Hacker News Reader

I don't see what fairness has to do with WFH. Its in the company's best interest to maximize employee productivity. If an employee has to travel three hours per day to sit on zoom meetings, they might not be motivated to perform as well as they would for a company that treats them better.

I guess by using the word "fair" I may have caused the discussion to focus on the wrong idea.

It is about what is acceptable to both the employer and the employee. The employee would like the freedom to WFH but the employer consider it a benefit that come at their cost and thus do not want to grant it. As shown by other professions, the idea of WFH is entirely new and rarely if ever granted or expected to most professionals. Software devs are in a unique position to demand and potentially getting it does not make it any less exceptional and a huge ask for the other side of the negotiation.

Whether it is really good or bad is not the point I am making.

Employers only consider it a benefit because workers like it. If we all banded together and just lie and say WFH sucks, we'd then get it. Because that's how these things work. Often the metric to optimize for is employee control, and therefore a field I like to call "misery management".

The objective world does not always, and in fact rarely, intersects with the world of business management. In reality, WFH is cheaper across the board. In time, space, money... every aspect you can think of.

But a mutually beneficial nature makes is undesirable from a business perspective, because they don't want the implications of that word - "mutual".

Employees advocate for themselves because they have to. If you are not selfish in that manner, you are ONLY hurting yourself. Employers have discovered the art of selfishness thousands of years ago. You must push, you must be entitled. And, remember, the only reason you have what you have is because a lot of workers before you were very entitled. So entitled they often got what they wanted via violence.

You define "fair" as "whatever the market for a particular sort of job will support," but then throw in a comparison to other, very different lines of work and note some differences. What's the connection?

The comparisons are to show how other professions have a common level of benefit. On the overall market, RTO is not exceptional and it is understandable why employers for a particular field would be hesitant to grant WFH as an added benefit on top of already provided ones. As it turns out, even for the software field, this is not something easily granted.

One could also say that your opinion is very American centric. Only US devs get "heavily" or extra compensated, the salaries in Europe or India are comparable with other professionals, specially when you are getting started. What's more, if you stay in the IC role the salary will hit a ceiling after some years and management salaries are again comparable with other positions.

> people will support whatever benefits they can get

Not true.

There are many people who fought against the choice of WFH despite the flexibility being generally good for everyone. There are many reasons for this e.g. they are extroverts and need the social interaction, have a poor home life etc.

Which is why now the trend is now forced hybrid.

It seems like you're comparing jobs to other jobs. If you reverse your logic, "Software jobs should have to go to the workplace, not because they need to, are more productive, but just so that other people feel like it's fair."

You stated correctly when you said "most jobs do not have the luxury", and some people have specifically chosen these jobs for this luxury.

If we are talking fairness, I will take the doctor salary, thx.

Fairness related to other professions seems to be a very odd metric. I fail to see why software engineers should feel guilty about WFH because others can't.

I mean I'd love to be able to enjoy a nice sky or a beautiful view of the sea while I'm working but alas, my work tool is neither a plane nor a boat.

It's a great way to start a war among the lower classes.

Any comments like this seem disingenuous when even 1 billionaire exists.

It reminds me of people complaining of why are train drivers striking, when they're already paid more than nurses, thus how dare they.

Wealthy inequality isn't between us common folk, it's between them (the ultra wealthy) and us.

If there truly was fair compensation, there wouldn't be anyone with that much money. We're already doubtful of the 10x engineer, let alone the 1,000,000,000,000x engineer.