Hacker News Reader

Comment by k-mcgrady | Hacker News Reader

"Cook wrapped up the memo by saying that he's looking forward to seeing employee faces. "I know I'm not alone in missing the hum of activity, the energy, creativity and collaboration of our in-person meetings and the sense of community we've all built," he wrote."

CEO's all spout the same nonsense. The majority of people work because they need to earn money. They're not working to make a new 'family' or change the world or be around 'creative people'. It's generally the leadership teams at companies that think it's great to be in the office but that's because they've sacrificed a lot to get where they are and they care deeply about their job and the company. The majority of people just want to earn some money and do it as easily as possible. I think companies not offering full remote work options will see a lot of employee turnover and will have to change their policy very quickly.

View on HN

There are also plenty of people who like their coworkers and enjoy spending time with them each day. I don't think everybody finds work to be an unfulfilling drain on their leisure time

>There are also plenty of people who like their coworkers and enjoy spending time with them each day

Of course. Especially those that hate their families (or themselves and can't spend time alone).

Not everyone is painfully asocial - and I say this as a rather asocial person myself who's only ever held remote or remote-friendly roles.

I couldn't imagine wilfully remaining at a job with coworkers so toxic that regular interaction with them is an ordeal.

Preferring to spend time with friends and family is normal. It doesn't mean someone's coworkers are so toxic that regular interaction with them is an ordeal.

That very sentence has already suggested that your coworkers are not your friends (or else they'd be in the group of "friends and family" that you enjoy spending time with).

I think the very point of GP is that there are many people who do, in fact, develop friendships with their coworkers.

I've certainly made many friends through work, but in my experience a for-profit workplace is an artificial environment with a lot of distorting incentives that make it more challenging to establish genuine friendship.

Fair enough. I believe there's some truth to this. I do think it's hard to separate between genuine friendships and transactional relationships that happen to be symbiotic while you're working together (but will rapidly deteriorate when you don't).

Sometimes I do wonder how much of this is the fault of skewed incentives of the workplace, versus just a paradox of human interaction. We think we're developing friendships by spending a lot of time with people, without realizing that time spent is of a transactional nature rather than furthering some connection. I spend a lot of time with coworkers, therefore a feel close to them. However, when asked, I realize I know almost nothing about them below the surface.

In any case, I can appreciate that forming friendships at work can be more challenging. But I do believe many people (including myself) have done this, and when it works it can be incredibly powerful and make work much more enjoyable.

Right. I did lost a long time friend when he became my manager.

If you want to hang out or work with your friends, nobody is stopping you. Maybe you should make mutual friends that don't need management to force them to be with you

To be clear, I'm not saying that employers should force employees to work in an office so they can spend time with their friends.

I'm simply saying that those people who have developed friendships with the people they work with likely don't view "going to work" as a painful, soul-sucking task they have to perform simply to achieve a paycheck.

It is, in fact, possible to simultaneously realize that you're in a transactional business relationship with an employer who is compensating you for services, and that those around you are also in that same relationship, and to use that as a common ground upon which a friendship can be built that makes the transactional relationship less painful.

I also believe there are some people who do, genuinely, enjoy the work they do. The general point I'm trying to make throughout this thread is that it'd be great if folks realized that there is a diversity to opinions about work much in the same way as there is diversity to every other thing in life and it's simply not a binary choice between "work is wonderful and I want to spend my life at the office" and "work is awful and I can't stand commuting, sharing space with coworkers, paying egregious rent, etc." As with most things in life, the reality is most people live somewhere in the middle of that gradient. Acknowledging that is helpful if we want to make progress towards optimal, inclusive solutions.

Why do they have to be? It is strange that there is some unspoken stipulation that they NEED to be to have a good working relationship. I can talk to my co-workers about why webpack sucks without wanting to cook with them.

>I couldn't imagine wilfully remaining at a job with coworkers so toxic that regular interaction with them is an ordeal.

For my argument to work, it doesn't need to be an ordeal though: just less preferable to family, kids, and friends.

Why are so many people getting divorced today? It’s because most of us don’t have extended families anymore. It used to be that when a man and a woman got married, the bride got a lot more people to talk to about everything. The groom got a lot more pals to tell dumb jokes to.

A few Americans, but very few, still have extended families. The Navahos. The Kennedys.

But most of us, if we get married nowadays, are just one more person for the other person. The groom gets one more pal, but it’s a woman. The woman gets one more person to talk to about everything, but it’s a man.

When a couple has an argument, they may think it’s about money or power or sex, or how to raise the kids, or whatever. What they’re really saying to each other, though, without realizing it, is this: “You are not enough people!”

— Kurt Vonnegut

In the Bay Area I found it to be nothing but a draining slog when not able to work remote

Yep, random talks about random stuff, lunch together, practical jokes,...

if you're a person who can make friends easily, even at work, you're missing a lot.

> random talks about random stuff, lunch together, practical jokes

Thanks for reminding me why I started working remotely 15 years ago.

> I don't think everybody finds work to be an unfulfilling drain on their leisure time

Well said. WFH doesn't fix a bad job or a draining company culture. If your job is miserable and you can't stand your coworkers then you need to find another job, remote or not.

Preferring to spend time with friends and family doesn't mean someone can't stand their coworkers.

I have fantastic colleagues and I'd still rather work remote. My commute easily gets up to 10 hours / week on a miserable public transit system. I prefer to spend that extra 10 hours with my family, friends, and neighbors, or on household chores, or hobbies, or just relaxing. I certainly understand that some people prefer the buzz of the office and I support people working in the environment that best suits their needs and personalities.

That said, having worked with an effective team in a hybrid environment (even before the pandemic) the idea of companies forcing people back into the office mostly reads as a lack of trust in the people they've hired. To me, that indicates a different set of problems.

I’m also seeing a lot of sunk cost thinking on the part of management, and have seen a few cringe worthy “remember how great the office was?” stuff from execs.

I think when you’re a C level, the size and appeal of the office gets melded into your ego, and you can’t get the same boost from people working from home.

>There are also plenty of people who like their coworkers and enjoy spending time with them

You can do this without forcing them to be around you. That's apparently a new concept to a lot of people.

Yes, I very much enjoy my co-workers. Several nights a week I find myself lying in bed and notice I'm grinning while thinking about some jokes or fun we've had together. We all work 100% remote.

Right?! My company was mostly remote pre-pandemic, and we've gotten more remote friendly during the last year. We share memes, conversation, movie reviews, etc. all over Slack/Zoom/Signal/etc. I'll just get random weird texts from one of my co-workers.

It helps that a lot of us have worked together through multiple companies, but even the ones that haven't... I've honestly never met my manager in person just due to timing issues and the pandemic. Literally all of our interaction has been online and we have a really good relationship.

As long as I have the choice, I will never go back to an office on a regular basis. WFH works for me.

Similar setup.

My team and I have been remote for years.

We have channels on slack for non work stuff and we post memes, news, etc. We also have DM groups and just chat. We’ve got more people on the meme channels outside of the team. It’s a nice group. I even play games with some on my switch.

I’ve only been to the company 3 times split between 2 locations.

I’m looking to change teams soon. So advancement opportunities are there. Never met in person the manager, so it’s not that.

Based on my experience, I believe it depends on the company, team culture and the people. By team culture I mean more how the team is run. Some are run very competitive others more collaborative.

Off topic, but how does switching jobs along with your coworkers work? Do you guys all switch around the same time or is it more of a coincidence? Was it luck that you all passed the interview or was it more of a package deal where your current company wanted to hire you all together (ie, all or nothing)?

The way it happened at my company was that there was a layoff so a few people from the department were laid off at the same time, and one guy who used to be CTO (there was a merger) left and formed a new company and shortly hired those people.

Then what started happening over the next couple of years is they'd reach out to other people in our department one or two at a time and offer them jobs, like one would put in notice this month, then a couple months later another, then a few months later a couple more, etc.

I think currently they have about 12-15 employees at that company that all used to work in my department. They have more former employees than this department does at this point.

They reached out to me as well, but at the time they were looking for someone with less experience (I would have had to take a pay cut and a lower job title), otherwise they might have gotten me also. According to a former coworker who works there it's definitely a lot more laid back of a job.

I should note they didn't get everyone who left here. I know a couple of the more ambitious people in the department met with them but decided against it, probably due to not offering enough, and left for another opportunity later.

Sorry; but no. This weird virtual interaction is nowhere close to the real social environment of seeing and working with people face to face.

We shouldn’t be forced to come in; but I for one would freakin’ love the option.

This is a primary cause of concern for kids at school; that the social aspect is missing in that way.

Nowhere close, really.

Just have lunch with them then, no need to make them change where they're working.

Having lunch together is much easier when you have all already commuted to work.

I doubt the office is the midpoint between you and most of your coworkers (taken one at a time, not together obviously.)

Maybe it's "nowhere close" for you. Have you considered that for other people it's perfectly equivalent?

Yes, because I'm not a sociopath. :P I'm well aware some people like to work from home.

If you are one of those people you can keep working from home. All I'm asking is for the respect that I am not one of those people - and for my employer to please give me the option to go in. Thanks.

My coworkers are great, but do you know who is better? My family and friends.

Most engineers don't have a family. And some don't have close friends.

Don't assume that your view of the world is the same for everyone.

If you work from home, you can spend all that time you would have spent commuting finding friends instead. Go to bars, find common hobbies/interests, join a rock climbing gym..

> Don't assume that your view of the world is the same for everyone.

Please point out where I did that.

Not everyone who prefers to WFH finds "work to be an unfulfilling drain on their leisure time", they just prefer to WFH for a myriad of reasons. (I like spending more time with my child, oof).

If you aren't a middle manager and the employee is productive, then honestly why do you have an opinion?

> There are also plenty of people who like their coworkers and enjoy spending time with them each day.

Not saying you are wrong, but

The vast majority of people first get jobs to earn money THEN meet the coworkers AND having no other option besides interacting with coworkers during work hours, will try to get along

The vast majority of IT people in Silicon Valley can yell on the street and get a job.

So then it becomes which company has the best culture, values, people, environment etc.

I think that line of thinking will be quickly replaced. Better culture, free food, people, environment, etc. all mattered when employees were expected to spend 8 hours a day at work (and often longer). If more companies allow working from home, then that trumps a lot of the other perks because employees can make their own perks such as more flexible hours, shorter/no commute, living where they want to instead of being forced to live close to the office, etc.

"culture" is not just what happens in the office, it is the processes and norms of the company. They are more important remotely, not less.

Why do so many people work at ad and spyware companies then?

Assuming you mean Google and Facebook et al for "ad companies" then I guess it's the very high compensation and nice work environment as well as the chance to work on super cool tech with really smart people if you're lucky or sufficiently motivated?

Of course most folks there probably work on super uncool tech with very average people, but those are also getting paid a whole lot of money and can enjoy the nice work environment, etc.

Morality, even if it were universal, is not a prime motivator in career choices for most people.

Great, but that's not a reason to force people who don't want to do it

If you like your coworkers that much you could just talk to them all day like at the office. You can then meet up with them for pints after work too.

Im not 20 any more so the idea of going for pints after work isn't appealing to me anymore.

Considering that we spend most of our day doing this "work" thing, I find it much more tolerable to view my coworkers as close friends and my career as an opportunity.

This is especially easy in such a privileged sector as tech where pay is excellent, office life is compelling, and work is challenging and exciting.

I don't know how people survive day-to-day with a perspective like yours. I get that people can get fulfillment outside of work, but its actually possible to enjoy both.

"Work is just a pay cheque culture" is just as toxic as "hustle culture".

I’ve worked in a military setting where brotherhood was real, but the only employer that pushed family (I found it to be cultish at the beginning) turned into a greedy soul sucking hell hole.

Some of my best work memories are from the military doing crap work with great people. Everyone just ate the shit sandwich together. Sometimes I miss it but then I remember how awful those sandwiches were. We had a pretty bad “event” at my current employer and as much as I didn’t sleep and eat I look back on it fondly. Something about shared misery builds rose colored memories

I don't know how people survive day-to-day with a perspective like yours. Work is life is equally as toxic. Some people don't have the same values as you... shocking.

Have you ever been fired from your family? For some that analogy has happened, but for most people it's an exception, but for a job it's a much more real possibility. I'm a mercenary at my job. No allegiance but to my interests, because the leadership and shareholders have the same perspective

Are you responding to the parent comment? Do you not see how "I'm a mercenary" is as toxic as "I hustle 12 hours a day everyday"?

I don't see how it is toxic, no. It saves me from toxicity in fact. I get to live more freely and happily knowing my role clearly.

>CEO's all spout the same nonsense. The majority of people work because they need to earn money.

And Cook knows it. When he writes the above, it's just performative. The actual message is "come, or be fired".

CEOs and leadership teams would not mind remote work I believe, at least not as a general rule, given there are benefits to the bottom line, e.g. real estate, other expenses, productivity arguably. What I think is the key concern for leadership teams, is that remote work does not allow for an environment to train the next generation of workers. Most of the experienced people do just fine remotely, but imagine wfh exclusively as a grad. That said, even that concern might be from the perspective of an "old" generation, given young people can probably navigate online collaboration more effectively and therefore adapt to learn the job with less face to face guidance.

I haven’t had a job do any sort of training in… 20+ years. But then I’ve had some odd luck/experiences at every job I’ve had, except my first one. That first job was when I was 14 and was mowing yards with my neighbor who was a grad student.

What is the benefit of mentoring or guiding less experienced workers through new tasks in person as opposed to remotely with voice calls and screen sharing / live multi-user document editing / similar real time collaboration tools?

I've generally found remote work a better model as all people involved can edit the same document / diagram / model / code at the same time collaboratively, or at least have a better view of a screen than what is projected at low quality on a wall or displayed on a single monitor that isn't large enough for people to read at a distance. Whiteboards are OK for toy problems but are a hindrance for anything complex.

My recent experience (I've started two different contracts since the pandemic started) is that companies are at lot worse at on-boarding when everyone is remote than when everyone is in the office.

Maybe it's just that we all need to get new habits and adapt to this new medium, and it's only n=2, but so far my intuition is that on-boarding is harder when your colleagues with the relevant experience aren't one office away. Asking questions on Slack just isn't the same.

I don’t disagree and that is largely the consideration behind my closing statement. Nevertheless, keep in mind this makes assumptions on technical acuity of both mentors and mentees and the fact is there is a generational gap between them that might reflect on their ability to use these tools for mentoring relationships. I don’t claim having an answer, but I have been exposed to such discussions at high levels and I have seen people being concerned about this.

Your comment might make sense in a completely different context, but this is Apple! Everyone there could be making more money for less stress somewhere else, but they’re at Apple since they believe in or appreciate something else about the company, whether that’s the vision, the colleagues, the hard problems, etc. Apple is probably the number one company where your comment is not true.

True but my point was more than you will find every CEO that forces people to come back make a similar statement.

Also - Apple is a large company. Not everybody there is working on the next big thing. I'm sure there are plenty of people doing their job at Apple for money alone like anywhere else.

As a former Apple employee, I disagree that Apple is that different- YMMV depending on the group of course, but there are people who are overworked and underpaid drinking the kool-aid, and there are plenty of people underworking who wouldn't be able to get a similar job at a big company. I do agree that they tend to compensate you in brand value/equity instead of top of market salaries though :D

Less stress probably, but don’t they pay pretty well?

Not compared to peer companies. If you’re already at Apple, you could probably get a job at Google with way less stress and more pay.

Software pays less than other FAANGs but there also aren’t constant exec sex scandals like other FAANGs. CPUs pay slightly better than other places.

Why are there less sex scandals?

Think the question is why Google has more.

It's the googlyness

Strange.

I will grant you the less stress but Apple opened a new site near one of my company's offices and we have lost quite a few people over the last year to them. Everyone has said they are offering a substantial raise and huge amount of stock.

I wonder if some part of this is the ego trip of seeing your workers in your building working for you. As an executive, that's got to be more fulfilling than looking at some OKR slides and an employee roster. I don't believe this is the only motivator but it's surely somewhere in the mix.

Totally. Also seeing and hearing the fear and subordination, a sociopath's delight.

How about the fact that executives are regular people, who (1) have their human emotions, including possibly a natural desire to have in-person interaction with the people they work with, and (2) listen to other employees, some of which are in the pro-office camp (as seen in this HN thread)?

Executives ain't some mystical species. They are regular people in a position of power.

Not sure how that contradicts what I've said. I, as a regular person, understand the thrill of walking around a place I own. I enjoy playing SimCity-style games and seeing everything running in the city I built, but I don't get the same result looking at the stats screen. If I were in such a position of power, this would be a perk of return-to-office that would apply to me more than to my subordinates.

I don’t know, I work at a technology company and I am excited to go to work every day (because we are inventing the future). The research teams are fun, and the vision is exciting.

I also am fortunate to have a strong work-life balance and try to only work 40 hours a week.

I still struggle to tell if CEOs are lying to our faces, or whether they've become delusional with their time on top.

I honestly think they feel like they are like any other employees and hardly remember on day to day basis that nobody else around them shares the same incentive to work.

Sure, they know it, but also I think it’s pretty human to take your everyday life for granted. After all, it’s the foundation of political disagreement.

They just live in a totally different world than us. They don’t struggle making ends meet each month. They don’t have a soul crushing commute. They don’t worry about child care or whether their kids are getting a proper education. They are surrounded by thousands of people utterly dependent on them for their lifestyles, and who will never tell them No. They REALLY think that the general employees care about the “hum of activity, the energy, creativity and collaboration” just because in the exec’s world he actually does.

> The majority of people just want to earn some money and do it as easily as possible.

That's true, and I don't blame anyone for that. However, I don't think one should expect to enjoy all of the benefits of an extremely high performing company (i.e., RSUs of great value, high pay, prestige, etc.) if they approach work in this way.

It sounds very entitled to say "I'm just here for the paycheck" but expect all of the benefits of working at a highly productive company with none of the commitments.

I philosophically agree with your comment, but honestly my income over the past 20 years hasn't really followed what you're saying in any meaningful way. I've had places I didn't work very hard that paid me a ton, and places I worked like crazy and made little. In my experience, the factor that matters far more than anything else is the prevailing economy and, really, the stock market.

Agree, most of it is luck.

I work my job for the paycheck, which includes those RSUs of great value. It’s a fine job, but if I didn’t need the money, I would quit. What kind of commitments should I be making and why?

In this particular case, by commitments I mean fully commit to in-person collaboration. This doesn't mean sitting and working at your office desk instead of your home desk, it means actually making an effort to collaborate with other people. Sometimes in a spontaneous way, sometimes in a planned way.

Collaboration is done better in person. I believe anyone who disagrees with that is actually only disagreeing for selfish reasons (i.e., they want to continue WFH), or they go through mental gymnastics to justify it in their head.

I collaborate with people remotely. But even if we take it as a given that in-office is better for everyone, it comes with the tradeoff of having to live in the Bay.

> Collaboration is done better in person. I believe anyone who disagrees with that is actually only disagreeing for selfish reasons (i.e., they want to continue WFH), or they go through mental gymnastics to justify it in their head.

Please consider that your experience is not always representative of everybody else's experience. Just because someone doesn't feel the same way as you doesn't mean they're lying to themself or others.

That word "collaboration" is used to cover everything from pair-programming to reviewing someone else's proposal. Some things are better done in person, some things are better done at arms length. Moreover people assume that things like "hallways conversations" or "overhearing" are an unmitigated good when in reality they can be incredibly distracting and disruptive. So again this boils down to a cost benefit analysis, and the balance of evidence is that employers have made offices, especially open offices, so distracting that it is almost impossible to do focused work. Then they add to that people constantly scrolling on slack, and praise "communication" as if this is something in deficit rather than extreme, often toxic, surplus.

One can imagine a completely different office setup where developers work behind closed doors, there are two days in the week when no one is allowed to hold a meeting, people's times arent being wasted with a constant stream of broadcast messages, and in that environment removing the chance hallway encounter or in-person meeting might be a net harm. But I would say that in the current environment the vast majority of workplaces would see an overall bump in productivity if they reduced the amount of communication and increased the amount of focused work. That managers can't understand this is part of the reason why they create these huge open offices and spend $$ on broadcast communications mediums.

The commitment is to do some work for some money.

Anything else is just fake bs.

There are varying levels of commitment to one's work, wouldn't you agree?

>However, I don't think one should expect to enjoy all of the benefits of an extremely high performing company (i.e., RSUs of great value, high pay, prestige, etc.) if they approach work in this way.

Why shouldn't I expected all the benefits (RSU/base pay/free food if that's included)? It was all agreed upon when I started the job.

I promise to you that there's a job out there that would change your mind. It might be impossible to get it for a number of practical reasons, but please know that those jobs do exist. I am only sharing this to encourage you to look around.

For many CEO dragging people across the city every day and see their tired faces gives them arousal and pleasure. Power is a drug.

>>The majority of people just want to earn some money and do it as easily as possible.

The second part is the key. I think if you are a hard ware design shop, you need a certain amount of equipment in house to be productive.

While being remote might be something web development folks prefer. I can imagine there are many teams which are inconvenienced.

Even for software folks if you are dealing with something like datacenter ops, or other kinds of work that require some on the ground presence remote work is more of a problem than feasibility.

For a lot of people its easy to work from offices than home.

> The majority of people work because they need to earn money

That might be the reason they work at all, but that's not why you work for Apple, or a similar company.

And I don't even think "people work because they need to earn money" is completely true, in the sense that most people, definitely people with relatively advanced jobs like at Apple, would prefer working to not working, even if someone gave them free money every month. People enjoy the intellectual challenge, the structure, the community etc.

I’m convinced the majority of members of a previous team were secretly rich and could retire at any point if they so choose. Great team but there was a touch of “we are going to work on what we think is important, what are you going to do, fire me?”

It had a really healthy team culture (largely due to the efforts of a few individuals) and I quite enjoyed going to work for that reason. Hated the commute.

Don’t know if it’s your situation, but I also saw that in an extremely poorly managed company. A chunk of the non management team had gained huge power (and money, I believe) because they were the only ones that were able to understand how the core product did works. The management were useless and nobody ever encouraged knowledge sharing.

A lot of people complained about the under market salaries but those technical guys never complained or even speak about it.

It's not necessarily nonsense. In particular, "creativity". People can spark ideas in other people. I suspect that it happens more often in-person than on a group video chat. I would find it perfectly reasonable that Tim Cook thinks that, too - genuinely thinks it, not just spouting nonsense.

Now, that's "it's better for the company" rather than "it's better for you". But when that happens, it can feel pretty good. So in that sense, it can be better for employees too.

If Tim's "missing the hum of activity, the energy, creativity and collaboration" then he's not paying attention to his employees.

Whenever an exec waxes poetically about the “hum of activity, the energy, creativity and collaboration,” I can’t help but believe what he’s really enamored with is the physical act of surveying his fiefdom, watching and hearing all his serfs shuffling to and fro acting busy and looking like they are doing things. That’s what these guys get a rise out of. The vast number of soldiers under their command and behold! There the army is in all its glory!

This is also why open offices are so popular with the exec class but nobody else. Cubicles and offices hide all those glorious bodies shuffling about visibly doing work.

They should just get everyone together for an annual parade—it's what any good autocrat would do.

Think WWDC but with scrum teams in matching hoodies marching by Cook's podium.

Not at Apple but my company's internal data shows productivity is better as a hybrid vs pure WFH/In Office for many departments

In my company we are now in some unofficial hybrid approach where everyone works where they want or where they need to. It works really well. There is enough people at the office for it to be a sufficient socializing place, and enough people who WFH to « force » the remote way of work.

That sounds nice. I'm surprised "work where you want" hasn't gotten more press time. Hybrid is so much weirder.

It went naturally, we never were a remote first company before pandemic but working from home for personal reasons never felt like an issue.

Nothing changed officially except that if WFH was socially an exception before, a lot of employees liked it to become their default, others don’t.

So since nobody cares where others works, this new organization came organically.

Our CEO is personally against remote as a standard, but there was never an official communication and since management is decently decentralized and managers just don’t care where you are, they know our job is to be done.

Interesting, however I think any data gathered during the pandemic is not too useful. WFH is very abnormal currently for most. My current WFH productivity is certainly lower than when I WFH pre-pandemic.

If I was making decisions about the future of a company I would allow totally flexibility for at least 6 months post-pandemic so I could gather more accurate data. Trying to make people decide what they want (remote/office/mix) now is going to lead to decisions that people end up changing a little down the line.

It's not pandemic data. It's strictly post surge data.

All employees were WFH starting March 2020 and we assumed hybrid status for most departments starting in Jan

Interesting. Given it was just a couple of months was there any element of getting adjusted to the new arrangements/developing better remote processes that could have contributed?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com