Ask HN: Why are companies so distrustful of remote employees?

I think part of it is also that most companies never built good ways to measure output in the first place.

In an office, “being there” becomes a proxy for productivity, even if it’s not accurate.

Once you remove that, the gap becomes very visible, and instead of fixing measurement, a lot of companies just revert back to what they’re used to.

So it ends up looking like a remote work problem, but it’s really a management/measurement problem.

As a counterpoint, I've worked remotely since like 2000 ... It gets easier and more 'normal' every year. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

For one thing there is the nightmare scenario that the guy who shows up for the job interview is the front man for a North Korean team. Also the Bay Area is like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave... but much worse and they’d hate more than anything if you “think different”

On the other hand I've worked in offices with nightmare scenarios where employees showed agitated and with firearms, or had people come looking for employees due to outside personal conflicts

It’s partly because of cases like this https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/man-goes-viral-working... This is Parekh, the guy who was working for some 3-7 well funded valley companies simultaneously last year.

As someone who works from home, and has for a long time, and would do it no differently -- and also as someone who has been up in the chain a bit and had an opportunity to look closely at things like productivity and other working patterns -- I can tell you that I've seen the most deeply unethical things, things that could never ever happen in an office. The whole "Quiet Quitting" movement, and just taking advantage in all kinds of ways. I've seen it again and again, particularly with younger employees.

If you are a remote work company and hire someone who is not passionate about what they do, they will, for certain, take advantage. And why wouldn't they? So it is easier to just lean on the side of caution, especially if the management chain isn't entirely on top of things (which is common, because everyone is busy).

It's about control. If a middle manager (or higher) can't see you, they don't believe that you're working. No matter how much work you actually get done.

Senior SWE / consultant working remotely since 2020 here. Besides all the "control" aspects, the truth is there's been a lot of abuse - a lot of it coming from certain locales. Here in Europe remote roles still exist to a certain extent (though they are a lot more scarce), but it's not uncommon now to see restrictions such as "remote from the EU", "remote from the UK", etc. To sum up: a certain faction has broken the trust of their employer/client, and blown it for everybody else.

Yea also there are places like r/overemployed where they actively encourage how to cheat your employer by working multiple remote full time jobs.

The trust is broken and even though there are plenty of great wfh people, employers wre not having it anymore.

TBH I never had issue with that as long as they did their job. I mean, executives do that all the time, right? So everyone can do that. It’s also legal. I don’t complain if my colleagues can do their job. I myself never did that because I prefer more personal time.

Sometimes, managers are lazy and don't work, and they think that the employees don't work as well.

And something it is pure bureaucracy. I once worked for a bank, as a contractor. A team in the bank responsible for the auditing ask my manager in the bank, how can he be sure that I worked today, and for the money spent I actually do something meaningful. He had no written prove that I was at work. Yes, I push every day, yes, I am on the daily meeting with my team everyday, but no official document that a non-technical auditing team can understand.

The solution?! The most ridiculous solution ever! Every morning I was writing a letter to a secretary, and she was adding a check in an excel sheet. And this was the official document!

All happy, except me, because, I guess I was the only one thinking that this does not prove anything.

And another example, from 15 years ago. I was, again a contractor, but this time in an office. They were checking when I check in for work and when I check out. And one day they saw that I worked 7 hours and 45 minutes, instead of 8 hours, and they did not want to pay those 15 minutes. Again I can literally, go in the office, stay there 8 hours, walk the stairs all day, and do nothing.... ;) Of course I am not that kind of professional, but the point is that, sometimes, the management request does not make sense and create more burden and pressure, rather than solutions ;)

Now it is the same as the remote work. I can be at the office whole day, being seen, and at the some time I can do nothing :D

> I just passed on a job for a quality company in the Bay area because they wouldn't budge on remote work

You're assuming they don't trust remote employees? They may just not want remote employees.

It's a perfectly valid stance for a company to say, "You know what, remote work just isn't for us." They don't need to justify it any more than you need to justify your preference for remote work.

It's not right or wrong, it's just a preference.

Because they can't see them. Seeing is believing. They don't know that they can have them behind a virtual frosted glass via the MeetingGlass app. With mutual visibility and mutual (un)frosting - just like through physical frosted glass. Such frosted privacy feels great and is equal for everyone.

But they're not thinking. Seeing is not believing. They're in the office, but are they sitting there playing minesweeper, or are they really working?

You can talk to them at any moment and ask them what they are working on without getting to them through calling, texting, etc. Real-time communication is much easier than async communication.

I think there is a common assumption that everyone above you in the company org chart is hard(er) working/smart/more experienced/more strategic etc. In reality that is not the case. The result is that lots of decisions don't make sense.

There's more to being an employee than just being able to "complete every aspect of my job remotely".

If the company just wanted to have some job done, be it on site, or especially remotely, they'd use a vendor or contractor. That's what they do for moving the furniture, painting, watering the plants, payroll, advertising, legal, auditing, etc.

An employee is someone who, as well as just doing their job, sporadically does other things like maintaining relationships, product ideas, interviewing candidates, training new hires, and whatever other ad-hoc stuff is required to keep a company operational. If you want to be hired as an employee, and potentially get promoted, etc, then doing your actual job is just a bare minimum to not get fired (and maybe not even that, with layoffs being so popular), and an ability to contribute to all the other stuff is what will get you hired and keep you employed.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a contractor, or just doing your job / the bare minimum, but companies need employees who can do more to keep existing, and its up to you if you want to be one or not.

I've been working remotely since 2011, for companies who are 100% remote, and who still accomplish all of those things.

Probably because anytime I work from home I watch TV all day and just respond to Slacks on my phone.

One bad apple lol

lol

Sounds lovely. Wish I had that kind of discipline!

Ah so you’re part of the C-suite then. Well done!

Because unless they can see you toiling away you aren’t “working”. Because generally speaking, middle managers are children with business degrees that mean nothing. Corporate America is going to have to grow the fuck up if we’re ever again going to lead this world.