I will never say there's no value to being in the office. Transfer of information is much quicker, because you can bump into someone in the hallway you may not ever have an overt reason to connect with on a Teams call, but in that hallway discussion realize a previously unknown overlap. Discussions can be faster and more productive. And it gives more junior employees visibility, as in they are seen by executives, but also they can see what executives are working on and what their priorities are.

But there are downsides. You need to be in one physical location, which absolutely limits your hiring (in modern parlance, it means you're hiring for location, not for merit.) It means you need to fully staff that location, too. With hybrid, if you have a guy phenomenal at a niche skillset you can scope him on numerous teams, but if you're in one location, you need a that guy anywhere that team does work, and if that office only has enough work for 25% of that guy, you either overhire or don't have that work. And I am just so much more productive at home. My living 2 hours from my office is my fault, but when I'm in the office I am stopped constantly for little catchups. I may be unique, as my schedule is already 6-8 hours of meetings, with rarely a gap in between over 30 minutes, but at least I can usually read emails in those 30 minutes. In the office, I cannot, because someone saw me and is using my free time to chat me up on something. Arguably it saves me a meeting later, but it is unplanned and takes away room to work.

Plus, the ability to have faster discussion offline kind of disappears when you know people. After hanging out with someone in person a few times, my virtual meetings are as productive as my physical ones. To a certain size. Get more than 5 people and people get more quiet because interrupting is different, whereas in a room 6+ people will happily all contribute.

5 days a week is batshit crazy to me. Batshit. Unbelievably crazy. 1 day a week is pretty good, and what I have committed to (though if you include travel, I'm at 3 days a week in 2025.) If I were within 45 minutes of the office, I'd probably average 2.5 days - 3 some weeks, 2 others. I think people should have flexibility, because if your kid is home sick or you need a plumber to come, you should work from home that day. It's fine and easy. If you are sick, normalize staying home to not get others sick. If you're an independent contributor not interested in management or promotions, go remote. It should be a role by role thing, not blanket.

Prez wrote on Feb 13, 2025, 18:33:
What's weird is that no one who posts on this issue seem to be blue collar like I was. I lean towards having people go into work, but working from home was completely impossible for me anyway. I can't troubleshoot a malfunctioning device, install a solenoid valve, rewire a production machine, or change out a motor from home. We went in or we didn't get paid basically.

Typically because blue collar jobs are necessarily hands on since they are physical labor based and not intellectually based which is what white collar jobs predominantly are. I do not rate one greater than the other because they are both necessary.

What's neat is that today a lot of troubleshooting on a server can be accomplished via either iDRAC or iLo. I have been able to troubleshoot bad power supplies, memory, disks, and even a CPU from the comfort of my home office. Remote diagnostics have come a long, long way since I first started and I am grateful for it.

Mr. Tact wrote on Feb 13, 2025, 21:22:

Prez wrote on Feb 13, 2025, 12:56:
I know that everyone will post that they are infinitely more productive at home.

Not me. I never wanted to work from home because I knew the distractions would reduce my productivity. But, they didn't give me a choice. *shrug*

Yeah my sister says the same thing.

Prez wrote on Feb 13, 2025, 12:56:
I know that everyone will post that they are infinitely more productive at home.

Not me. I never wanted to work from home because I knew the distractions would reduce my productivity. But, they didn't give me a choice. *shrug*

I don't think that there are too many cases of anything in life where the one-size-fits-all approach is the best one. It certainly doesn't seem to be that here. But few companies are going to stray from it regardless I think. It's hard enough as it is as a manager trying to discern who are their performers and who needs further motivation. A catch-all solution, while never the best, is easiest, and making all employees come into work is the way to go if you're into catch-all solutions. In my opinion of course. I have been a crew leader before, and while I wasn't a very good one, I do remember feeling a similar dynamic between me and my workers as I felt being a father. And any father will tell you that you should avoid the appearance of favoritism. Just keep in mind that I said that I wasn't a very effective leader.

Prez wrote on Feb 13, 2025, 12:56:
I know that everyone will post that they are infinitely more productive at home. I mean you're probably not lying- but people who aren't won't exactly be keen on announcing it. It seems undeniable that a one-size-fits-all approach (which let's be honest, the vast amount of companies will adopt just for convenience alone) has to lean towards in-person work. Hey, put down the pitchforks!

The problem is the one size fits all approach. If it's not that, it's that a specific manager thinks their way is the best way and forces it to be the one size to fit all. It's very industry dependent obviously as there are some jobs that cannot be done from home at all. BoP's check list cannot be applied to all jobs for example but the list makes a good minimum requirement for how management should view the issue.

The elephant in the room issue preventing a varied employee approach is that Employee A doesn't like that Employee B gets to work from home because that person is more productive that way. No one wants to seem like they are playing favorites even if it's just numbers. The best solution is to try the employees out in both environments to assess which way they should employ the person.

I have worked both ways for the same job (white collar administrative) in the past and found that some tasks were easier while other were harder so I don't know if there was any net change. Thinking back on it now I'd say the bigger impacts to my performance had to do with the current objectives I was working and the people I worked with more than if I was in the office or not.

Google Maps blocks Gulf of America reviews after rename criticism - BBC.

I think the rest of the world should agree to call it "Gulf of Musky Smelling Tiny Trump Hands", and force all tech companies have it show that on the maps in their countries. And of course use it in official documents. Basically, they should troll the US.

You have to have self discipline to work at home and still be a productive employee. Self-discipline can fade when people become bored or unsatisfied with their jobs. Even when they appreciate certain aspects of the job...like working remote as opposed to having a commute. In my management experience I have noticed that people tend to stay in the job they know, even if they think it sucks, rather then test the field. Employers on the other hand, are more then willing to drop the employees they know for the unproven once the known are underperforming or have reached a perceived performance ceiling. It will be interesting to see how it all shakes out now that AI is being thrown into the mix. In my job field we have clear performance metrics, virtual job shadowing with feedback and coaching, and other processes in place to make sure that our largely remote employees are doing what they are supposed to be, when they are supposed to be. I sometimes struggle to understand how that would be a problem for any field that can work remotely, but I am sure there are examples where that would be more challenging and costly to do then it is worth.

I'm with BoP on that one.

Also not only are the arguments of the article very weak and unsourced, but this video presents very strong counter arguments to cut to the heart of the matter.

After having read the article and watched the video, the reality of the situation easily sinks in and is a no brainer.

The comment section with over 5000 comments on this article is also telling, the vast majority debunks the article's arguments with disarming ease.

It's easy to smell the crap at that point.

What's weird is that no one who posts on this issue seem to be blue collar like I was. I lean towards having people go into work, but working from home was completely impossible for me anyway. I can't troubleshoot a malfunctioning device, install a solenoid valve, rewire a production machine, or change out a motor from home. We went in or we didn't get paid basically.

And for people who can't work from home it's a blessing having all those additional millions of people not on the roads and mass transit. It means less money required for infrastructure building and repair - because it isn't required with that many less people not needing it/using it constantly. The only people who lose are the corporate landlords, and they can cry me a fucking river. So we may as well convert all that vacant office space to apartments/condos and address the housing crisis while we're at it. So all in all it's a major win for society as a whole.

Bent wrote on Feb 13, 2025, 13:09:
For honest, self motivated, and driven people, remote work can be good, but I know several people seem to spend more than half of their remote work time doing everything except working. Having lived with some of those people, I've become fairly skeptical.

I'm not especially self-motivated or driven but I still get more done at home than in the office.
I don't know why people seem to think that I wouldn't get distracted just as much if not more in the office.
My employers expectations of the amount of work I accomplish doesn't change whether I'm at home or in the office... the output is what it is...
I meet my deadlines and expectations... and I have easier time doing that from home than in the office. The office is a waste of time.

edit: I wrote that before reading BoP's post... yeah exactly what he said

Here's my take on remote work since my entire team is doing it, including myself:

1. Are we hitting our group milestones?
2. Are each of us hitting our individual milestones?
3. Are we providing our deliverables before or on the agreed upon time?

If the answer is "yes" to all three, which it is, then nothing needs to change and remote work is fine. I have been doing it full time for five years. What I have found is that line managers and above who are whining about remote work, and it is whining, have no idea how to manage a remote workforce. Hell, most of them don't know how to effectively and efficiently manage an on on-prem workforce.

"But people are slacking" is true whether they are at home or in an office. Barring emergencies or inspiration, I have never put in a full, non-stop 8 hours of productivity in my entire career. If people were honest, they would admit they don't either and never truly have. This myth of non-stop productivity is toxic as Hell and is perpetuated by those who gain value and monetary enrichment by wringing people out as much as possible and disposing of them when not another drop can be wrung out.

The average American keeps a job for, on average, 3.9 years. More often than not, people change jobs to get away from bad management, a poor culture, stagnation, or for an increase in salary. When they do, they take institutional knowledge, training, and experience with them. If orgs were just a wee bit more self-aware, they would realize that such a loss is a bad thing in the long term. An org can address bad management, poor culture, and stagnation rapidly if they are of a mind to do so. Salary increases are tied to gross income and should not be accumulated at the top. Nothing pisses someone off more than seeing a 3% CoL (which doesn't actually do anything to address CoL) yet read about their CEO getting a 10+ million dollar bonus. So, sure, your CEO doesn't get to buy another yacht, or a home in the Hamtpons, or their 33rd Ferrari. But they're largely useless without a workforce further down the chain that is motivated to do well. So treat your people well and they'll dig in for you, as long as you yourself are right there digging in with them. But that stands opposed to the average American belief of "Stonk must go up infinitely and only next quarter matters".

For honest, self motivated, and driven people, remote work can be good, but I know several people seem to spend more than half of their remote work time doing everything except working. Having lived with some of those people, I've become fairly skeptical.

I know that everyone will post that they are infinitely more productive at home. I mean you're probably not lying- but people who aren't won't exactly be keen on announcing it. It seems undeniable that a one-size-fits-all approach (which let's be honest, the vast amount of companies will adopt just for convenience alone) has to lean towards in-person work. Hey, put down the pitchforks!