I think more remote is inevitable. Think of how much time is stolen from you in a daily commute. Remote is better for the environment too.
Remote work used to be an earned privilege for workers who were self sufficient and didn't need any management.
Now everyone expects it, and lazy/weak managers will just make everyone come into the office vs having hard conversations with crap employees to tell them they cant work from home.
I'm coordinating with developers in Europe, South America and East Asia. The customers are all over, but mainly North American. I'm in Europe. I've seen some of the customers once or twice in person, I see many of my European colleagues at the yearly get-together. But all the contact and all the work is over email, phone and video conferences and the usual mix of other remote collaboration tools, ticket system, git, stuff like that. When I enter our local office, only one of the 50 people working there has anything to do with that I do. My manager is 800km away. Well, there's payroll over here, but the only time I'll need to "visit" them in person is when a paycheck is late ;).
Even before COVID, the world shifted towards remote, even when you HAD to come to the local office because of reasons. COVID just showed everyone what a charade it already has been for the last decade to force people into an office just to get on phone/email/git and work remotely from the office. COVID cut out the stupid useless "going to the office" step.
In the 2000s, it wasn't like that, teams were concentrated at some offices, offshoring wasn't that much of a thing yet. And for lots of things, travelling e.g. to meet a customer was accepted and normal, far more often than it is now. A new contract was a 2-week stay at the customers'. Back then, remote work actually was a privilege. But the world had changed long before COVID, slowly, then very quickly.
WFH should be the ultimate dream of these companies, they can finally get rid of those pesky meatbags and their 'emotions' altogether.
So management wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. Everyone in an ever smaller, ever more unusable but supposedly cheaper office. Concentrate all the smaller offices in the suburbs into one huge big-city campus, making the commute a nightmare. But people have to be at their desks, or else. Remote was officially rolled back.
Unofficially, even middle management wised up and just ignored the back-to-office mandate, because they wouldn't know anyways who was in and who wasn't.
If you can reduce the office footprint you can save money. Bringing people in often means increasing the footprint post wfh.
Wfh will win where it actually succeeds because it saves money.
If it doesn't work then only companies that bring people in will succeed.
My feeling is that about 75% of the non manual non hospitality economy will go WFH
It's now a selling point when buying a company that the infrastructure is cloud based, even if it's IaaS that has been stable and unchanging for 15+ years - and they require the staff to maintain the servers regardless of where it's hosted.
>If it doesn't work then only companies that bring people in will succeed.
This implies fair competition between the two
Wake, coffee, walk, start work at 9. Finish at 5, put computer away, and walk for 15 min, your day is done.
It's really arrogant how you assume you understand GP's situation better than themselves.
I used to bike commute about 7 miles each way up and down some intense hills; it was part of my routine, and I had to do it. Now that I'm working from home, sure, I could go out and ride 15 miles every day, but it becomes a matter of discipline.
Same with socializing. I tend to prefer solitude, so socializing, like exercising, now requires discipline – I have to make myself do it – whereas before it was baked in, and unavoidable.
People recommending a dog aren't wrong. I do have a dog now, and walk at least 5 miles a day. My dog is an idiot so I can't really do the dog-park thing, but if you have a non-idiotic dog, there's some socialization to be gained there, too. BUT: it's a big commitment, and will have an impact on big life decisions later on like what apartment you can rent, whether you live in a city or a suburb, how easy it is to take a vacation or travel abroad, etc., so it's not like it's a no-brainer or an easy solution.
Not that much. And I just read hacker news while sitting on the train which I was going to do if sitting at home anyway.
So only in every country in the world except USA?
> Not that much.
OK, let's assume it's not 90 minutes but only 20 minutes a day. That compounds, and it's a lot of time I could spend on what really matters to me, not work. Why should I do it, if I have a choice? Time is the most precious thing we have. I will never come back to the office, period.
You could WFH, get up at the same time, spend 10 minutes meditating, 10 minutes walking and you would have been healthier and saved money.
Does your firm count that 20 minutes as part of your work hours?
If not, then WFH is superior.
How you use that time is a question for you to use your agency to resolve.
Not sure where you live, that's got a 20 min commute, but most people either live in a concrete prison to reduce the commute, or spend 2 hours a day on a bus/train.
I do know this.. if you worked from home, you could get all that you've outlined, and likely spend a pile less on rent/mortgage. Others who work with you would also get to see their kids before bed.
Seems like a bike or eBike would be a faster way to go? Melbourne climate is pretty temperate, no?
I don't mind riding my bike around to the nearby shops on the weekend but usually its just most convenient to get places on foot or by PT. I only really do it for fun and fitness rather than it being the fastest way to get around.
I believe employees have to start to get used to being paid less when working remote. People who work in an office or factory have to be rewarded for this commute. Some jobs cannot be made remote.
I assume a lot of people working remote also like the fact that they can do the laundry, clean the house, do some errands etc during the working day. This flexibility should also allow the salary for remote workers to be lower than for people working in an office.
Most of the people here (and at Salesforce) are paid, in theory at least, according to their skillset and the value they bring to a company.
Why should that pay differ depending on where someone is sitting when they deliver said value?
I mainly tried to say that if we want to have people working in factories, working as nurses or doing office work that requires working as a team in person or meeting clients or what ever it might be then we have to start to pay them more compared to people who work from home.
Last I checked, no one paid me" for my commute time or comp'd the wear on my vehicle. If those hours* spent in traffic should have been counted on the clock, then golly gee, I have invoices yo get written!
Seriously, I get it. There should be something for it, but there never will be. Wage theft. Management will do anything possible to get unpaid time out of you.
As it's probably easier to hire someone to work remote than hire someone who has to go to the office, the salaries will probably over time be less for work from home jobs anyway (for the same type of job).
It's funny how people feel so entitled to their salaries and that management is there to rip people off. I get it for warehouse people, but for tech workers, come on.
That does not follow. I quote you a salary sufficient to warrant me to work for you. You don't get to come back and demand that you should be able to pay me less when I no longer commute when I'm still working for you. Unless the physical presence in the office is absolutely essential (which it isn't for knowledge workers in the way it is for a stocker or laborer), and the tech exists where working remote is a reasonable accommodation (which it does), then you wanting me in the office to get the job done is now something on the table for me (the employee) to charge you, the employer extra for. In no way are you, (the employer) entitled to an extra discount because I'm not driving in. Nevermind that I don't offer one of those. Though I may to have to ruminate on it.
>It's funny how people feel so entitled to their salaries and that management is there to rip people off.
It's funny how companies feel entitled to their profits and that employees are there to rip them off.
A) People are free to set the price of their time.
B) Management is explicitly there to get the absolute most out of workers with the least input. Even if that means playing dirty, (hopefully not, but I've seen a lot of it). You can say their purpose is leadership, but I've been privy to what high level management types think leadership is, and unfortunately, it ain't leadership. I know leadership. Come from a family with a lot of military background. Civillian business management theory abandoned most facets of leadership in order to cut corners, and maximize value generation. Just look at the C-Suite-to-everyone else pay disparity to see the fruits of that.
The firm didnt give 2 bits about your commute. They pay you to be in on time. Not your commute. I know people who travel 6 hours a day. They get paid the same.
Why would any firm increase salaries, for services you were already providing?
You get maybe 12 waking hours a day, 8 working +2 commuting. Getting 2 hours back is a 16% raise.
If they then all of a sudden don't have to commute (let's say 5 hours), then why could they then not be okay with a slightly lower salary (as they save 5 hours a day).