Hacker News Reader

Comment by A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 | Hacker News Reader

Eh, you institute WFH where it makes sense. I am a heavy WFH proponent and I am not suggesting that surgery should be done remotely ( at least not yet, but technology is supposedly improving in that area ). On the other hand, some jobs absolutely can be.

Why on earth does everyone have to fit the same mold?

View on HN

> Why on earth does everyone...

They don't. (And I don't know a single person who thinks they do).

But in any society where the "haves vs. have-nots" division is a major social problem - there can be serious downsides to convincing the latter that the former really don't give a crap about them.

Why should you be entitled to WFH and a cashier not? How would you create a mold for like someone above?

If automation was to be implemented then there would be no job at all for the cashier.

Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument?

I don't think importance is a factor; it's simply a matter of whether a job can be done remotely.

Not every occupation, at this point, can fall under this categorization.

Hmm? I am amused by the attempted framing, but it is neither of those. The job is not entitled, but it is bound by requirements bestowed by reality of how that job functions. For example, cashier's job happens to, often, involve physically moving stuff around at the same time customer wants to have it moved. Therefore, they, currently, have to physically be there.

My job, for better or worse, however, has to exist in the same time-zone for the sake of meetings, while my output is more ephemeral.

<< Or is it "my job is bigger and important" argument?

Hadly. If anything, I would argue that my job is less important.

So what is your reason to wanting to WFH? You advocate it yet give none or is it "I don't need to commute, family matters, can do my washing through the day"

Does it matter what my reason for the preference is? The fact of the matter is that when I have to commute, my performance suffers. That alone should be a big reason for corporations to consider their decisions carefully, because last time my bosses indicated anything close to moving us in we collectively said 'fine, but you will not see us doing the extra you are used to'( edit: and they backed off, because some stuff need to be done). But the companies want 100% in person, 100% after work, bringing your whole self-in, but not while being offensive, but also being brand ambassador, but not in a way that alienates anyone..

What is my reason..

That's the worst of all takes, I'm afraid.

I believe the argument is just ”my job can be performed from home”. It’s not about entitlement, it is about making ones life easier without additional downside to your employer. You might disagree with the no downside part but that is orthogonal to the entitlement argument.

But the "my job can be performed from home" is entitlement. It can be done in the office too.

You want to work from home because it's easier for you. And I agree, it takes a lot of weight off your shoulders but for me who enjoys working in the office a caveat is that it's harder communicating with those who do work from home.

I couldn't work from home, even if I wanted to.

It's easier, yes. But also it's harder to effectively work in a badly designed office (read open office). At home, I can create my ideal work environment. Specifically for me, I don't want to sit in traffic for an hour a day just to work in a worse environment. It's also my time. Work is not paying for my commute so my 40 hour week turns into a 45 hour week. This dilutes my pay while at the same time reducing my free time to spend with/for my family. With young kids, you can't get that time back.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com