Amazon CEO Andy Jassy threatens employees to return to office or "things are probably not going to work out for you"

Zarathustra[H]

Zarathustra[H]

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 29, 2000
Messages
39,020
That seems like a really effective way to lose lots of staff :p

https://fortune.com/2023/08/29/amazon-ceo-andy-jassy-return-to-office-mandate-or-face-consequences/

It would seem CEO's have completely lost touch with reality. Things are never going back to the way they were pre-pandemic. The pandemic has shown that many workers can be effective and productive from home, and the majority of those who work in roles that can are not willing to put up with businesses who try to force them to be in the office for no reason. This is especially for Amazon where some 30,000 of their employees signed a petition/letter indicating they disagree with the strategy and find it an insult when they have shown they can be productive remotely.

If employee retention matters to a business at all, this is the absolutely worst possible strategy.

The question is, how many of those 30,000 are willing to quit over it, and how will this impact Amazon operations? (And holy shit, I just realized Amazon has 1.5 million employees)

I tend to think policies like these are temporary. They can get away with it right now due to high interest rates aimed at reducing inflation down to 2% putting a damper on the once hot job market, but long term executives that are set in their ways will retire, the job market will become hot again, and housing within commutable ranges of hot job markets isn't about to get any more affordable any time soon...
 
Last edited:
Yes and no.

As an employer, you CANNOT let the staff yank you around.

I don’t know if Amazon pays particularly well, but for every one that is willing to leave their employment over going into the office, there are three that will take the job and comply. Who’s to say if one is better or worse than the other, talent-wise?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
That seems like a really effective way to lose lots of staff :p

https://fortune.com/2023/08/29/amazon-ceo-andy-jassy-return-to-office-mandate-or-face-consequences/

It would seem CEO's have completely lost touch with reality. The pandemic has shown that many workers can be effective and productive from home, and the majority of those who work in roles that can are not willing to put up with businesses who try to force them to be in the office for no reason.
Click to expand...
Zarathustra[H] said:
If employee retention matters to a business at all, this is the absolutely worst possible strategy.
Click to expand...

Business has reached a point that they don't care if you quit now, they want people back at the office at least a couple times a week now. I expect it to become harder and harder to remain in jobs that are solely work at home.
 
SystemXS said:
But Amazon has had such a terrific track record with employees up to this point, why would they want to risk that?

:p
Click to expand...

Good point. Amazon doesn't exactly have the best reputation when it comes to a positive work environment.

It makes me wonder why people stay? I guess some people are just such so indecisive that they are afraid to make a change even when in an abusive work relationship? Seems like it mirrors romantic relationships where battered spouses stay in spite of reason.

SystemXS said:
Also, if you want to read minus paying fortune, https://web.archive.org/web/2023083...eturn-to-office-mandate-or-face-consequences/
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I don't usually post things that are behind a paywall, but this article just loaded for me without having to pay anyone. Thanks for the alternate link.
 
Comixbooks said:
Those Amazon workers probably clock in and pretend their working.
Click to expand...

I can't speak specifically to any Amazon worker, but research on this subject has shown that people are generally more productive when working from home than they are in the office, provided they are in a role that lends itself to remote work, which makes actions like these from employers even more insane.

They are essentially giving up free productivity and paying for expensive useless office space over a boomer sensibility of how they think things should be.

Essentially the message is:

"I don't care if you are capable of doing your work from home, and that coming into an office just to sit on the same remote meeting harms your life to the tune of 4 hours every day, not to mention the cost of commuting. I also don't care that you are less effective in the office, and that this actually hurts the company from the perspective of retention, productivity and office space costs. I want you to come in anyway because I am the old CEO and I say so, because I feel that a proper company has people in the office"

It is absolutely insane and counter to all reason. There are obviously some types of jobs that can't be done remotely, but a good chunk of work is just meetings, MS Office, and email, or programming or just using web tools, and those people can literally do their job from anywhere they have an internet connection.
 
Last edited:
I liked work from home I was hoping it would grow. I liked the idea that I could live where I want and work where I want instead of having to pick one or the other. Most of my work involves a computer or workbench which I have both. I really do miss that I could work without random interruptions.

Also I hate wandering around when I need to use the restroom and they are all occupied with people that have to take a newspaper with them to bide their time. Plus i had no problem working earlier or later when i had no drive to do. ahh the good ol days lol.
 
Darunion said:
Also I hate wandering around when I need to use the restroom and they are all occupied with people that have to take a newspaper with them to bide their time. Plus i had no problem working earlier or later when i had no drive to do. ahh the good ol days lol.
Click to expand...

Same here. I've never been an "earlier" guy, but when I was working 100% from home it wasn't uncommon for me to be working until between 8pm and 10pm some days. It was actually more pleasant for me to put in these extra hours than it was to actually go into the office 8 hours a day, despite actually working more.
 
See you guys actually worked when you have a few thousand unproductive wusses it's employee theft.
 
Here is my perspective as a business owner who has done full in-office, remote during COVID, to what is now a hybrid position.

I see a lot of people saying "workers have proved they can be more productive from home!!!!!" but in reality, that's not true. There is confirmation bias present because GOOD workers have proven they can be productive at home, and forums like this one are generally full of people that are more intelligent and hard-working than the general population. Overall though, what you're seeing is that the majority of the workforce does not possess the skills or responsibility necessary to work effectively from home - which is why you're seeing so many CEOs end the practice. I think some people should be allowed to WFH and I am sure there is a lot of "the baby getting thrown out with the bathwater" going on here, but overall my company is absolutely more productive with most people in the office and a few key players doing hybrid.

My experience running a medium sized small business is that A players become A+ players at home. There are less distractions and they can focus and get shit done. B players become B- players - still productive, but without having a really strong management or self direction they will slip. The real problem businesses are facing is that when a job is full WFH, C players become F players that literally don't work most of the time. Unfortunately, an organization can't be full staffed by A and B players - and oftentimes by body count, entry level/C players are more populous than A and B players.

Currently, I let my software engineers and sales executives work remote or do a hybrid schedule. Everyone else, I forced back to the office - and yes, I lost a couple people because of that. It's still been a dramatic uptick in overall productivity. Among entry level people, there are less interpersonal issues, customer satisfaction surveys are up, first response time to support tickets are down, etc. It's just better.
 
Comixbooks said:
See you guys actually worked when you have a few thousand unproductive wusses it's employee theft.
Click to expand...
I can't speak for all companies, but in my organization (a medical device startup) we all worked our asses off during the pandemic while we were 100% from home.

We met so many major company milestones during that period, including tech file submission for the European market, ISO13485/MDR certification and FDA submission. We came in occasionally when it was necessary, but other than that we were essentially 100% from home except for a few folks working in the labs. (You can't bring major scientific instrumentation home with you)

I can only think of one guy who was a slacker. He was a senior executive, and he got fired, just like he would have had he been in the office, so I'm not sure the working from home really made a difference there.
 
As a manger of people, my first-hand experience is that some people were markedly LESS productive at home, while others were just fine. This fiction that people are WAY productive remotely…I simply cannot believe it is accurate overall.

Ultimately, I brought everyone back in.
 
Joust said:
As a manger of people, my first-hand experience is that some people were markedly LESS productive at home, while others were just fine. This fiction that people are WAY productive remotely…I simply cannot believe it is accurate overall.

Ultimately, I brought everyone back in.
Click to expand...
As a manger why not just trim the unproductive? Not judging at all just wondering why the sins of the hopefully few changed the work arrangement?
 
Yeah, in my experience, there are somethings that just don’t happen in 100% wfh environment. One is innovation and IP development. At my company (at the time) most innovative thought came out of organic impromptu meetings from cross discipline groups (e.g. different people meeting in a break room or outside the restroom). That activity died during Covid. There was no wfh analog then and now. It was so stark, that it was easily quantifiable, however very difficult to remedy. So for that reason, I do get why executives want people back in the office.
 
SystemXS said:
As a manger why not just trim the unproductive? Not judging at all just wondering why the sins of the hopefully few changed the work arrangement?
Click to expand...
It is astonishing on how hard it is to fire someone these days. Work at home only made this harder...how do you know they aren't working? What is your definition of unproductive? Are there KPI's that are being missed? What state/country do they live in and what laws are around firing? HR will usually have you document these "failings" and then make you put them on a 90 day performance plan. Etc etc.
 
SystemXS said:
As a manger why not just trim the unproductive? Not judging at all just wondering why the sins of the hopefully few changed the work arrangement?
Click to expand...

As someone who has direct reports, (though has been blessed by having self motivated hard workers, making the job easy) I can see how you might have an issue if you do so.

If someone can't handle remote work, but does well in the office, it might be better to have them in the office than to fire them, because you may not be able to replace them. it's tough to hire warm bodies, let alone competent people, especially in some fields.

I think there is something to be said for not eliminating work from home, but making it a privilege for those who perform well.

That said, typical leadership philosophy suggests to praise in public, but criticize in private, but if everyone can see who can't work from home, that makes criticisms pretty public, which is problematic.

I still think our organization has done very well working from home, but maybe that is something that is easier in a smaller tight knit organization like ours than in a large many thousand employee corporation.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
That seems like a really effective way to lose lots of staff :p

https://fortune.com/2023/08/29/amazon-ceo-andy-jassy-return-to-office-mandate-or-face-consequences/

It would seem CEO's have completely lost touch with reality. Things are never going back to the way they were pre-pandemic. The pandemic has shown that many workers can be effective and productive from home, and the majority of those who work in roles that can are not willing to put up with businesses who try to force them to be in the office for no reason. This is especially for Amazon where some 30,000 of their employees signed a petition/letter indicating they disagree with the strategy and find it an insult when they have shown they can be productive remotely.

If employee retention matters to a business at all, this is the absolutely worst possible strategy.

The question is, how many of those 30,000 are willing to quit over it, and how will this impact Amazon operations? (And holy shit, I just realized Amazon has 1.5 million employees)

I tend to think policies like these are temporary. They can get away with it right now due to high interest rates aimed at reducing inflation down to 2% putting a damper on the once hot job market, but long term executives that are set in their ways will retire, the job market will become hot again, and housing within commutable ranges of hot job markets isn't about to get any more affordable any time soon...
Click to expand...
Amazon doesn't need the amount of workers they have. This kind of dumbshit like demanding to work from home etc... is going to make companies get the necessary govt and regulatory support to just AI and robot everything. All the complaining about working at home is just going to eliminate your job for good. Sorry but it's a stupid hill to die on.

We MUST Have a min wage of 15 per hour or we won't work. Ok fine F it. Let's get the burger robots and automated machines and self checkout kiosk and not pay anyone shit. How many Jobs at McDonald's is now permanently lost?

Stupid hills that people die on.

Systemically wages must be increased across the board and inflation must be reduced. In the 1930s the avg wage was like 17 bucks/wk (edited to correct) Inflation adjusted for today that is like everyone making 89k a year. That is not what we make now as a society. Half that in fact. Fiat currency f'd us and so is millennial bitch moaning about fairness and equality.

World War 2 was the greatest generation and Millennials are the dumbest generation hands down. I'm a gen X'r so I don't care for any of ya. Now back to listening to Nirvana and not giving a care.
 
Last edited:
Westwood said:
bah. every generation has their population of useless people.

technically I think I'm a millennial and I've accomplished more by age 30 than most 60 year olds I know.
Click to expand...
Hardforum.people are the exception on avg. Mostly hard workers here
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
If someone can't handle remote work, but does well in the office, it might be better to have them in the office than to fire them, because you may not be able to replace them. it's tough to hire warm bodies, let alone competent people, especially in some fields.
Click to expand...

The problem I see here is that the person will feel like they're being penalized especially if they're one of the few that needs to come in. They'll eventually leave when they find a job that allows them to suck but from home. It's like the equivalent in schools, where you can sit the students that need more support closer to the front of the class

My place doesn't care for the time being since people are still home with kids where school hasn't started. Come September, they will be asking for us to be on site at least twice a week.

In my team, we plan more 'social' work on those days anyway. So we aren't pumping out product, but we are architecting and planning our solutions which in my opinion is much easier in person that over a call.

I find that more distance between team members causes people to develop problems where there aren't any and forget that they're working with real people. It's basic but simply seeing someone from time to time keeps everyone modest and humble I find

One guy, who isn't necessarily a bad developer, always suggests these half baked ideas or stuff that is obviously not correct and will defend his stances to the death when we're on a call. He does less of that when we're in person, I think, because getting your ideas ripped to shreds hurts a lot more in person than on a call.

I mean it really all depends on the work you're doing, people you're doing it with, your goals etc... But I find it pretty okay
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
If someone can't handle remote work, but does well in the office, it might be better to have them in the office than to fire them, because you may not be able to replace them. it's tough to hire warm bodies, let alone competent people, especially in some fields.
Click to expand...
I missed this line.

This is exactly me. I can crank right along here in the office. Can almost run my immediate office by myself. But, you send me home, I'm immediately doing other things- productive or not productive. You hand me a laptop and tell me, when an email comes in answer it, you can't expect me to sit there staring at the laptop all day. The moment I roll onto my driveway/road, everything gets switched from officework mode to housework mode.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I can't speak specifically to any Amazon worker, but research on this subject has shown that people are generally more productive when working from home than they are in the office, provided they are in a role that lends itself to remote work, which makes actions like these from employers even more insane.

They are essentially giving up free productivity and paying for expensive useless office space over a boomer sensibility of how they think things should be.

Essentially the message is:

"I don't care if you are capable of doing your work from home, and that coming into an office just to sit on the same remote meeting harms your live to the tune of 4 hours every day, not to mention the cost of commuting. I also don't care that you are less effective in the office, and that this actually hurts the company from the perspective of retention, productivity and office space costs. I want you to come in anyway because I am the old CEO and I say so, because I feel that a proper company has people in the office"

It is absolutely insane and counter to all reason. There are obviously some types of jobs that can't be done remotely, but a good chunk of work is just meetings, MS Office, and email, or programming or just using web tools, and those people can literally do their job from anywhere they have an internet connection.
Click to expand...

Nah, as far as I know it's just tax reasons. I believe that many areas have started giving employers large tax breaks if they use their local offices enough. Even "boomer sensibilities" I doubt are enough to get companies to just start paying massive amounts of money to support unnecessary offices. After all, even if workers were like %75 as productive at home, some simple math tells you that if you're saving ~%25 on the cost of employing them, there's no point. But yeah: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks

Long story short, there are many areas which essentially sprung up around commuting, so the theory is that without some sort of return to office mandate, those areas are slowly dying. By leveraging tax breaks, the companies get to spout all this BS about work culture and collaboration, while in reality they're just getting tax breaks, while the local areas to the office also profit from the essential tourism.

This also allows them to do "quiet cutting":
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/companies-are-now-quiet-cutting-employees/
Think about it, all you have to do is say that, "We want all people that do X to be located at Y". And then they just do this big Donkey Kong shrug when you say that the move is untenable for you, and they get to basically lay you off without any severance pay, because after all you're the one that "decided" to quit, right? So the truth is worse than anything you might think it is.
 
My wife hates working from home, they actually force hybrid on their employees so she has to work 2 days from home. She gets less done there and would rather be in the office. They told her it is a benefit and she shouldnt fight it. Which really keeps bringing up the same point we all talk about is one shoe doesnt fit all.

I would just love living up on a mountain or forest area with little to no people and a satellite internet connection to do work. Gotta live where the jobs are though or drive really far every day.

Lets just force companies to pay for commute, make them either hire only local or remote work. :p kidding of course, lots can go wrong with this lol.
 
tangoseal said:
Amazon doesn't need the amount of workers they have. This kind of dumbshit like demanding to work from home etc... is going to make companies get the necessary govt and regulatory support to just AI and robot everything. All the complaining about working at home is just going to eliminate your job for good. Sorry but it's a stupid hill to die on.

We MUST Have a min wage of 15 per hour or we won't work. Ok fine F it. Let's get the burger robots and automated machines and self checkout kiosk and not pay anyone shit. How many Jobs at McDonald's is now permanently lost?

Stupid hills that people die on.
Click to expand...

I think this is true for low wage easily automate jobs. If people get more expensive, automation and streamlining will reduce the dependence on workers.

Artificial price floors (minimum wage) and price ceilings (rent control, limits on gas prices, etc) always have unintended consequences. Fighting against the forces of supply and demand never works. 100% of everyone who has tried has failed. They are just a bandaid. Societies would be well advised to focus on solving root causes rather than trying to apply bandaids, but that is often harder to do, and more expensive, and thus unpopular. People want easy fast solutions. Those usually aren't realistic.

That said, I don't think quality of life improvements like working from home fall into this category. Why shouldn't technology make skilled employees lives better? If you think of it commuting to and from an office is time consuming and expensive. And it's not just for employees. Office space costs a lot of money which can be saved by a competent leader who can figure out the correct balance. Not to mention that you can no recruit people almost anywhere, introducing a level of liquidity into the labor market we have never seen before in human history.

There are always going to be jobs that don't lend themselves to remote work. You can't cast a foundation for a new building remotely. But why should that hold back those who can work remotely from much needed quality of life improvements?

tangoseal said:
Systemically wages must be increased across the board and inflation must be reduced. In the 1930s the avg wage was like 4k a month. Inflation adjusted for today that is like everyone making 89k a year. That is not what we make now as a society. Half that in fact. Fiat currency f'd us and so is millennial bitch moaning about fairness and equality.
Click to expand...

When in the 1930's? Certainly not during the great depression? Do you mean during the war economy? Because that certainly inst a good representative example either.

tangoseal said:
World War 2 was the greatest generation and Millennials are the dumbest generation hands down. I'm a gen X'r so I don't care for any of ya. Now back to listening to Nirvana and not giving a care.
Click to expand...

Gen X here too. (Albeit very late Gen X)

The truth is the U.S. got an unrealistic boom in the 2-3 decades following the war too, as everyone else's economy was bombed to shit, leaving ours to supply the world with goods. This drove up the value of labor in the U.S. Wages were further inflated in the early part of that era due to the Marshall plan taking lots of competent U.S. employees and sending them to Europe, resulting in a mismatch between labor demand and supply on the U.S. job market.

So it's unrealistic to expect 50s through 70's economies forever.

FIAT currencies are not perfect, but they have solved more problems than they have created, as they allow for monetary policy by a strong central bank which smoothes out the boom and bust cycles, which is great for just about everyone, except the extremely wealthy able to make big gambles on the volatile stock market. Quite frankly, moving off the gold standard was the best thing that ever happened to the U.S. and world economy. We're all Keynesians now.

I agree with you that something is wrong when it comes to costs and wages. Typically throughout history improvements in worker productivity have been shared between employees and employers, but from ~1970 through today this hasn't kept up. Wages have stagnated compared to both productivity and inflation. I think there are many deep seated root causes, including the collapse of labor unions, creative businesses intentionally misinterpreting the intent of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and classifying way more people than intended as "exempt" as well as our failures to educate our workforce by systemically under-funding and under-valuing education for a hundred years, and bit by bit chipping away at essential regulations keeping businesses abuse of labor in check. None of these have anything to do with getting off the gold standard though.

It is notable that highly skilled labor is in short supply, with extreme demand, while unskilled labor (with the exception of the ~2 years following the pandemic) is a dime in a dozen, replaceable, and not valued. The way to solve this is not to force businesses to pay above market value for that unskilled labor which will drive more automation, but it is to try to move more and more of those in the unskilled labor bucket into the highly skilled labor bucket.
 
Always sick of hearing the boomers talking about how the young ones suck at working. Well maybe if you spent some time teaching your kids values instead of working long hours and being tired when you got home, they would have learned from you :p
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Nah, as far as I know it's just tax reasons. I believe that many areas have started giving employers large tax breaks if they use their local offices enough. Even "boomer sensibilities" I doubt are enough to get companies to just start paying massive amounts of money to support unnecessary offices. After all, even if workers were like %75 as productive at home, some simple math tells you that if you're saving ~%25 on the cost of employing them, there's no point. But yeah: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-02-21/another-threat-to-work-from-home-tax-breaks

Long story short, there are many areas which essentially sprung up around commuting, so the theory is that without some sort of return to office mandate, those areas are slowly dying. By leveraging tax breaks, the companies get to spout all this BS about work culture and collaboration, while in reality they're just getting tax breaks, while the local areas to the office also profit from the essential tourism.

This also allows them to do "quiet cutting":
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/companies-are-now-quiet-cutting-employees/
Think about it, all you have to do is say that, "We want all people that do X to be located at Y". And then they just do this big Donkey Kong shrug when you say that the move is untenable for you, and they get to basically lay you off without any severance pay, because after all you're the one that "decided" to quit, right? So the truth is worse than anything you might think it is.
Click to expand...


Interesting. I had not heard of the tax breaks, but it makes sense.

Big city centers are scared shitless of the collapse in office real estate, which is traditionally their biggest source of revenue, and they are trying to do anything they can to protect it. Also, when people aren't in their big offices in the cities, they aren't going tout to lunch or cafe's, etc. etc., and it slows down the entire city economy.

I think there will be a transition period. They are trying to fight to preserve the order that has been, but technology is allowing for a new order to emerge. People will still want to eat out, they just may not want to do it in an overpriced city center. Maybe they'll frequent their local small town establishments instead.

The thing I like the most about the work from home movement is how it democratizes lifestyle choices. If you like living and working in a city you still can. If you prefer a remote location with a view of mountain vistas out out of your office window, and not dealing with over-populated cities where you previously felt forced to live to be able to commute to work, you can do that too.

It also helps with problems in housing costs. Cities have traditional been super expensive because there is such a high demand in such a physically concentrated area. If you can allow people to work wherever the hell they want they can find housing they can afford. (this part actually scares me a little as a recent owner of a single family home that has had its cost driven up by its proximity to a high demand city center. I still think its for the best through, even though it may hurt me personally)
 
Darunion said:
My wife hates working from home, they actually force hybrid on their employees so she has to work 2 days from home. She gets less done there and would rather be in the office. They told her it is a benefit and she shouldnt fight it. Which really keeps bringing up the same point we all talk about is one shoe doesnt fit all.

I would just love living up on a mountain or forest area with little to no people and a satellite internet connection to do work. Gotta live where the jobs are though or drive really far every day.

Lets just force companies to pay for commute, make them either hire only local or remote work. :p kidding of course, lots can go wrong with this lol.
Click to expand...
My wife works from home for a company 1500 miles away. she freaking loves it. but it also has its...mental health(?) issues. She never leaves the house. ever. in open, public places she gets panicky. if it were up to her, she'd go a full month without ever seeing another person. I mean, I hate people as much as the next guy, but being around people is almost needed.
 
Westwood said:
My wife works from home for a company 1500 miles away. she freaking loves it. but it also has its...mental health(?) issues. She never leaves the house. ever. in open, public places she gets panicky. if it were up to her, she'd go a full month without ever seeing another person. I mean, I hate people as much as the next guy, but being around people is almost needed.
Click to expand...
For mine, she had a 15minute commute and then they decided to change offices (leasing a cheaper building) so now she has a 45minute one.

Im an engineer, i hate people lol.
 
Westwood said:
My wife works from home for a company 1500 miles away. she freaking loves it. but it also has its...mental health(?) issues. She never leaves the house. ever. in open, public places she gets panicky. if it were up to her, she'd go a full month without ever seeing another person. I mean, I hate people as much as the next guy, but being around people is almost needed.
Click to expand...


I can totally understand that. Different people adapt to these things in different ways.

I've always had my curmudgeonly anti-people sentiments (at least anti-random people, I like some very specific ones), but they did get more pronounced during the pandemic and working from home.

Through my good fortune I work in engineering, and we usually screen share spreadsheets and drawings, so I was able to get through the pandemic without ever having to attend a video call.

It actually makes me slightly physically uncomfortable when I join a teams meeting and someone insists on having a camera on. Luckily there is a "disable incoming video" setting. Unfortunately I have to manually turn it on ever meeting. I wish I could set it and forget it.

I still enjoy socializing with the people of my choosing (though I rarely have or make the time) but I still don't like having random colleagues foisted upon my computer screen.
 
blackmomba said:
The problem I see here is that the person will feel like they're being penalized especially if they're one of the few that needs to come in. They'll eventually leave when they find a job that allows them to suck but from home. It's like the equivalent in schools, where you can sit the students that need more support closer to the front of the class

My place doesn't care for the time being since people are still home with kids where school hasn't started. Come September, they will be asking for us to be on site at least twice a week.

In my team, we plan more 'social' work on those days anyway. So we aren't pumping out product, but we are architecting and planning our solutions which in my opinion is much easier in person that over a call.

I find that more distance between team members causes people to develop problems where there aren't any and forget that they're working with real people. It's basic but simply seeing someone from time to time keeps everyone modest and humble I find

One guy, who isn't necessarily a bad developer, always suggests these half baked ideas or stuff that is obviously not correct and will defend his stances to the death when we're on a call. He does less of that when we're in person, I think, because getting your ideas ripped to shreds hurts a lot more in person than on a call.

I mean it really all depends on the work you're doing, people you're doing it with, your goals etc... But I find it pretty okay
Click to expand...


While I generally have found that I can work excellently from home, the one thing I will admit is that I have an easier time drifting off when attending remote meetings.

Because of this I try to schedule my work such that I have important meetings in person on the days I am in, and do more "getting shit done" work when I am at home.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Interesting. I had not heard of the tax breaks, but it makes sense.

Big city centers are scared shitless of the collapse in office real estate, which is traditionally their biggest source of revenue, and they are trying to do anything they can to protect it. Also, when people aren't in their big offices in the cities, they aren't going tout to lunch or cafe's, etc. etc., and it slows down the entire city economy.

I think there will be a transition period. They are trying to fight to preserve the order that has been, but technology is allowing for a new order to emerge. People will still want to eat out, they just may not want to do it in an overpriced city center. Maybe they'll frequent their local small town establishments instead.

The thing I like the most about the work from home movement is how it democratizes lifestyle choices. If you like living and working in a city you still can. If you prefer a remote location with a view of mountain vistas out out of your office window, and not dealing with over-populated cities where you previously felt forced to live to be able to commute to work, you can do that too.

It also helps with problems in housing costs. Cities have traditional been super expensive because there is such a high demand in such a physically concentrated area. If you can allow people to work wherever the hell they want they can find housing they can afford. (this part actually scares me a little as a recent owner of a single family home that has had its cost driven up by its proximity to a high demand city center. I still think its for the best through, even though it may hurt me personally)
Click to expand...

I didn't actually hear of the tax breaks myself until a rather studious employee of mine mentioned it when we were talking about return to work for our own company. They definitely are using it to do layoffs, too, because some "job titles responsibilities" just happen to have "moved across the country". Your kids don't mind, right?

Personally, I don't care too much, as it does get me out of the house. With work from home, I did often feel like I was simply wasting away inside the house %100 of the time. We're only required to come in about 3 times a week, and I'm only about 10-15 minutes away from my work anyway, so it's a minuscule commute.

Personally, I think they would benefit from making it only half days at work rather than full days. Happier employees are more likely to spend on-site than if they're wasting away for 8 hours then getting out with this burnt out feeling. It's silly. That said, I 100% am more productive in the office than at home, even though my job requires absolutely no on-site collaboration. That said, I also think it's kind of pointless to be productive when companies clearly don't give a crap about how productive you actually are when they're making layoff decisions...
 
I’m a mid level office worker and my WFH experience was incredible. As an hourly employee I got an hour of commute time and my hour long lunch back as me time. I saved about 2k in commute related expenses. Saved money on food , clothing and more. Essentially nearly a 3k raise raise that year in reduced expenses. I was continued to be a top 20% performer just like in the office. WFH was for me the most balanced work/ life arrangement I’ve ever experienced. I took walks on breaks and lunch in my neighborhood which is much nicer and walkable than a parking lot. I did chores like laundry and even cut my grass or ran to the grocery store during my lunch hour as well. All meaning that after my work day much if my household chores were done. No wasted time in traffic and burning fuel and time commuting. Basically amazing. I am certainly not opposed to a 2-3 day in office hybrid solution but after returning to the 5 or 6 days a week commute grind I have been looking at options to leave that behind. I’ve been at my current employer for 16 years and that are 100% opposed to WFH for the majority of roles.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
While I generally have found that I can work excellently from home, the one thing I will admit is that I have an easier time drifting off when attending remote meetings.

Because of this I try to schedule my work such that I have important meetings in person on the days I am in, and do more "getting shit done" work when I am at home.
Click to expand...
I personally can't work well from home. My setup is not designed for work, it's designed for play I need the distinct space, working in my play space is about as productive as trying to play in my workspace.
I can do single tasks from home, but I can't multitask to the degree that is required of me from there, and until I get a bigger place having a distinct home work office and home play office isn't happening.
 
Lakados said:
I personally can't work well from home. My setup is not designed for work, it's designed for play I need the distinct space, working in my play space is about as productive as trying to play in my workspace.
I can do single tasks from home, but I can't multitask to the degree that is required of me from there, and until I get a bigger place having a distinct home work office and home play office isn't happening.
Click to expand...
Step 1: Work from home
Step 2: Outsource the work for pennies to India
Step 3: Play games all day instead
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit

*Warning: step 4 may be getting canned immediately
 
Lakados said:
I personally can't work well from home. My setup is not designed for work, it's designed for play I need the distinct space, working in my play space is about as productive as trying to play in my workspace.
I can do single tasks from home, but I can't multitask to the degree that is required of me from there, and until I get a bigger place having a distinct home work office and home play office isn't happening.
Click to expand...
I think that is a really big key. I like to 'feel' at work, but just within my home. I put a cheap computer on my workbench cuz I could remote in to my pc at work if i needed to do renderings that needed more power. But it was really good having a place to be in when working versus never moving from a singular spot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top