Things it's actually about include, but are not limited to:
- money locked up in real estate
- pressure from local governments to get employee $ back into transit and local shops (with threats of revoking tax breaks)
- soft lay-offs after years of overhiring due to cheap money (you don't need to pay severance if employees aren't happy and voluntarily leave)
I appreciate skepticism but it seems needlessly dismissive to say none of them pass a sniff test.
I think soft layoffs are a real thing, feels like something people will account for when making decisions like this, but not really a driver of them.
I'm curious about the office space thing. How's a company meant to realize gains here?
Even if you discard features like "employees like it", "it earns you points in competitive recruitment markets", or "some types of employee perform better remote" data, offering 100% remote inherently widens the recruitment net. You can hire two engineers in Dubuque for the cost of one in SF, and you're less likely to get pinned to "there's only one guy on the local market with the skills we need, and he's asking $$$$."
That makes no sense. There is no way Apple or Amazon or any FAANG-esque company gives two shits about real estate valuations when a 1% productivity boost is equal to 10x their entire RE portfolio.
Maybe soft layoffs make sense, but none of these companies have a problem laying off people or firing low performers. Why wouldn't they just lay off more.
Yes, this is exactly like the drunk looking for his lost wallet under the streetlight, instead of the alley where he thinks he lost it.
It is extremely easy to measure how many people complain about it constantly every quarter
It is extremely easy to measure how many people apply for remote positions and how many for onsite
Also, with soft layoffs, they don't have to pay severance. People who rage-quit due to RTO aren't eligible for severance or unemployment insurance.
If you're being forced to RTO and that's not feasible, make them fire you. You'll hold onto that job longer as they go through the process and then you can likely succeed in an unemployment claim. It's harder to fight if you quit, but you could claim constructive dismissal if there was an explicit agreement to work remote.
Do they? That would surprise me. Any evidence for that?
The obvious one seems most likely to be correct. That the leadership believes the company runs more effectively in office. Everything else feels like an elaborate conspiracy theory that just doesn’t check out.
How is this a "conspiracy theory?" Some of the largest companies in North America are intertwined with real estate one way or another (sunk billions into constructing one or more HQs, investment, etc.) This becomes worthless if they're vacant.
As another commenter said, it's incredibly difficult to measure productivity. Large enterprises care more about their balance sheets and stock prices, hence decisions are made that provide immediate fiscal relief despite obvious long-term implications. Aggressive RTO mandates have led to an exodus of top performers in my company; many core teams are worse off than before, but all the executives care about is budget.
Why would these companies we're talking about spend so much money compensating employees and firing bad ones if it doesn't matter?
To quote the late George Carlin "you don't need a formal conspiracy when interests converge."