Hacker News Reader

Just had this conversation with my parents today. They asked why is working from home so wonderful?

The number one reason I had was, because everyone can just be them, it's a lot different than in the office.

The job can and should be a lot more inclusive and diverse when you're working in your own space -- home office, cafe, etc. You find what works for you, without having to worry about messing with someone else's flow in the next cubicle or being interrupted in your own flow by someone that always needs to escape their own work. Someone that wants to do something distracting can, without annoying others, everything is on your own terms, even if you have to take care of other family members.

With audio only you're just another human, not to be judged on appearance or malformation or what have you; which opens barriers that are presented in the office all the time, hell, it might even scare your interviewers from giving you the job in the first place! Either people can be cruel or incessantly think you're helpless.

I've noticed over the last year, those colleagues that are more introverted sometimes have a better go of presenting how they think online. When sharing their screens they're able to show more of their presentation skills, a lot more chances to present in a way they've developed overtime. And not more opportunities, it's probably the first opportunity they've had to shine than if it they were in an office; it doesn't happen.

In my opinion, I feel like those that are people-people will always get ahead in an office setting versus those that think a bit differently, look a bit differently, dress or act a bit differently, and this makes it a more level playing field for the latter.

Exactly.

Remote work promotes diversity, equity, and inclusion.

I think this is yet to be determined, but even if you're right, it still promotes a different kind of inequality. Remote work is strongly biased in favor of those with the resources to have a nice, distraction-free office setup at home, and towards those who are already established in their careers.

Not to mention how it advantages people who can afford after school child care.

An all-remote workforce is on its way to being an all-male workforce. Female employment is already decades behind where it was pre-pandemic.

The single male echo chamber on here is unnerving.

How can you stay in the office if you don't have after school child care?

If you WFH and have a child >5yo you're likey to be able to spend a few hours working with them at home. You can take a regular break and pick them up from school. With more than one it is more difficult. But in either case, how do you manage to stay in the office without after school childcare?

I'm speaking as a parent who has exactly the same job as my partner. If neither of us were WFH, we would be unable to get by without after school support. With both of us WFH, we can trade pickup and childcare responsibilities. It's way more flexible and completely the opposite of what you're arguing.

This is a weird take. I spend a year almost exclusively raising my son because my wife was studying to be a sub-specialist on another city and she only had a full weekend once a month. The first thing I did once we had a plan, was to negotiate partial home-office, because even if I could have after school child care, I certainly was not for it. Two months in, the partial home office became full home office because even the commute could throw a wrench on my tight schedule.

Based on my experience, raising a kid on your own is difficult, and without home office would have been even worse.

> Not to mention how [wfh] advantages people who can afford after school child care.

What? Surely if anything it's the opposite - if you can't afford it wfh allows you to be at home to 'multi-task', what're you going to do if you're supposed to be in the office?

If your kids are relatively older and self-sufficient, working from home is an advantage because you DON'T need to afford after school child-care. If you are in an office, and you need to commute, of course you're going to need it. On the contrary, if you are a single mom, you'd see that remote work is a blessing.

Childcare can still be used with wfh post pandemic. And having a parent at home benefits both children and parents. It’s not a great thing that we’ve ended up in a situation where children are raised by strangers in day-care. I think WFH is great for parenting in general - it may not be the best for worker efficiency and lack of distractions (although that can be argued) but it is good for children and I think most parents would pick their kids over the office.

That is a bit ironic that you call inclusion the absence of social interactions.

> I do not care about being competitve.

> I work so I can draw a salary to fund my life. That's it. I don't care about constantly climbing a ladder. I don't care about advancing my career for the sake of advancing my career. I just want to enjoy my life, and working for a living is just my means to that end. If I'm making enough to be comfortable, I don't care about chasing a promotion or getting ahead of people. I can't think of a single thing I care about less than having a competitive advantage over other people in the Game of Offices.

I’ve made the mistake of saying that out loud during pre-pandemic lunch conversations and happy hours and every time people looked at me like I had two heads.

I think it's a perfectly healthy and normal attitude to have, but the thing is that it's only your perspective as the employee, and to avoid being short sighted and irresponsible, you have to also to some extent consider the perspective of the company as well.

I mean, in the extension if nobody cares a single f about being competitive, then maybe your whole company doesn't care about being competitive either, and oopsies some other company cared a bit more and now you don't have any jobs anymore...

There are people who’s job it is to care about the perspective of the company, and they make a lot more than any of us.

If a company wants its employees to care, it can re-organize itself as a co-op. Until then, our relationship is purely transactional.

As long as you are enjoying yourself it’s fine right? I enjoyed that for a while too, but just developing became boring, so now I’m also trying to play office politics. Not in the sense of some machiavellan scheme, but previously I’d just utterly ignore it.

Office politics can be amusing if you’re able to step away from it a bit and don’t care too much about the rat race. It’s immediately obvious who are the folks genuinely interested in building value and who are drones interpreting what their managers order them to do.

Eventually someone has to do the lowly business of actually implementing the value that those 10x ninja fullstack super senior software architects just created. God bless the drones.

It's a self-inflicted problem. They shouldn't have promoted those 10x ninja superstars out of development and into management roles (and apparently, "principal engineer" and even "senior engineer" is frequently just faux-management - all the responsibilities, none of the authority of a real manager).

I find it ironic that our industry trains up developers until the point they finally become competent at their jobs, and immediately force them to manage new breed of trainees instead of doing the work they're good at.

It's a real pity how much resources get outright wasted due to petty office politics squabbles... too bad many managers don't care :/

That’s because diversity and inclusion pretty much means “blacks” and “women” fullstop.

I was recently hiring a developer and my massive media company insisted I ensure my recruiter is giving me diverse candidates. I selected an individual who is apparently Spanish Jewish. Some very rare tribe of Jews from Spain. Was that considered diverse? Nope. Needs to be black.

I fully relate to this. Years ago I worked for a Canadian subsidiary of a US company doing work with the US government. On a (illegal in Canada) US government form I accurately marked down that my "Protected Origin Class". I am 50% African and 50% Asian, as a Moroccan-Jewish, Israeli.

We were audited. The American auditor was flabbergasted by my values on the form. He literally told me that as a (visible, brown) Jew, I couldn't possibly mark those things down. I had to resort to pulling out maps and asking if Morocco was in Africa and Israel was in Asia. He was flummoxed by my refusal to mark down "white" when a) I'm not white, and b) his form offered me the ability to mark down what I am. Pointing out that percentage-wise as Jew, I was less than 0.006% of Canada's population also didn't make me a minority apparently.

That was the last time I ever assumed that minority is supposed to mean anything other than the tokenized narrative of the time.

Huh, so its not only me. My grandparents came from Libya in the late 1950's, but for some reason the very north of Africa doesn't quite qualify for most people as African "enough" for me to be of African descent. Feels like for many people the benchmark is either skin color or not coming from a traditionally Arab country. A similar thing happens to acquaintances of mine of Tunisian or Algerian descent.

I guess the geographical line is somewhere around Mauritania

Because it's asking about ethnicity not geographic place of birth.

English isn't my native tongue so perhaps i'm missing some subtlety, i thought ethnic groups are people who share a common descent?

Honestly asking, not trying to nitpick.

You're correct. The point is that for NA that common descent is Arab not African. I know that's not completely true but in the context of the crude racial classification system the US uses it is. According to the US government you're white:

>White. A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian.

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/note/US/RHI625219#:~:....

Ethnic groups are a distinct concept from racial groups. Ethnicity has more to do with culture and society versus race, which is largely about appearance and, to an extent, geographical provenance.

I feel you. Been in similar situations. Cape Verdean father (black skin tone), and a Jewish (she didn't have a bat mitzvah I didn't have a bar mitzvah, we're not religious) and Irish mother produced me, an ethnically ambiguous person with multiple passing complexions.

Skin tone is olive-tan, get pretty dark in the summer (if I stay out, but usually indoors working on something), eyes are almond shaped. I've had/get people coming up to me on the street asking questions in Spanish often, Tagalog and a few other South East Asian languages not as frequently, Russian, have Hasidic kids coming up asking me if I'm Jewish so they can try and drag me off to their Winnebago of a mitzvah tank. Once had some guy approach me speaking German with a beer in his hand and after realizing I don't speak German said, "Oh sorry, you look German" (whatever that means) and then I warned him of open container and the precinct up the block. Most assume I'm just a white guy who is either Italian or Jewish (might have to do with being from/living in the Northeast US idk).

I don't like talking about my ethnicities because I just don't care, but when it's brought up in the context of someone saying, "black people do this" or "okay white boy", I get offended because to me it's primitive and, excuse my language, retarded. Those things are usually said by those who don't know my ethnic background (not that it should matter), and when I call out the ignorance behind the statements made and that doesn't come across, I explain my ethnic background, which usually results in "what's a cape verdean?" or "what!? You're black too?". And if that doesn't come across, I'll flash a photo of me with my grandmother or father and they stfu.

This is going on a tangent, but to your point, I believe that having marked off african/black and caucasian or "two or more races" on my job applications has positively impacted my response rates in the past, but has also lead to negative results post-interview once seeing me and not believing that I am in fact Cape Verdean. I dont have empirical evidence, but having the technical capabilities and drive required for the jobs, after taking and passing test after test with well known organizations, having interviewers emphasize "inclusion and diversity", and having many interviews that left me feeling "wow that went awesome. Totally got this" (I'm more of a realist. If it sucked, it sucked), only to get a rejection, I've come to the assumption that there's got to be at least some percentage of rejections where the potential employer thought "he's lying... he doesn't look black".

The whole corporate "inclusion/diversity" thing here in the states is a fucking joke. My older brother, who's darker and a little less ethnically ambiguous, has commented on his experiences, which are relatable to a degree, saying he "was always too light for the blacks, and too dark for the whites"

Exactly this! In Germany it is women + openly gay + women wearing headscarfs.

I was recently invited to a candidate selection process with senior managers and HR. There was one guy who was autistic, but talented and good. He was "weird" by normal standards, but scored very well in all interviews and calls.

Long story short, he was considered the "best", but "weird". We hired a less qualified woman wearing a headscarf and the position was then "adjusted" to be more innovation/marketing foused and less hard tech focused.

I tried to convince them to take the autistic dude and also argued with diversity, but was told that "he is just strange and will not fit in" and finally overruled.

I actually had a manager at a company openly say they were having trouble finding an intern as they only wanted a minority. I ended up waiting for months.

I am very happy I got out of that place...

How is it that some people are so careful about being diverse that they end up being incredibly racist, and yet not notice it ?!

Because to be anti-racist you need to implement present discrimination to make up for past discrimination. It’s in their literature and literally a tenant in Kendi’s popular book “How to be an Anti-Racist” that countless diversity councils in corporations suggested their employees read during last years moral panic.

Civil rights violation? Probably.

Anti-Racism is a hard concept for me to grasp. When I was growing up we were taught to judge everyone by the content of their character. To me it made sense, why care about what people look like if they are good people. But now that view is considered racist and judging people by what they look like is "back in style" so to speak.

most actions the majority of corps take when it comes to "diversity" are purely performative. Diversity is important and more people should care about it, but what constitutes as "diverse" in the corporate environment is only what looks good on the outside and has a minimal (perceived) impact on the bottom line.

A good example is exactly what is going on now: multinationals all temporarily slapping a rainbow on products to take advantage of a movement (like Raytheon. wtf... https://twitter.com/RaytheonTech)

Not that I agree with those mandates too much, but I can see the logic: A group needs to have a story of oppression in your local community to be considered for that. Diversity is a somewhat misleading word here, the aim is equality for historically disfavored groups.

The aim for it is "equality of outcomes" without merit or actual achievement and that's all. Of course only in certain, sought after, select things. And of course these policies won't stop after we have achieved "equality" if current college admissions and graduation trends are any indication (women represent 60% now, yet nobody says we need to discontinue programs designed to ensure success for them or that we should address the problem of men falling behind - in fact we blame men for it).

It's why Asian's are beginning to wake up to this as they've, as a group, been "too successful" and are seeing ever meritocratic device they've used to lift themselves up dismantled and replaced with lotteries, etc that ensure equal outcomes (even they won't).

We've had equality (equal opportunity). Now the aim is, unfortunately, equity (equal outcomes, regardless of merit).

>I am on the diversity and inclusion committee—and there has not been a single discussion of how forcing people back to the office is actively harmful to autistic employees...

Do committee members not have the ability to raise issues? I'd have thought that would be why they would want people like you on the committee, so that you can raise and talk about issues like this.

Yo, start that discussion! I’m autistic, and while I can benefit from face to face, I often don’t. I don’t work for your company but I know I’m depending on you to work with and for your colleagues and to help set an example.

> I don't care about constantly climbing a ladder.

I empathize with this but many organizations are, essentially "up or out". You are either seen as growing and rising through the ranks or as awaiting some sort of release.

I hope you are so good at what you do that you could easily find another job, but that is not a given for most people. So they feel compelled to play the games you are dismissing.

If you are on the committee you should probably speak up and say something.

I agree - not sure there will ever be this kinda leverage again in our lifetimes

I can empathise with your experience, as someone who is either just inside or outside of Asperger's.

If you're on the diversity and inclusion committee and no one is challenging the return to the office, can't you? Or is this purely a reactionary, advisory committee?

I have the same view of work but have the opposite view of being in the office. The small friendships and camaraderie make the work a lot more enjoyable for me.

Hopefully coming out of this there'll be a mix of companies. Some fully remote for people like yourself and some mostly in the office for folk like me.

This. I work because I need the money. Period. I love my craft and I practice it every day on my own terms and as little or as much as I want... but offering my skills to others just happens because I get paid.

aside from the autism reasons (although I definitely empathize as my wife is on the spectrum) you took the words right out of my mouth. I don't care about anything other than funding my lifestyle. Been remote for 5+ years and will never go back. I enjoy my job and I like to socialize with people I work with in person occasionally and play some ping pong, but nothing about working in an office is worth the trade-off.

Oh my god you are so right. It’s somewhat unfathomable that companies were able to see that remote work actually works and yet insist on going back even for people for whom wfh is essential to their well being.