Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryandrake | Hacker News Reader

I’ve never seen so many companies so aligned on one thing like they are aligned on “people must return to the office”. It’s like they are all reading the same thing in the same HBR article and colluding together to write the exact same things in those all-hands emails. You normally can’t get companies to agree on anything, but when it comes to work-from-office, suddenly they all say the exact same words. So eerie!

Me? I’m never going back! WFH has been such a lifestyle improvement, productivity improvement, mental health improvement, family life improvement, cost improvement, and social/freetime improvement, nothing will convince me to return to my crushing commute.

View on HN

> You normally can’t get companies to agree on anything, but when it comes to work-from-office, suddenly they all say the exact same words. So eerie!

there's a lot of vested interest in commercial real-estate. Offices is the biggest part of commercial real estate, and drops in their use over the long term is unexpected when the people who invested in these properties paid their capital - therefore, it makes sense that there's a lot of think-tanks that are pushing for the idea that return-to-office is required. The business rags that the management-level people often read and get their ideas from are fraught with such think-tank biases.

Unfortunately, it does work.

WFH will be a privilege that one would have to reduce their salary for in the medium to long term.

>>WFH will be a privilege that one would have to reduce their salary for in the medium to long term.

I don't think that will come to pass... I've been 100% remote for 20 years, and it gets easier/more socially acceptable every year.

Our CTO starts every meeting with a “reminder that working remotely is a privilege and can change at a minute” but everything I find in the HR trade press seems to indicate we are well past privilege. The rhetorical question is why are we still paying for a sixty story sky rise that is occupied by a dozen people on any day. I do know the answer to that question but still - I have no intention of going back. If remote work was revoked tomorrow I might go in for a couple weeks while I interview but that’s going to be it.

I may have some gripes with my company, but I’m thankful they’re not trying to float a return to the office—and will not any time soon.

We’ve drastically downsized our real estate. Dozens of leases terminated, including our previous skyscraper headquarters. My old office doesn’t exist anymore.

Now I just hope they don’t get catch the “6%” fever that’s been going around.

> If remote work was revoked tomorrow I might go in for a couple weeks while I interview but that’s going to be it.

but what if there just aren't many companies offering the same remote that is being offered today? And companies that _do_ offer remote could then lower their salary because they know there's a glut of applicants wanting remote.

The dynamic is not that simple. Remote companies do offer a lower salary than they would in person - as you don't have to pay for commute, and you can live in Wyoming.

But not all remote companies are interested in a race to the bottom. If they were, they'd only hire from LatAm, Africa, and South Asia.

IBM was playing that game since the 90s - you can keep your job, but you have to relocate to a third world country, at your own expense, and be paid the local rate, in the local currency. It was designed to be a raw deal that nobody would accept - we didn’t lay people off, they resigned rather then take relocation offer.

Of course IBM stopped being relevant and fizzled out years ago, I can’t remember the last time I ran into anyone using their products or services, so I guess all their shady HR maneuvering was a loss in the end.

I suspect the story will be that a few companies will try to reduce the salaries of their remote workers, it will backfire when they jump ship to better offers, and in the end companies will just be happy they don’t have to pay for real estate, office perks, parking, travel, and all the other stuff.

The people who do go into the office will have to bring their own toilet paper - twitter style.

> it will backfire when they jump ship to better offers

which means they're offering too low if people would jump ship and yet get the same privileges. What i'm specifically talking about is the WFH premium, all else being equal.

IBM seems to be mainly doing consultancy stuff now. From what I can see they don't really know what they want to be, they seem to be scavenging for scraps in the market, lacking a clear strategy. They dabble a bit in everything from processors, servers, services to software but don't really shine anywhere.

We used them as a data center provider for a while but they were really bad, doing stuff like scheduling backups during peak times. We have some consultancy suits on the floor like the ones from Deloitte too, mainly for "old boys network" reasons I think because they're not particularly knowledgeable.

I think they'll be around mainly to support all their legacy but I don't really see them driving any technology anymore.

As long as there is a shortage of talent, companies will do what it takes to attract them. If company A can't get people, because everyone is going to company B for WFH benefits, company A will offer it too.

And there is still a shortage of people... The recent layoffs will result in resources moving around, not a severe shortage of positions.

It's almost as if the same people who were excited about "the paperless office" last century are shocked once they realise what paperless implies.

I have a feeling the HBR articles in question are submarine outputs from owners of commercial properties that are frantically trying to get back to the days of fat rent checks from companies, office 'planners' that make a living finding ever-diabolical arrangements to improve 'collaboration', and 'masters' of various ilk whose sole purpose in life is to grind down any sign of happiness and creativity under the bloody thumb of 'process'.

The other side of that is in the US office workers long distance commuting costs probably half to one trillion a year. Oh sure the employees pay for that. But the companies pay the employees. So it's really coming out of the companies pocket.

I've been in the workforce for about 9 years. The first three years were as a technician that required me working on site. The last 6 of which, I've worked from home in DevOps and other engineering roles. I can't even fathom what it means to work in an office. I didn't even realize people in tech worked in offices because I never did. It's weird to me that this is even controversial.

On one hand they do read the same articles, on the other, the set of investors and owners is much smaller, and generally older/more resistant to change than the people who run the companies companies, and these investors are likely the ones that put this pressure on everyone. Hence why it all sounds the exact same.

IMHO the cat is out of the bag. Now it's just a fight against the current.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com