Hacker News Reader

Comment by DebtDeflation | Hacker News Reader

Why do so many assume that there are only 3 options:

- 100% remote.

- 100% office.

- Some rigid hybrid scheme of n days per week in the office every week where n = 3 +/-1.

Why not "mainly remote but be in the office when it makes sense to be in the office"? This is how my team has been operating since last July - remote first but every 1-2 months we'll do a week onsite somewhere. Now we're getting pressure to start being in the office a few days per week every week starting later this month (and since we're dispersed that means going to the office to be on video calls all day).

View on HN

There may be some highly specific scheme that could make hybrid work, but in every situation where I've encountered hybrid it's been riddled with problems:

- Decisions made in the office, remote employees input ignored

- Manager sees others in the office, remote employees ignored for promotions

- Remote employees given the green light to work remote, others who don't work remote resent the remote employee for having that privilege

- In-person workers dictate working schedules, remote person's preference for async is ignored, remote person has to work a set schedule based on arbitrary availability of in person workers

> remote person has to work a set schedule based on arbitrary availability of in person workers

Not sure which schedule you are talking about you shouldn't all the employees be generally available between 9 am to 5 pm?

> shouldn't all the employees be generally available between 9 am to 5 pm?

For me that's a resounding "fuck no". For what purpose? If you're a software engineer why would you have to be working when someone else is? Collaboration can and should happen async.

Unless you're working on some highly life-critical real-time piece of software that's invariably complex, I see no reason why software engineers need to be on the same schedules.

In fact, much of why remote and even in-person work is a vast hellscape is because of these old traditions that we think we have to continue living by. The 40 hour work week, full-time all the time, real-time collaboration, set schedules, etc. It's all bullshit. You can build a highly scalable and successful business without following any of these "rules".

You are mixing two things. WFH has nothing to do with working different times.

Some employees work in the office from 9 to 5 while others can work from 8 to 4 in the same office. That is between you and your manager.

> You can build a highly scalable and successful business without following any of these "rules".

Which billion dollar company has done it without following these rules?

I’m not mixing anything. I’m challenging the status quo. I genuinely believe and am currently attempting to build a highly successful software business entirely remotely and async.

> Which billion dollar company has done it without following these rules?

Success to me isn’t about being a billion dollar company, but to answer the question, GitLab comes to mind.

> I’m not mixing anything.

Working from home and, working using flexible hours are two different things.

> GitLab comes to mind.

Which got acquired by a billion dollar company. Do you think Gitlab was not successful in remaining independent because the rules which you want are not scalable?

> Working from home and, working using flexible hours are two different things. Sure, if we want to make a distinction between WFH and Remote that's fine. WFH is essentially the same as office work, just without the commute. Remote should have no expectations of a set schedule imo.

> was not successful in remaining independent

Huh? GitLab was not acquired to my knowledge.

> Huh? GitLab was not acquired to my knowledge.

My bad, I assumed you were talking about Github, my brain did not even register Gitlab. I guess my brain thinks gitlab is not successful :)

This would make sense if it wasn't for the fact that Google (at least my org) is already spread around several offices and project work already happens across different timezones and locations. We have regular meetings with people joining in remotely. I work mostly with people from the other side of the world (despite my immediate team sharing the same city as me), this is because my actual projects don't reflect necessarily my local team composition. We make it work, we've been making it work for the past 2 years and even before the pandemic we had people working remotely. My previous team was split across Europe and NYC and it worked just fine. Honestly, hybrid work with some people being permanently remote and some people working in the office would have very little effect on our already-existing working culture. Just my experience at least.

> Why not "mainly remote but be in the office when it makes sense to be in the office"?

Depends on the space utilization. The company paying for real estate that "might" be used isn't very efficient. If they have a temporary work area system, it's different. Then they can down scale their real estate footprint and accommodate ad hoc visitors, by reservation, or the occasional "group meeting". But if they're dedicating space to someone who isn't there, it's a bit of a waste.

My last company called this "hoteling".

It's a valid point, but most companies went the first year and a half of the pandemic without using their real estate at all and the last 6 months barely using it. Smart companies should have optimized their real estate footprints by now.

Yeah a lot of places are doing this. My old company calls it "ad hoc" office attendance.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com