Hacker News Reader

Comment by ralmidani | Hacker News Reader

So if it has no measurable effect, and some workers need/want to work remotely for whatever reason, why do some orgs not want to give them that option, especially for desk work in software, insurance, law, etc. that require little to no face-to-face interaction?

Could it be that it’s not about productivity or even “culture”, but actually all about control and/or trying to justify the org’s sunk costs in office space purchases/leases?

For the record, I would prefer a hybrid arrangement if I could have one that didn’t require a long commute (more than 15-20 minutes). But what works for me might not work for everyone else in the org.

View on HN

> Could it be that it’s not about productivity or even “culture”, but actually all about control and/or trying to justify the org’s office space costs?

It's 100% about this. I know several people who were forced back to work after being able to do their entire job at full productivity remotely for years, and they were happier and saving money. They were just as able to "brainstorm" with people. It's all about control and justifying office space cost.

>Could it be that it’s not about productivity or even “culture”, but actually all about control and/or trying to justify the org’s sunk costs in office space purchases/leases?

It could be for those reasons, or it could be for a variety of other reasons. One thing that we know that humans are really good at rationalizing irrational choices.

Anecdotally, my experience seems to show that there are many relatively low-productivity people who are fooled into thinking they are being productive by scheduling meetings, having face time, overanalyzing problems without necessarily addressing them, etc. Those people also seem to be the ones who favor RTO policies. My suspicion is that RTO helps them enable those meetings, which makes them "feel" productive.

I'm expecting/hoping that eventually the right to WFH for a job that can be done entirely WFH will be recognized as a necessary accommodation for various disabilities, so that these petty flexes can be halted.

Yeah, they passed that already in the Netherlands.

I think the Netherlands doesn’t stipulates a disability. And honestly, there are reasons other than disabilities and neurodivergence; some people are caregivers, or have young kids, or have a nice home office setup (which a lot of the same companies “flexing” as you put it will never match in the office), or they just don’t want to waste money and time commuting.

I believe if the job can be done remotely, it should be a worker’s right. No hassle, no questions asked, and no retaliation or discrimination.

However, I’m not sure where you’re located, but I’m not holding my breath for meaningful workers’ rights legislation in the US any time soon.

> some people are caregivers, or have young kids

Yes, there are many such reasons one would prefer to be at home that have nothing to do with the individual's physiology/neurology. But as you guess, I'm located in the US. Disability is a rapier with which to sharply defend oneself against predation, not something our work-worshiping society actually cares about. Having responsibilities outside of work which aren't due to legally protected disability is widely considered unimportant, a distraction, or a liability.

I get it, I am neurodivergent myself. But I don’t think you need to have a certain disability or neurodivergence to be protected from predatory employers or potential employers. Of course, being in the US I also understand your realism.

One of the reasons I decided to return to entrepreneurship is to be able to have a flexible schedule, maybe not work at all on days when I just don’t feel like it, and generally avoid work-worshiping (great terminology!)

To your larger point, I learned recently that the Family Medical Leave Act does not apply to grandchildren under your care, even if the parents are dead or for whaterver reason cannot be caregivers. Like, how awful is that?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com