You can’t bribe, threaten, or feed people to get them back in the office
bostonglobe.com
bostonglobe.com
You get to work with people who live across the country, or across the world, with all of the variety of culture that brings. Plus, you get to work with people from rural areas, for whom big-city jobs would otherwise be infeasible.
The more flexible working arrangement is good for women with young children, some of whom would otherwise leave the workforce entirely for a few years. (It's good for men with young children, too, but they are less likely to leave the workforce over it.)
It's also good for people with disabilities -- both those that impair mobility and those with chronic conditions.
Video streams don't leave evidence.
Having been harrassed by a group of colleagues during covid, it felt worse in person but it was also easier to circumvent and defend in the office. The distance to changing team was shorter in the office, since I had the opportunity to network while at work. Remote work means you mostly talk to the same people.
Another example of that, not related to harrassment:
First time I spoke to someone who had once spoken to a customer was 7 months into a job, during my first in-office lunch break. It is amazing that companies can be "customer and usability driven" yet almost make a deliberate effort to prevent programmers from talking to end users. Being in office actually got me closer to customers (being able to talk to sales and support without scheduling a meeting).
And double especially if you're in a one-party consent state?
Any lawyers willing to chime in?
Another option comes to mind, namely a preemptive "I record all my videos for reference." I can imagine some businesses having a problem with that for secrecy reasons, though.
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/use-live-captions...
In combination with the person typing to participate in the meeting, this may be more accessible than having to have a sign translator in the meetings with you all the time.
Nowadays in Switzerland there are four different languages: English, French, German and the Swiss-German dialect which is different enough to warrant a separate speech-to-text training, which will be a bit difficult because every valley has its own variant of the dialect.
This is currently a serious barrier. For example at Youtube, if people talk Swiss German Youtube identifies it as Spanish, Dutch, Ukrainian or English, I have seen it all.
If I would need to do remote work, I would look for an international company where the office language is strictly English.
Diversity in the abstract has no intrinsic benefits. A dozen red roses is no more or less beautiful than roses of many colors. A set of heterogenous things is not intrinsically more valuable than a set of homogenous things.
BUT when it comes to diversity of representation, there is a justice angle. My guiding principle is that when the diversity of a workforce does not match the diversity of its surroundings, that is a problem, because it suggests that people are being filtered out for some reason other than their relevant abilities. Maybe that reason is systemic bias, or maybe it's direct bias on the part of the company. But somewhere in the process, there's an injustice taking place.
I used to work for a company that was much more white, male, and otherwise homogeneous than the city in which it was located. And the company was worse off for it. There was a lot of groupthink. There was a lot of what I'd call TDD (testosterone-driven development). And people complained about there being a monoculture. The more homogenous the company became, the harder it became to attract qualified people who didn't fit the mold.
No it doesn't.
That's only true if all demographics have equal ability and interest in that workforce.
Any racial or ethnic groups? Men/women? Veteran status?
If you're not willing to name which purported classes of people have low ability in this area, I don't think it's worthwhile to entertain your line of argument.
The question should be why few people of a particular race go to medical school. The biases need to be addressed at the root. If you focus your bias search at the end-leaf points you are making a blunder. A blunder that can even hurt people for the opposite reasons because there are "too many" of race X relative to local population. Some minorities (Asians) are negatively affected by this lazy anti-bias action.
If you aren't going to engage honestly, don't engage at all. There's no place on HN for that kind of behavior.
Are blacks and Hispanics, underrepresented in tech, just not interested in programming, or is there maybe a chance that they have the same ability and interest, but less access? Overt discrimination does not even need to exist here, but if there are systemic factors that disadvantage some demographic groups, that can also affect access.
There are some universities where enrollment in certain majors is competitive, but they are the exception, not the rule.
So yes, I'm inclined to believe this is indicative of vastly different levels of interest.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Nationally-the-number-of...
[1] https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/disp...
https://pnpi.org/black-students/
They only make up 1.17% of the undergraduate population enrolled in a CS major.
Either a disproportionately low number of African American undergrads are choosing to enroll in CS majors (interest), or universities are disproportionately refusing to enroll such students (in which case your argument about racism may have some merit).
Do you have any evidence that universities are refusing to allow African American students to enroll in CS?
A good proxy is to look at the continued gap in broadband internet adoption by race, which is also linked to income. PoC are less likely to have a broadband connection at home, and relying more on their smartphone/tablet devices [1]. Educational attainment is also linked to broadband adoption [2]. Historically students haven't been learning to code/coding on their smart devices.
Lack of access is not lack of interest.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/07/16/home-broadb...
[2] https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/cpuc-website/files/uploadedf...
Do you have any evidence at all for your claim that universities are refusing to enroll African American students in CS programs?
You dispute my claim, by which it must necessarily follow that they are somehow disproportionately prevented from enrolling despite wanting to enroll. Where is your evidence of that?
You're the one with the baseless claim that black people as an entire cohort have "vastly different levels of interest" in CS. I provided several reasons and citations that they're still facing the consequences of systemic racism, and that it's not really a "choice" or "interest".
Your continued claim offers nothing other than conjecture without critical thinking as to why this is happening, despite having evidence presented to you. You provide nothing to backup your claims, yet demand that others offer evidence for claims they never made.
You're now trying to move goalposts towards by only looking at the university level when that was never my argument, and shows you're not trying to argue in good faith.
I'm done.
> when the diversity of a workforce does not match the diversity of its surroundings, that is a problem, because it suggests that people are being filtered out for some reason other than their relevant abilities. Maybe that reason is systemic bias, or maybe it's direct bias on the part of the company. But somewhere in the process, there's an injustice taking place.
As an Asian myself, I have no problem admitting most Asian males simply don’t have the ideal physique to be competitive at the pro level at these sports. You might have extreme outliers like Yao Ming, but that’s exactly what he is - an extreme outlier. Far fewer - extremely fewer, Asian males are likely to have the ideal physique to be a NBA or NFL player than say, Whites or Blacks.
Do I see a problem with this? Not at all.
The people who talk like this argued that Asians don’t deserve equal admission to Harvard or UNC because there’s “too many”.
I think that kind of racism is disgusting — choosing people based on skin color is horrific.
Yet, we are talking about a real barrier for many kinds of people that was suddenly lifted, and people are still making an effort to classify the people that pointed "hey, there was a barrier here" as racist.
The rhetoric of this thread is amazing.
A lot of people are dishonest about that, but the people who crow about “diversity” consistently engage in racialized language — and discrimination based on race, such as discrimination against Asians at those universities. (You can see GP works himself around to the racial angle by the end.)
I didn’t put any words in GPs mouth:
I pointed out he’s using the language of modern bigots, such as those at Harvard and UNC.
What I find interesting in particular from those lawsuits: one of the main argument was the representation of Asians being lower than “white” ethnic groups adjusted for selected academic achievements. That basically goes against your thesis, as doing that intentionally would lower diversity.
Why would diversity not be good?
I am not sure where you are trying to go with your commentary on diligence vs compliance, it doesn't seem particularly relevant and is concerningly Orwellian in that you seem to be saying people need to internalize hiring based on immutable characteristics to ensure those characteristics are represented rather than on competency. I don't want anyone to internalize any of that. I want diversity policy to be a bit of a pain in the ass that forces potentially biased people to try and choose the best they can from a severely underrepresented subset and then watch that choice do well and therefore help them re-calibrate their internal model to not miss out on quality hires outside their experience set. The goal should never be to diligently hire diversity, the goal should always be to help hiring managers trying to do their best improve.
And yes, much like technology, it’s up to people to insure abuse doesn’t happen. Much likely I said before, there’s reason diversity is an issue, clear examples of abuse from minor to horrific, and very unlikely there’s an optimal solution.
That said, I feel exactly confident in saying that currently that inequality, diversity, etc — are still major cultural issues in almost any region in the world; in some countries, inhospitable towards foreign cultures is the norm, not the exception.
(responding to this statement, and this statement only):
When creating systems, using a diverse array of standards instead of just one creates problems. For example: using metric units and imperial units. Heterogeneity in standards is desired in those circumstances.
When collaborating: having a diverse array of cultural norms can cause friction when people interpret phrases as pleasant vs passive aggressive.
When designing corporate identity: a diverse set of art-styles would likely give a muddled or non-professional look of a company. (though in certain circumstances this can be desirable if you are going for an "indy" look).
Those are things. It’s kind of arguing that you don’t want flour in your salt. Purity is fine for things.
> When collaborating: having a diverse array of cultural norms can cause friction when people interpret phrases as pleasant vs passive aggressive.
This is a positive aspect if you get to learn from that and communicate in a way that is better understood in non-homogeneous groups. Think a space station shared between countries. Or a town office that needs to regularly communicate with the general public.
You will also be saved from further issues if you were ready from the start to deal with an array of cultural norms, instead of assuming a single culture and later realize that people came from a much more complex background than you imagined.
> corporate identity
That’s an interesting one. It’s a thing, but then people are working for that corporation. Having an identity strongly anchored in a single specific culture (let’s go for the worst: your PR department shares articles of the CEO hunting elephants. Or your whole company site is in Rococo style) will be detrimental compared to a bland, very generic and more embrassing identity.
>Those are things.
idk, I feel like we're talking about "Diversity" as a concept, I accidentally answered without any context w.r.t. the rest of the discussion and just kind of left it (with a little disclaimer in parens).
> > When collaborating: having a diverse array of cultural norms can cause friction when people interpret phrases as pleasant vs passive aggressive.
> This is a positive aspect if you get to learn from that and communicate in a way that is better understood in non-homogeneous groups.
This largely depends, if you want global domination of a product then sure, but if you're a bunch of tool makers and you all know your audience of tool users then there's no benefit at all to have someone offended by the word "tool" in your workforce.
Regarding corporate identity: I've always been against the whole "bring your entire self to work" ideology that seems to have come out of Google. That only works if you have a heterogeneous idea of where things are going, otherwise you just lose yourself to infighting and disenfranchisement.
Better: Have a strong corporate image, then people will self-select if they can stomach what your company stands for. To be honest I was talking about branding anyway, but since you mentioned people anchoring themselves to a corporate identity then it opened my eyes to a bigger need for heterogeneity in that environment.
It kinda reminds me of the factorygirl -> factorybot [0] story. It was a cute enough name for a technical tool that plays nice among bros, and down the line you end up renaming your package and deal with the drama.
On brand image, I get your point. I think the corporations doing it best tend to juggle with multiple brands and segment their market accordingly. Then yes, an homogeneous, single focus brand will be more valuable, as it also help to push people outside of the target to your other brands.
China’s rise as a superpower would seem to directly contradict your statement. It seems like the truth is the opposite of what you say: a heterogenous system will always outperform a diverse/chaotic system unless there are edge cases which introduce shocks to the system.
The are no global systems of governance that are wildly adhered to which are actually literal forms of anarchy; anarchy being the common description on a chaotic system of governance.
While it may be too blunt of a tool to address the core systemic causes of issues like inequality of opportunity and discrimination, it is a relatively simple way to mitigate their effects. E.g. long term we should try to make sure that the hiring process does not discriminate against various groups, but in the short term making sure that you have at least some of each group helps mitigate any problems.
Having diverse team may allow a team to develop a wider range of potential solutions to problems.
Having a diverse team may help avoid unanticipated interactions between a product and different groups of people. E.g. facial recognition software that doesn't work well on people with dark skin.
If you only have electric-type Pokémon, you can theoretically beat every Pokémon Gym.
But it's a lot easier if you have a _diverse_ set of Pokémon with different abilities. =)
And try not to use a =) when endorsing racism so openly.
How did this suddenly get into racism? Gen Z would call that a "chronically online take", how else would someone get from a silly analogue of Pokémon types and abilities into racial issues?
Of course people are hired for their ability, their background is just the bonus. And again, background isn't the same as skin colour, that's an American thing. Europeans judge people based on what country people are from, not based on their skin colour - we have a long tradition in doing so. =)
Invisible Women[0] is an excellent book on the subject with multiple anecdotes and hard statistical data on how having diverse people making decisions is good for business.
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/41104077-invisible-women
https://gizmodo.com/why-cant-this-soap-dispenser-identify-da...
A more diverse workforce is not enough, but it very much tends to challenge assumptions that would otherwise get made without a second thought.
To take a trivial example, I'm Norwegian, and over the years I've lost count of the number of times I've had to explain even the most basic internationalisation requirements to English-speakers who somehow manage to even think about basic character set considerations, much less transliteration (Håkon transliterates to Haakon - å -> aa, æ -> ae, ø -> oe -, except when Scandinavians have learnt that some places they run into problems unless it's transliterated Hakon, so good luck doing a string comparison of names reliably), language differences (assuming no need to make different recordings for dates for an IVR system and you can just reuse the ordinals? except when you can't; surely there's a default, "safe", clearly dominant language for each country that you can use without pissing anyone off? and so on).
And that's between similar cultures and closely related languages, and ignoring cultural expectations outside of a European heritage.
Rather the issue is that a team is more likely to realize issues caused by interaction between a product and various groups if those groups are part of the team working on the project. It's a discoverability issue.
In my experience I've seen it impacting product decisions, pricing decisions, and engineering decisions.
What I see with hiring has nothing to do with diversity of opinion, it's about hiring enough of protected classes to avoid lawsuits.
I would love to hear how companies can interview for deep differences in thinking. Doing that in a way that would not risk lawsuits from the interview process (asking about personal religion or neurodiversity), of course.
And then food, coffee, etc. to provide the same amenities as at home.
Right now I'd have to pay about $8 a day and 45 minutes each way to commute to the office and then ~$18 a day on food if I don't prepare it before. To then use inferior equipment than I have at home - why would anyone want that?
I don't try to write that much or have meetings at the office as those are much easier to do at home.
is this satire? many office people are "nice to your face"
There is a lot more value in having good, supportive friends. Those you can choose.
I do not get any 'magic' office knowledge in the office.
And frankly its unfair anyway.
If so, how is it any fairer to level the playing field to the point where nobody gets that? (No, it will never have the same flow virtually, over the past two years it’s become clear that virtual meetings are always formal to some degree)
The extroverts have been made quite aware of how the introverts prefer things to be in the past few years, and may now be aware that the extroverts had the upper hand before.
It must be feasible to strike a decent middleground.
You’re asking a portion of the population that thrives on socialization to avoid that for the majority of the day. That is just as bad as insisting on forcing that on the introverts.
But I do appreciate the point you make here, asking others to do something they don’t appreciate just because you want to have people around, is not really a viable solution either.
Then again, humans are intrinsically social animals. And communication does work better for some purposes when done in person. The point I’m trying to raise is that there should exist a decent middle ground that lets introverts and extroverts thrive in the same companies. Possibly by asking both to give a bit.
But that point is somewhat incompatible with the “full remote is the way”-stance that seems to be very popular in at least a vocal part of crowds like HN.
But it's also not nearly as simple as you suggest. My girlfriend is very extrovert, but still also prefer mostly working from home, because while she can socialise a little bit while working it forces her to socialise with a small set of people she has not chosen, while robbing her of extra time (the commute) that she can use to socialise with those she has chosen.
I.e. if you don’t like your colleagues, perhaps a new job is in the cards. (and yes, i do get the entire point about reducing the number of hours worked as a solution)
And changing jobs for the sake of changing colleagues is high risk - you don't get a chance to interview all your colleagues before taking a new one. It's not even necessarily about not liking them, but about not wanting to sacrifice extra time in order to spend more time face to face with them.
Is that some idiom? You mean like isolation sickness?
People like rock stars have something like this and then it increases the likelihood of substance abuse.
I get soul death being prisoner in a fluorescent tube jail that keeps me away from the sun all winter and barely lets me see it during the rest of the year.
I would love to see data comparing reluctance to go (back) to the office versus things like commuting mode of transportation (walking, cycling, transit, commuter rail, driving) and/or commute time.
https://urbanstudies.uva.nl/content/blog-series/covid-19-pan...
This matches the numbers that have been reported in Norway as well, where the percentage that miss their commute are roughly 80% for pedestrians/cyclists, 50% for public transport and 30% for driving (https://www.nrk.no/norge/blir-palagt-hjemmekontor-_-mange-sa... in Norwegian)
In theory I should do some sort of exercise (like cycling around) when working from home, but realistically that hardly ever happens.
I wonder if this is how the reaction to absurd real estate prices is playing out.
1) excellent ventilation: clean air. This has become an important topic lately and the importance will not diminish. If you're going to share space with dozens of people, who almost all interact with others at home as well, then find ways to minimise the spread of germs (of which COVID-19 is just one). Coming in saying "it's just a cold" is no longer OK. I don't care how mild your case is, that might not apply to people that you transmit it to, so just don't.
2) a locker to keep some stuff (a nice keyboard, a warm top, etc)
That's the biggest inefficiency about in-office work. Its irreplaceable time lost for the employees, the company and the society. We are needlessly hauling people from place to place to have them work at the cost of losing time and resources.
Since you have to communicate via chat and email to keep everyone "together" it stops mattering that you're in the same building as someone. The guys in the US, Belgium and India will almost never be in the room with me and we have to make a team of it despite that.
Personally, I think the commute is wasted time and (a lot of) money. I get to take my daughter to school, to collect her and to spend time with her before she goes to sleep and I am not giving that up without a fight. Try to force me and I'll try to find another job and there are plenty on offer.
The very same reasons why outsourcing was consistently a fail before covid and ended up costing more with inevitable reversals. What kind of worked was near shore, ie cca same time zone, and less savings. But good luck getting that accepted by MBAs.
Working with people overseas is just tricky. China is much too far from my timezone - that' nearly impossible. The Indians I work with put up with very odd hours to be part of our team. It's hard to keep them - they frequently get better offers and leave. The guys in the US are east coast which is not so bad but it makes meetings difficult.
I don't really know how a company like mine could totally avoid being global so to an extent we just have to make something work.
In my last office job I could never get any work done during the day because it was all interruptions and people making use of their ability to "just have a moment." I'd stay till 10pm to do the actual programming. Nowadays with a family that just isn't going to happen so I like a bit of distance.
I think it's useful to meet people once or twice at least - that has turned out to be very good in my experience.
Those years taught me to live with little money. Here in in france every unemployed citizen can get welfare since 1989, it's a low amount of money but it's enough.
So when I found work, I managed to save a lot of money (less than 10k), because I did not change my lifestyle: no heating in the south of france, eating cheap, no travel, no car, no gadgets.
Of course the jobs I got were either for training or trial periods, so I always end without a job.
To be really honest, the antiwork movement is quite a revelation for me. I don't feel like I must beg for a job. It feels so good. I can still live without working, and it helps a lot to negotiate the work I want to do.
i think that's the main thing that makes it difficult to just go off the grid for me.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/prices_by_city.jsp?dis...
When you get old, you cannot work anymore, not even that much.
Although, both (rent and retirement) can be achieved with some abuse of the social benefits in france.
1) ALL my co-workers are in that office when I am. There’s no point in going to a place if the rest of the team isn’t there.
2) Compensate me 100% for all commuting related expenses.
3) A very short commute by bicycle or subway. A short walk would be even better.
4) My own private office. With a door. A fancy door with with my name on it. The kind that detectives used to have in old movies.
5) Even when I’m not working, I am free to use the office as an extension of my personal living space for convenience.
6) Secure bicycle parking/storage.
7) Showers.
8) I am only required to work at most 4 days per week. No more than 32 hours total.
9) Lastly, pay me more than any remote job is offering.
I know you may kid with the tail end of that but this is a key thing for engineers for focus time. Open office floor plans are the opposite of what is needed. Reference is PeopleWare by DeMarco & Lister.
"You work from the office or you don't work here" seems to be about as effective as ever. Some people will have alternatives and will use them; most won't.
Granted, I've worked remotely for 22 years so maybe I missed the memo.
You can fire people who aren't willing to come back to the office, certainly.
But if 30% of your workforce would rather find a different job than return to the office, firing them all might inhibit your ability to get things done.
Really, I should have been asking for more, as losing that much spare time would matter, but I mostly made the demand expecting it to be rejected.
Unsurprisingly I ended up rejecting a few companies who wanted me in the office at least part of the week but were unwilling to pay for the time they expected me to give up and the costs I'd incur. Instead I ended up taking a salary increase to work 100% remote.
Employers may be able to force those who are powerless and in weak bargaining positions back in, but in tech enough of us still have enough options that trying to force people back in will cause companies doing it to lose a lot of the very people who are experienced enough to find it easiest to move.
Companies - or at least teams within companies - self-selecting into in-person or remote organizations seems like the best outcome to me. This will probably happen at the whim of management, but maybe also because of the relative preferences of the dominant talent pool they need to attract. I just wonder how much pain and suffering everyone is going to have to endure to figure this out and get there.
I however, 100% agree with the statement that conferences are problem (1) for coming back to the office AND (2) is the fact that commute times were given back to the life of people (and their kids, partners, hobbies, communities, ...) and now people ask to invest that time back to the company.
0 - alternately, “are more productive working”
I am curious to see how this will end.
at home, i can manage my time and my environment, i'm comfortable.
That can be a plus. Just yesterday we've seen on HN someone's story about hiring 5 people to watch over his shoulder so he can focus on his work [1]. Coworkers do that for you for free.
It is just hard to compete with: no travel time, the comfort of your own home and food, an no one looking over your shoulder all the time.
Buy myself my farm i want without credit and than only working smaller remote jobs for social security and health care and upkeep but also only 20h or less
I agree though putting up with commuting again would need to be well rewarded.
Almost assuredly you are now accruing a huge debt to one or more governments. It’s not an if, but when.
My home government even has a tax treaty with my current country of residence that guarantees they will make no attempt to tax my income as long as I am a tax resident here.
In addition to the existing 0% tax countries, a number of countries have now started offering visas that come with either 0% or a very low tax on foreign income, specifically to attract remote workers. It's really quite simple to situate yourself to pay no taxes as a remote worker. Nearly every country in the world allows their citizens to move their tax residency to another country. You only have to worry about bending the rules if you don't actually leave the country who's tax system you're trying to escape.
If you want me there more than a couple of days a week, you need to pay even more above the commute, as it also costs me flexibility.
Showers,
Spices and a place to cook the days i'm not at the gym,
Office with doors (idc if i have to share it with one or two coworkers),
Less than 20 minutes commute by bike,
Double screen (as i can bring my mouses and keyboards, but not my computer screens).
The key people have plenty of money and tend to live near the city center, their commute is 15 minutes in their car to a dedicated spot in the company garage.
The workers have little money, live in the suburbs and their commute takes an hour. Plus they have to pay for either public transit or parking.
I avoid remote meetings during my in-office days so I can focus on productive gatherings like whiteboarding sessions, ad-hoc conversations, coffee/tea/lunch breaks etc. In other words, relationship building.
One, or the other, but not hybrid.
Full office and full remote are easier.
Once you level the playing field there, you might as well have the meeting full remote, as you can’t cash in the benefits of being in person without inconveniencing the remote crowd. So the optimal hybrid meeting is in fact not hybrid.
Pay me 1.5x that cost and I'll gladly take that trade.
Then again, office space is super-expensive and if they can actually reduce (or eliminate) the amount of office space because of WFH that would be a huge savings. But not every company can do that (yet).
Companies chose to make every office an open office and I wonder how much the work from home phenomenon is a vote against this with the feet.
I'm sure that's nothing to do with the current situation with everyone in tech doing mass layoffs though. Even though that has a hint of a war on workers. Or their salaries, anyway.
Plus being at work allows me to fast which assists in weight loss.
I feel like a loud group of people is always saying “offices are obsolete since I don’t need them!”
I’d add that the commute, especially on foot if feasible, is a great way to relax.
I wouldnt say that if i was driving, but i am in Europe so mass transportation alleviates the issue.
People say the strangest things here...
I'm not saying it's prevalent everywhere in Europe, I'm saying that it's a bad generalisation because it varies a lot within Europe.
A yes company loyalty.
Unless you are talking about small family business, the only loyalty companies have is to shareholders and investors, believing otherwise is setting yourself up for a bitter surprise.