Hacker News Reader

Comment by Buttons840 | Hacker News Reader

> I'm tired of all the talk about "You should not rely on office for socializing"

I've said similar things, but it's very important to note I'm saying that OTHERS should not force ME into the office to fulfill THEIR social needs. I'm happy working from home, and if push comes to shove, I'm saying that people's social needs should not be a consideration when deciding whether we all work from an office or from home.

I think it's great for people to fulfill their social needs at work, but I have a problem if their social needs become the reason I'm force to set aside my own needs and go to the office.

View on HN

A team is a condition of mutual obligation. Teams are not the only way of organizing the economy: we have already seen the rise of gig work in the service sector, and I expect that more mercenary models of remote work and contracting have a bright future on the white-collar side of things. But to the extent that I have the obligations of a teammate to you, I expect you to share in the obligations of a teammate to me.

Of course, but is fulfilling your social needs a requirement for being a good teammate? And does the team have any responsibility to me to allow me to work in a comfortable environment (from home)?

Trust, respect, collaboration, mentorship, patience, sacrifice, etc. are services I am happy to perform for my in-office colleagues because they are real people really in front of my tickling the empathy parts of my ape brain, and I identify with them as my people. You are a rectangle on a computer screen. The same expectations apply but the ape-brain emotional supports do not kick in; it is more difficult and less pleasant work.

We don’t have to be best friends, but yes, showing up is part of the “teammate” package. You don’t get to withdraw that part and still demand all the same things from me.

There are also many of us who are fully capable of providing those services and treating our coworkers like "real people" remotely. If you're working in an org that is forcing your to work in an environment that you despise, why not leave for one that better aligns with your values rather than treating your coworkers like subhumans?

That’s the plan! In order to do that though, there has to be some team which requires its members to show up (those who were remote during the pandemic, those who may wish to join later), which the parent feels is unfair.

I think both our preferences are legitimate and people should be able to sort themselves into teams that suit their preferences.

I understand people are distressed about commuting and the office. I’m also distressed about the prospect of spending the majority of my waking hours over the next 30 years on Zoom. If that’s the way things are shaping up I need to go be a farmer or something.

> If that’s the way things are shaping up I need to go be a farmer or something.

Is this something you entertain as an actual possibility or shudder to think about?

I knew I was meant to be a software engineer from about 9 years old until March 2020. I think I will code for the rest of my life. Hopefully I’ll find some way to collaborate in person with people about technical projects for the long haul. But I don’t know how many more videoconferences I can take. 5.5 hours of them today. Anything to make it stop.

Just to be clear, I don't think it's always unfair for companies to require employees to "show up". I only think it is unfair if the only reason they are doing so is to satisfy the personal social needs of employees, because they are putting the personal needs of some employees above the personal needs of other employees.

> because they are putting the personal needs of some employees above the personal needs of other employees.

If a company stays remote because you do not personally need social interaction at the office, what has just happened?

Your personal needs have been put above the personal needs of other employees.

I don’t think the parent was suggesting that companies stay remote _because_ the employees don’t need interaction.

(IMO companies stay this way because it’s simply cheaper and the hiring pool is bigger, but that’s not important in this discussion)

It just happens to benefit those whose prefer to stay at home.

> the hiring pool is bigger

In the US, this is only a benefit to bigger businesses or businesses with a presence in multiple states already (or those willing to take on quite a bit of new administrative work).

I work for a 15-person remote company based in a single state and the additional overhead required to understand taxation, labor laws, and other issues in even neighboring states is higher than you might think. We're putting it off and just hiring locally for now.

What do companies near the border do? If you are a small firm in NYC I can’t imagine it being unusual to employ people from NJ and Connecticut ad well as NY, and even further afield like PA. in Baltimore I can see you could have commuters from both virginias, Maryland, Delaware, Phillidelphoa, New Jersey and DC.

I think NY,CT, NJ are some of the few states with a kind of reciprocity agreement in place that makes this a bit easier.

I’m in Portland, OR and pre-pandemic, we’d have no issue hiring someone in Vancouver, WA, because they’d drive 15 minutes to our Portland office. Now, we choose to turn them away because of the bureaucracy and worry that we’re going to do something wrong. One day we’ll have to cross that (metaphorical/physical) bridge, but we’re not there quite yet.

It’s really easy for big businesses that have big HR departments and/or already have a physical presence in another state. But for 15 people, one doing HR part-time, it’s just not worth it right now.

If you can’t afford to pay to work out all of that complexity you probably can’t afford to be based in NYC. You might be better off being located in one of the suburbs and pulling talent from only one of those states.

Also there are probably a number of firms that specialize in dealing with that kind of situation so you can get outside help affordably.

Fair point. One important difference is that my social needs can be met on my own, while others want to force me into an unpreferred situation to fulfill their own needs.

There's a difference between "just let me work the way I want" and "just make them work the way I want".

Ideally, those who want to work from an office could, while others on the same team could work from home, and everyone would be considerate enough to make it work. This is working well enough at my current company.

> Ideally, those who want to work from an office could, while others on the same team could work from home, and everyone would be considerate enough to make it work.

Again, this is putting the personal preferences of one group above those of another group. What you describe is only ideal if the office people don't mind working with the at-home people and vice versa. You don't have to be considerate of someone else's preferences if you're willing to leave for another job.

Personally, the next job I have will be office only with 0 off-site employees. It's my preference and hopefully I'll find a company whose preference aligns with my own.

Every decision a company makes treats people differently. The goal should be treating everyone fairly. If a person disagrees that they are being treated fairly, they can make their case and try to get something to change or they can get a new job.

If you were to somehow do your work in a way that didn’t require me to join video calls with you, that would be fine. I find those calls as hellish as you find commuting or the city.

>people should be able to sort themselves into teams that suit their preferences.

The teams are going to be companies, in my opinion. There are going to be 'remote' companies and 'in person' companies. That's the only way this type of self-sorting will work, people won't join a company not knowing for sure whether they're committing to an in-person or remote working experience.

I disagree. I think this is going to be like other work life balance questions. Yes the tone is set from the top but each team is going to interact with each other in different ways. I think it will be difficult for an entire organization to make a hard and fast rule.

> I think it will be difficult for an entire organization to make a hard and fast rule.

Thinking about it more, I guess you're right. There will always be sectors within organisations where it's considered that face-to-face meetings and working physically in the presence of other team members is necessary to make effective progress.

> We don’t have to be best friends, but yes, showing up is part of the “teammate” package. You don’t get to withdraw that part and still demand all the same things from me.

… but they arn't.

The person who has meaningful and deep relationships outside work isn't demanding all the same things from you.

Most work are in dense cities and cities are inherently expensive. For the commute to be meaningful, everyone in your team has to be within a short distance of these dense cities.

The “teammate” package you propose is pretty expensive all things considered. You might not realize nor care about the expense but the teammates might.

In the end, the company cares about productive output. Mercenary or not, companies that have the most productive output that makes the customers happy are going to win.

My money are on companies that go remote, keep costs down and pass on those savings internally (employees) and externally (customers).

My money is not on companies that are forced to hire people within driving distance of some arbitrary office.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com