Hacker News Reader

Forcing me to take a week or two away from my family multiple times a year would be enough to get me to quit.

There's a reason I choose to work remotely. I don't mind working closely with others, but leaving the household for two weeks straight simply isn't feasible, and certainly not more than once a year.

These conversations often boil down into dichotomies when if you've ever been part of a team you'll know there's tonnes of compromise and negotiation going on in professional settings.

People make comments on either side because they feel they would enjoy X or Y, but they're not meaning to imply that we all hoover up the cool-aid and sacrifice all we have for it. Zdragnar doesn't come to the retreats because they would rather spend time with their family, most places would understand that or at least accept that it's your choice. If your boss doesn't get it, then maybe they'll do you the favour of firing you and you can find a team that does get it.

Having a family is a lot of work. A job that takes all that time away from your other responsibilities isn’t feasible for most people with kids.

Of course, so the best you can do is try and find a job or negotiate some terms that work best for you. But what I see is this false dichotomy that just don't represent the real world and kind of stifle useful conversation.

It's not a matter of "Good for family" or "Bad for family", it's a diverse world out there. Some people work away from home for a full 14 days and then have a full week at home of no work, for some people that's a great compromise. Some people have nothing else, so they like the interaction they get from work, for another example.

That doesn't mean such jobs shouldn't exist. Also, some of these jobs pay enough to hire a nanny, at least for those two weeks.

What if the nanny wants to work from home because it's taking all her time away from her family?

I do know people who have run daycares in their homes.

That's why we have the nanny's nanny, also known as Daddy Longlegs.

Kids were raised just fine for the thousands of years before remote work existed.

Work-from-home was pretty much the standard up until 1900 or so, at least for the vast majority of people. It's only since trains and motor vehicles we've been able to commute.

this is highly dependant on location.

a factory worker in a european city in 1900 would not be working from home. (his home would probably be close to the factory yes, but not at home).

Also, raising children and making them spend time in education is only a relatively recent invention. Prior to ww1, child labour was common, especially as a farmer.

The standard varied widely from place to place. In coastal areas it was common for men to go away to sea for months at a time. In fact that still happens today in some countries.

For what kind of work?

Mostly agricultural, plus artisan crafts that made up most manufacturing up until the Industrial Revolution.

Then what do you mean by work from home? For agricultural, I guess you mean work at the farm, which can also be the home? And for craft, the workshop and the home are together?

For those thousands of years, women didnt work without their kids nearby.

The pure mendacity of this statement strikes me as appalling and frankly entitled and classist.

Thousands of workers don't have the enormous privilege of seeing their family every night. All those travel workers, remote health workers, and oil field workers manage to make it work.

I wouldn't really have an excuse. I just don't want to spend two weeks at a retreat with colleagues. It's a job.

This is of course completely valid, but to provide a countering anecdote, looking for companies that do this kind of recurring retreat is a strong positive signal in my current search for a remote dev job.

Understandable, 15 years ago, I would have said the same thing.

Now, life is less flexible and I can't just run off for weeks at a time- some families can make it work, some cannot.

Why are you acting like you're going to be told on Thursday that you have to get on a flight across the country Sunday night?

I've known several people who work for companies like this. It's always been scheduled months in advance such that by the time you go on one the next one is typically already locked in. And even the long ones have been 4-5 days, not "weeks." It just seems like you're intentionally making this into a strawman when "travel for work 4-5 days at a time, 1-3 times a year" is a perfectly reasonable job requirement. And even with all that being said, there's nothing wrong with just not wanting to do that.

Here is the quote I replied to:

> The idea of taking the team out to an airbnb (or some other communal living arrangement) in the woods or by the beach for a week or two to launch a new major initiative 1-4 times a year

Note that "week or two" and "1-4 times a year". It isn't a strawman, it is literally the topic.

As for > Why are you acting like you're going to be told on Thursday that you have to get on a flight across the country Sunday night?

I don't believe I ever expressed that the trips are surprises. It isn't a matter of planning, it is a matter of the duration being a burden.

And that's fine. This working strategy is likely to work for some more than others. Flexibility in travel is a hard requirement for other fields.

Surely there are different roles that would allow for both states to exist and thrive?

I have a large family, and while I wouldn’t spend two full consecutive weeks away ever, I could probably do 4-6 weeks a year, fly out Sunday, fly back Friday evening. Except this last year cuz my wife was homeschooling the kids and she would’ve gone insane, but they’ll be back in school this year so I could imagine it happening. Even two weeks straight is fine if I was flown back on the weekend.

My work let me bring family on our retreat several years ago. It was a lot of fun.

Did they pay for that, or was that expense on you?

That depends on the company. Some do, most dont. But they will not really give you much grief over it. I know several people who did it. Usually after 2nd or 3rd time they would not do it. Because the spouse usually figured out pretty quick 'oh I am sitting here by myself when I could be at home doing the same thing...'

Work paid.

Yup that’s the play here, or just make it optional

If 90% of the team attends and significant work is done at the retreat (and that work excludes the person who couldn't come), it's "optional" not optional.

I totally understand, there's a reason I used the word "fascinating" and not "exciting"

I would personally be open to trying it once, but I have no idea if it would fit in my life as a regular occurrence or if it would be miserable and make me want to quit.

I did have a job previously that required 2-3 days of travel 4 times a year, and was able to make it work.

In fact, a 2 week trip to a cabin to focus on work and team building sounds fantastic... for me. My spouse, on the other hand, would not be having a great time. It certainly has a whiff of unintentional ageism.

What makes you think it's unintentional? The goal is absolutely to filter out people whose families are more important to them than whatever shitty webapp they're making.

For many people, it isn't much work at all. Maybe they dont have kids, or maybe their kids are old enough to not need as much supervision, or maybe they have other family or friends who can help chip in.

That isn't my case, but I am also not going to assume the worst of someone for whom it isn't an issue and is simply not considerate.

Then again, I have also avoided working for any company that failed to commit to a healthy work-life balance.

> It certainly has a whiff of unintentional ageism.

A time honored silicon valley tradition!

What if it’s bring your family along for a four day weekend.

Sure, it would work with the spouse I have now, but I would have been mortified bringing my ex with me. There are good reasons I left him, and having to watch over him at inappropriate times was part of it.

Not all families are wonderful.

This. Same with my ex wife.

I’m now looking after the kids and have a full time job so there’s no option to take a flight or even go into the office.

This is how my team worked pre-pandemic for the last ~5 years.

Our team is fully remote (US and CA) and our industry has major conference events throughout the year around the world. So 3-4 times a year our whole team would go to a conference, then stay for an extra few days to do planning, an innovation sprint, or whatever else in person.

Many people would bring their families and stay an extra week to make it a vacation, especially in places like Paris, Vienna, US west coast in the winter, etc.

> The idea of taking the team out to an airbnb (or some other communal living arrangement) in the woods

Oh god no, no, no, a million times NO.

I'm a mostly introverted person. I would MUCH rather go to the office 5 days a week for 8 hours each day than have to be stuck living with a group of coworkers for 2 weeks straight in a house in the woods.

After 8 hours of work the last thing I need is being forced to spend the rest of the 16 hours in the day with the same group of people.

If you're going to do a meet-up for a fully remote company, please do it in a location with several hotels and let every employee arrange their own accommodation reimbursed. Keep mandatory activities to no more than 6-8 hours a day, don't pressure people to spend their evenings and weekends drinking with the company. Outside of meeting hours, let people enjoy the place however they like -- adults are more than capable of figuring out recreational activities on their own, and you don't need to provide structure 24/7. If you pick Las Vegas I'm sure a whole bunch of employees will self-organize themselves and go gambling and drinking, but I have no interest in that stuff and you'll probably find me in some national park during the weekend.

In these discussions, where there is fierce opposition on this question, wouldn't it make sense to explicitly filter for this on hiring and have some companies that look for [for lack of a better word] extroverted people, and others for introverts?

Sure if you work in an industry where you're competing among a very small pool of highly-skilled specialists, you can't afford to miss out on key talent. But if we're talking about web devs for a start-up, why not?

I think it would be extremely counterproductive for a company to filter on extroverted people for most positions. Maybe it barely makes sense for a startup sales or PR to be extroverted because you kind of expect them to bring in connections from their (hopefully vast) personal network, but for the vast majority of positions I think you'd be looking at false signals and missing out on some extremely capable, focused people by blocking out introverts from your search.

Introverts are VERY GOOD at getting shit done. Introverts aren't opposed to teamwork and collaboration, it just means that when we get off work, we usually chill alone or occasionally with 1-2 close friends, instead of partying.

I think the hybrid model (2-3 days in office, interspersed with focus days of remote work) is far superior to the once-a-quarter-retreat.

The hybrid model builds routine and trust, lets you respond to unexpected snags and complications quickly (~1-2 days latency), and allows for in-office creativity and then going home to execute on those ideas rapidly. It also fits reasonably well into existing family & daycare routines.

The retreat model could work for more established businesses in industries that don't change a lot, but that's not a startup. The biggest problem I see is that it encourages a high-latency, "go off for a quarter and work on this problem as your manager has defined it and then we'll all get together for show & tell and plan the next quarter" model. Since you know you'll see folks at the next retreat but it's a pain to schedule time with them beforehand, it incentivizes you to work within your silo and solve problems yourself and then have something to show at the retreat. We know this is a poor model for software development, from a few decades of experience. You lose the adaptability and low-latency communication of being in-person with your teammates on a weekly basis.

The big disadvantage of the hybrid model is that it doesn't do anything about the concentration of startups in a small number of hyper-dense metro areas, nor the exorbitant cost of rent in those areas. Arguably if that is the #1 problem facing the world these days (and it may be) the industry you want to go into is real estate, not startups, though.

If you're forced to live near your employer's office and commute to it, then you're giving up one of the prime benefits of remote work.

I see this sentiment posted in reply to nearly every post on hybrid work without any real justification. As someone who had a hybrid setup before the pandemic, going in 1-2 days a week, I did not value being able to live far away from my employer. Conversely, I did value having a place nearby where I could go to work and reliably be physically proximate to my coworkers.

It's not like there was no freedom to work elsewhere either. When I wanted to work somewhere else for a week or two I'd work it out with management, no problem.

Some people really want remote work, more power to them it looks like there will be plenty of that post-pandemic, but let's not pretend that many people won't be happy with the office being a regular part of their week.

For context, I find most people who were full-time in-office workers (and still live in the same spot) prior to the pandemic are the ones who are in-favor for a flex-remote policy. This is all based on local sampling of my coworkers and my wife's coworkers, not necessarily representative of the population.

Another group I've anecdotally seen in favor are families with small children at home. Especially ones who are not yet school age.

>I think it's a fascinating idea, operating a team on the basis of permanent remote work with occasional team work "retreats" when periods of heavy innovation and interaction are needed.

This is how Automattic did it before the pandemic[1]. It works because they're clear during the hiring process that this sort of travel will be expected. I've always found it very valuable for getting everyone on the same page and for team morale/cohesion.

[1] https://automattic.com/how-we-work/

> The idea of taking the team out to an airbnb (or some other communal living arrangement) in the woods or by the beach for a week or two to launch a new major initiative 1-4 times a year seems like it could theoretically be an alternative, providing that human connection but not demanding an outdated office lifestyle.

This ^ sounds incredible.

Before COVID, my full-WFH company did this. We didn't have folks stay in the same house, but we did get everybody together 2 times a year.

You still need to rent spaces because you need a place to meet, and the existing meeting room places are rather anodyne. We'd rent out a winery or similar.

I think the flexible preference is an acknowledgment of deep focused work needing to be preformed away from the office. The modern office is not meant for this type of work. Likewise an acknowledgment that some work is best done in person.

How would it work for people with kids, they bring them along? Asinine idea.