The ability to more easily drop by someone's desk, to whiteboard in a room, etc. For some, productivity. Separation of home and work life. Even an excuse to get out and about.

Yes, there are ways to get some remote analogs for some of these, but they don't magically work the same for everyone.

> Low-fidelity remote work is a cultural issue.

That doesn't make it any less of an issue to implement. If anything, that's harder than a technology issue. Why would you trust these bad companies to implement any sort of sane work culture in a remote setting than they do in an office? If anything, remote only offers more abuse vectors.

> Companies refuse to do remote work correctly so they can continue archaic co-located work.

I think you're far too pessimistic here. Laziness and resistance to change is far more likely than malice in regards to not going remote.

what bad behavior? providing a 6mo heads up that you don't need to come back is pretty reasonable. while you are at criticizing these companies, do know that a lot of smaller companies are requiring their employees to come to work in lots of places.

If a job can be done remotely, then it should be done remotely. Forcing your employees into an office so you can play up office politics and look good in front of your board is bad behavior. It's archaic, gross, and in the case of a pandemic, negligent.

The assumption that being non-remote is for office politics is writing off many other benefits. Even if you can go remote, building a remote culture takes time. Also, not everyone works well remote. Shifting a company to full-time remote isn't fair to those people either.

How is not bringing people into the office negligent? That's again the comment you are responding to - a company that sounds like they are trying to get back ASAP but only when it can be done safely, hence the month to month updates.

This seems like very dangerous advice to give on the precipice of an economic depression.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com