Return to Office Hits a Snag: Young Resisters
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
I think I found it. Here, have mine: /s
If people dont want to go back then you by definition do not have an amazing in office culture.
If your culture is predicated on being in person, some less dysfunctional company is going to eat you alive.
Once you have sufficiently disambiguated and broken down a problem, everyone can be remote and focus on execution on their own time.
For us, however, technical design discussions and how that all relates to our business needs has not gone that well while working remote. Pretty much everyone on the team acknowledges this.
We’ve tried to use Omnigraffle and some other tools while screen sharing remotely, but people admit that it’s easy to zone out or get disengaged during the discussion.
Quite frankly, at least for some domains, I just don’t see a 100% remote work force. In my technical space, it might actually be doable if everyone on your team is already experienced and has some domain mastery.
I’m writing all this because sometimes I see a certain attitude that companies who don’t 100% embrace remote work for every role are misguided or arrogant. I’m not convinced that’s true.
To be fair, this true of almost all work meetings. Extra points if nobody asks for your input the whole meeting, and extra points for meetings over an hour.
Our discussions have been much more focused and to the point. Primarily because interrupting thoughts and comments are often done on the chat rather than being vocalized. Things like "where can I find X", or "What does Y refer to?" can be answered async with the meeting.
I also work in a technically hard space and remote work isn't perfect, specifically because there is a hardware component to my job. However, I really think its not a huge deal because I think people are overestimating how good communication was pre covid. I have generally observed that people who I didn't really understand or who were simply bad communicators in person, are bad in a WFH environment. If people are bad at giving clear & concise answers, the problem isn't WFH, its that their writing and communication skills aren't actually that good. I feel though that in person, people get to lean on being funny, nice, etc. but in a remote environment clear & concise communication is required or else people get ignored or they waste a bunch of time. Their lack of communication skills and potentially technical skills are more obvious in a remote environment due to this. The people who could get things done didn't stop once WFH started, it was the people who were already pretty "meh" who's issues got amplified during covid.
I fully believe that some software can be developed 100% remotely (you only need to look at all the free/open source software as evidence for this). But for the kind I do, I can't imagine the developers being fully remote. We need to be local enough to be physically present at least every now and then. Some people are calling this a "hybrid" approach. We predominantly work remotely, but we live nearby.
What seems absurd is expecting people to be in the office 100% of the time for the maybe 10% that would benefit from it. I don't ever want to go back to a 100% office job. I'm so glad COVID happened.
I was going to write "corporations trust us to make the right decisions to run our service, they should trust us to make the right decisions about where to work", but these two things are one and the same.
So your team believes they work better in an office: your team works in an office. The team next door believes they do better at home: that team works from home. Managers want to do the day-long promotion meetings in an office, all the managers head to the office that day.
"Fearful of losing one more junior employee in what has become a tight job market, Mr. Singer has allowed a young colleague to work from home one day a week with an understanding that they would revisit the issue in the future."
One day a week! Yeah, that'll retain 'em for sure.
The WFH topic is bafflingly being met by the exact same old talking points as before (e.g. "slippery slope") -- as though the last year and a half didn't just happen.
Something'll give or, welp... time to begrudgingly start leetcoding to shake off the interview dust.
Facebook: local employees are expected in the office "at least half the time." But Zuckerberg is quoted elsewhere as saying he thinks a majority of the workforce will eventually be remote. Remote pay is adjusted. Do not know if employees or teams can just arbitrarily choose that setup.
Apple: 3 days in the office (postponed 1 month)
Amazon: 3 days in, 2 days at home as "baseline."
Netflix: 9/2020 articles suggested bringing everyone back full time. Hastings was quoted then as being against home/remote including a joke that he though the RTO deadline should be "12 hours after a vaccine is approved," with the serious followup thought to be after a majority of their employees were vaccinated. That was a year ago and things are more relaxed now; it sounds like it will be voluntary in the near future.
Google: "hybrid" 3 days in, 2 at home for local employees. Some fraction of the workforce will be remote.
Extending to honorary FAANGUM:
Uber: 3 days in, 2 at home
Microsoft: different "hybrid." Microsoft seems to be the only one of the group to have committed to generally allow employees to choose?
reminder those may all be outdated, this was a very quick search. Aside from Apple all the articles were written pre-Delta in the US.
Up to 50% remote time with no approval, up to 100% with manager approval. This of course is modulo legal / right to work if you’re moving countries.
I’m not in the US and we’re trying to hire a lot of SWEs right now, and really trying to leverage this for our hiring.
I only have a small number of teams, but we’ve all been remote since April of last year and it has been working well, though I think people are keen to get back to the office for the social aspect.
Those that wanted full remote have already gone that path.
I explained this to my boss the best I could and he said I could work from home one day per week on a provisional basis. I left shortly after.
I would guess that many office workers choose these types of jobs in large part because these jobs typically offer good pay and stability.
Companies try to jazz up these jobs by offering workplace perks (free food, gyms, snacks, etc.), but now the biggest perk they can provide is the freedom to live where you want. Now that a lot of people have had a taste for it, it's not a surprise that many value this perk far more than generic office perks. Especially young people who don't already have roots where the office is.
um, ah, not sure that really matters that much
It's having to live in places like New York City. It's not worth it anymore. Real estate ownership is priced out of reach as is a comfortable quality of life that can weather medium-term economic uncertainties.
Wow, I never realized I had such strong schadenfreude around MBA types.
There's no specific provision for WFH, so we still get lunch allowance ( 9.80€/day, iirc the minimum is around 6.50), which is a bit hard to use when you no longer go to a restaurant every day.
One daily DoorDash lunch order, put anything you want.
My ideal office is how my favorite job was: deserted around 4:55pm, managers and directors included. 2 hour lunches not uncommon. Work-life balance always the primary focus. Unfortunately my ideal job includes never going into an office, so I'll have to continue looking elsewhere.
- I have extra time each day due to a lack of commute, which I spend walking with my wife.
- I don't end my day with a stressful commute, and this has helped me get into a daily exercise routine.
- I'm not constantly surrounded by free junk food.
- I'm not in a loud, noisy, crowded office environment, which leads me to stress eat.
At this point it would harm my health to return to the office.
I worked for a while in a "normie" office (not a tech company) and I was blown away by the amount of junk food people ate. In some areas each row of desks had piles of junk food at the ends and there would constantly be cake for people's birthdays etc.
Other places I've seen offer a "fully stocked" kitchen (read, junk food) as a perk. Why the hell would I want a constant supply of crap I can easily afford to buy but don't because it's unhealthy? I consider myself to have pretty decent self control, but some people don't and it's like offering crack to an addict. I don't even agree with vending machines at work.
I agree but still, Jim would have missed a great opportunity to troll Dwight !
I agree completely. I've never understood why people making $200-300k are so impressed by food, as if they're living on a remote island. I could understand if it was some kind of chef service where you can request any recipe, but as it is I'd rather work in an office that has no food or private offices so I can keep the noises, smells, and sights out.
Businesses with the best talent, over time, win; those without, lose. As so, this is the most pertinent part of the article:
"As much as Mr. Gross wants people back at his ad agency, he is worried about retaining young talent at a time when churn is increasing."
At the end of the day workers do have the power here. If young people decide it matters businesses will adjust or die.
From a personal perspective, for me, it came down to money. I like living in NYC, but not enough to pay 3x for everything. Right now I pay $60 p/h for a personal boxing trainer. In NYC, I was paying $150. My kids want a backyard. Stuff like that.
I'm also a little worried about finance. The prestige there is lowering. They used to get the best students in the class. Now those students go to tech companies and they are getting the 4th, 5th, and 6th best students in the class. If they stick people in cubicles, eventually that's going to lower to 10th, and then we will have C students making trillion dollar bets with our financial system. Only half joking.
This is the key point for me. Too many people seem to think that only workers should adapt for companies, and that the labor market exists to compete for the jobs that are bestowed on them. This is evident in the whole "no one wants to work any more! What a bunch of lazy [millenials|zoomers|derogative of choice]". Naw dude, they just don't want work for you, for peanuts, with no benefits or healthcare, in the middle of a deadly pandemic. They're not lazy, they're maximizing value for their shareholders too, in this case themselves. Covid has made a lot of people realize that the shit they had to take before was not a great deal for them, and they want something better.
Instead of trying to find a middle ground which is acceptable on both side, I fear the response will be to accelerate remote working outsourcing to cheaper countries (I.e. “why bend to these whiny brats if I end up with remote workers, might as well get those at a fraction of the cost, that won’t complain”). So the only nice position that will remain local will be top talent and people managing that outsourcing.
Top talent won’t be hit too much but I fear anything below will soon or later, and I see too many average DEvs thinking they are untouchable. They haven’t lived through an economic crisis yet and living pay by pay. I don’t see how this will end well in a few years from now.
Working remotely provides the crucial "career hack" of earning that higher cost-of-living salary while actually living somewhere cheaper.
Offshore developers have been doing it for years already.
We tended to work weird, utterly flexible hours, though, since the pace was dictated by the experiments. Thirty six hours of time points every two hours, sleeping on the couch in the break room, and just not showing up the next day. Leaving a dinner party at 10PM to stop by the lab and deal with a culture before going to bed. Disappearing to take a walk for two hours in the middle of the day because because there was a 6AM time point and a 6PM time point.
I cannot put a dollar value on that, but if i could, it'd be really fuckin' high.
This seems easily disproven by the last 18 months of high productivity and team function.
I find mentorship much easier as I accept more mentorship requests because zoom is less time consuming and have found more of my requests get accepted.
Also in situations where I may need to show something to a couple people, I have the option to record it. This allows for others to watch who couldn't attend and it can be reference for new members.
When in the office, someone stopping by or having me come to their desk was awkward and there was usually no paper trail to reference.
If I were to go back to the office I would continue mentoring this way as the tools help facilitate the sessions better than sitting at their desk talking to them.
Just in general what I noticed about remote is that my engineering colleagues are much more easily reachable. I remember years ago at a place where I had to chase a colleague for months to mentor me about a certain topic - despite going to lunch together almost every other day. Ironically in the remote setting most of the people are even in for a synchronous call/quick screen share. What I also like is having to take much less notes.
Two days are not enough to decompress, take care of the personal chore backlog, and still have hobbies. Especially if you have ADHD, dependents, or other complications.
Aka part-time work?
Layer on on-call. Definitely not part time.
Anyone burnt out by Friday isn't delivering better results in the long term anyway, so why push so hard?
Unless the job highly correlates with a hobby or passion (and very few engineering jobs are a 1:1 fit for preferences), it just leads to burnout.