Fed-up Managers Declare Work From Home is Over (fortune.com) 289
OneHundredAndTen writes: It would seem that a majority of managers have decided to launch a campaign of threats to force people back into the office. From the report: About 77% of managers said they'd be willing to implement "severe consequences" -- including firing workers or cutting pay and benefits -- on those who refuse to return to the office, according to a recent survey by employment background check company GoodHire of 3,500 American managers.
The managers fear for themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: The managers fear for themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Good managers dont meddle. However the BS that is known as Agile is geared up for them to do just that in the form of micro management. No team of functiong adults working on long term projects needs a meeting every day, much less being made to stand up like naughty children at school. But hey, buzzword bingo! Scrum, story, epic etc etc. Its a pointy hairs wet dream.
Re: The managers fear for themselves (Score:4, Informative)
No team of functioning adults working on long term projects needs a meeting every day, much less being made to stand up like naughty children at school.
Our scrums were done via conference call, but they made us stand up anyway. :-)
Re: (Score:3)
You know what, that's a great idea. I may implement it for my team, because our meetings are tending to last too long.
Re: (Score:2)
Our scrums were done via conference call, but they made us stand up anyway. :-)
There's actually a point to that. It keeps people from getting into long-winded digressions.
Granted, a good scrum master should keep things on track, but when someone from higher management shows up an starts talking, it's sometimes hard to derail them.
Yeah, yeah, I know, they shouldn't even be at the daily standup.
Re: (Score:2)
" tiny increments of progress are not really reviewed" no, no, they are reviewed. Managers put them on Pooperpoint slides and point excitedly to them while gushing over the "team" they are putting the screws to. Then the managers' managers decide if they can get x% performance over the last 3 months, then they should shoot for 2 * x% performance over the next 3 months. Eventually, all the players learn to game the system and it devolves into an incestuous lying circle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
all STICK, no CARROT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I find that as long as the agility is lead by someone who is still a developer, it works great: it's nice having a feature that we're aiming for that is part of an epic... it gives me stuff to brainstorm off of when I've got some downtime to come up with neat small tweaks that all work together. When the agility is driven by managers at increasing distance from the code, there's an exponential badness to it... the process dominates the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Process always dominates product. And the only thing that dominates process is revenue. At least in most companies. This is why things seem so screwed up to most product people.
Re: The managers fear for themselves (Score:2)
I have worked in several places where process serves product. Good managers constantly pare back process that grows oppressive.
Re: The managers fear for themselves (Score:4, Interesting)
Agile meetings work perfectly well as virtual meetings. The reason to eliminate work from home is to reinsert middle management back into each worker's life and enable micro-management again. Not to mention they have to justify their expensive offices and office leasing agreements.
When they see how much lower the productivity is in the office they will think that more micro-management is the solution not realizing the work from home was lean and efficient in ways that the office grind can never be.
Glad my company went to remote work and is sticking with it!
Re: The managers fear for themselves (Score:5, Informative)
Every methodology I've ever seen works for some but not others. The underlying reason is that many managers don't like the actual work of managing people -- at least the whole mix of tasks that need to get done.
A manager has, broadly speaking, two functions with respect to subordinates. First, he has to provide them with direction. Second, he has to remove impediments to their getting their assignments done. The problem is lots of people like telling subordinates to do stuff but don't much care for solving other peoples' problems.
Workers don't need new objectives every day. The *do* need problems solved every day. That means a daily meeting can be either very productive or very unproductive. Productive meetings tend to create work for the boss. Unproductive meetings tend to create work for the subordinates.
Re: (Score:2)
Micro-management was an issue long before Agile was invented, and is also a problem at shops that don't use Agile.
Re: (Score:3)
One more thing to add. Those daily meetings are often book at times which are only convenient to the aforementioned managers and seem to completely disregard core hours, if a company implements such a scheme.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is utterly missing the point, because the manager isn't even required at such a meeting. Any org scheduling stand ups around the manager has clearly not understood the methodology they're claiming to implement.
Re: (Score:3)
However the BS that is known as Agile is geared up for them to do just that in the form of micro management. No team of functiong adults working on long term projects needs a meeting every day, much less being made to stand up like naughty children at school.
Sorry to piss on your ignorant rant, but Agile has nothing to do with micromanaging. Hell my manager doesn't even attend our daily standup meetings because he treats us like adults who can figure our own day out.
Re: The managers fear for themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad micro managers gonna micro no matter what you're doing.
I've had one boss run actually useful standups. It was amazing. Of course, they weren't "status-ups" like most standups are. Answer three questions: 1) is your (jira) board up to date (and nothing about the status or movement of those tickets!) 2) is anything blocking you 3) any topics for a brief group discussion? We'd be done with the board in a minute or two tops, and then talk about anything in our way, or anything we needed clarification or to hammer out between the BE/FE folks. If nobody had much of any discussion we'd be done in 5 tops.
For that team, one month in we had a functional prototype (with full continuous delivery). In three months it was real, rather than a prototype. In six months, other teams were finally catching up to us and we had to quit chewing down features planned for future quarters and integrate with the incoming data stream. A few weeks later it was back to chewing down features.
It is really amazing what you can get done with a small team and a great manager.
Re: The managers fear for themselves (Score:4, Informative)
These were envisioned to replace the hour long (or more!) sit down meetings that waste even more time. Of course middle management lives for that so I can see them fucking up Agile for everyone else as well. But it doesn't matter what you do or what you call it because they'll fuck it up no matter what.
Standup scrums are designed to keep things short (Score:3)
No team of functiong adults working on long term projects needs a meeting every day, much less being made to stand up like naughty children at school. But hey, buzzword bingo! Scrum, story, epic etc etc. Its a pointy hairs wet dream.
I've been on many teams with scrum and without. The ones who do it properly have much better results. You're standing to remind people to keep things short. The more comfortable they are, the longer they're likely to talk. Also, a team needs status updates so members know what everyone else is working on and how to help.
If you can go without knowing what your team members are working on, you're in too large of a team or really shouldn't be in a team at all.
It's cool you're the awesome lone wolf
Re:The managers fear for themselves (Score:5, Insightful)
The managers realize they have become irrelevant as employees become more productive without managers' constant meddling.
Largest most successful software project on Earth: Linux Kernel
Number of managers: 0
Linux kernel development has no mangers, only workers. Even Linus. For those who insist on calling the people at the top of the merge hierarchy "managers", then let's say that "managers" are correctly simply the best workers.
You never want a software development team manager. You do want a lead developer.
Those who are only managers are parasites. Every single time in my career when I have had a manger that person has either:
1. Obstructed or reversed progress by making idiotic decisions.
2. Engaged in misconduct; misdirecting funding, violating mandated policies.
3. Taken credit for the work of others.
4. Lied and blamed others to evade discipline for the above.
I work for a company where, no matter what your job title, you were a worker. Everyone had to be producing work, setting up servers, writing code, something. By objective standards, that proved to be a super successful formula. Employee satisfaction and return on investments we were extreme positive outliers.
Then because we went public someone decided to hire professional managers. They do not know anything, they have no skills, the do not understand anything, and make harmful decisions, they lie. And what is their roll? To assess and make decisions.
It is fundamentally idiotic to selectively grant authority to people with no domain knowledge or skill. Yet almost all private and public institutions do that deliberately.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have been both a manager and a software lead. I think either breaks down when you have rotten team members, above, below or alongside you. And it's not cut and dry, that managers are/aren't useful/needed.
As a manager, I had our sole sysadmin that flat refused to do the weekly backups (so I did it myself every week), and elsewhere had a QA team member lie and not do the full weekly tests they were assigned, just faked results. And I wasn't allowed to fire or discipline either of them, I had to "guide"
Re: The managers fear for themselves (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
then give out gas cards or other stuff to cover th (Score:5, Insightful)
then give out gas cards or other stuff to cover the cost vs work at home.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
While they're at it how about a tax break for us who choose not to shit out kids.
Re: (Score:2)
Offensively put, but on the money.
Our tax structure should incentivize each joint taxpayer having 1/2 a child or each taxpayer filing individually having one child, and massively disincentive anything more.
The problem is that that will ultimately raise wages, and that's bad for the people the country is designed to work for.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? In the USA, population growth as nearly flatlined [brookings.edu]. It seems we are in no danger at all of having too many babies.
In fact, if Japan is any indicator of our future, we may be looking at serious economic problems from having too few babies.
Re: (Score:2)
How about a tax rebate for companies doing WFH? This would reduce CO2 and gas usage more than anything.
Corporate america gets enough tax breaks IMO. Maybe we start to think of employees as actual, worthwhile human beings that deserve more than to just survive and generate profit?
Re: (Score:2)
Gas usage, certainly. CO2, not so fast. Consider that when an office building is full of people, only one building needs HVAC; the workers can use the setback on their home thermostats. When everyone is WFH, everyone has to manage their own HVAC, and you can't use a setback if you're in the house all day. This likely represents an INCREASE in energy costs, thus an increase in emissions.
And the company won't pay those increased energy costs for you either.
Re: (Score:2)
Gas cards don't compensate for hours spent in traffic... Also, they don't pay for 75% of a car's other costs. (Depreciation and maintenance.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some employers will provide commute incentives, which on its face is a good thing. However, often it is done to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There is a thing called wages, which seemed to cover gas and other stuff that was part of WORK. Anyone working from home should have taken a pay cut since they have less expenses.
Don't worry, the IRS is already considering "working from home" a "benefit" and they are taxing people accordingly. Now you're going to be shafted even more because employers get to claim a fixed-cost for employment while shafting "the little guy" with the higher fuel costs.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, that's bullshit, and everyone who modded you up needs to be fired.
There is nothing new in the tax code about this, and on top of that, I'd have a good case for charging my employer for internet, electricitiy, and office space & equipment. None of that shit is free, and I'm paying all of it to work from home.
Re: (Score:2)
You talk like someone that undervalues the services you offer, or don't have a degree of confidence to ask for things in your own interest.
As it turns out, everyone is paid what they negotiate for. Every wage is a negotiated sale - either you sold them on why you should be paid more or have better benefits, or they sold you on why you should not.
Myself, I'm a big fan of doing research and making reasonable requests based on that research and making them say "no." You would be surprised how much more you c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the portion of my house that's now dedicated to working...and was for the last 2 years...where's my compensation for that?
Also for companies that want to save space and use hybrid/shared desks and "let" people WFH a few days a week - are they passing on that savigns to compensate for the at-home space they're otherwise getting for free?
If BOTH sides of the coin don't apply, then neither should. I sure didn't see employers stepping up and offering to offset rent/mortgage. They gave people some money to
Re: then give out gas cards or other stuff to cove (Score:3)
Re:then give out gas cards or other stuff to cover (Score:4, Insightful)
Such argument is DOA. Your salary covers the cost. Instead, make arguments based on productivity and retention.
I'm not aware of anyone who's salary is tied to the cost of fuel. Companies don't give a shit if you have to pay more for fuel because managers are a waste of oxygen and want you to come back to the office so they can justify their existence.
I manage 18 employees. They all work from home. I continually repeat the same line to new-hires: "I generally expect client issues to be covered between 7 AM and 6 PM. How you schedule yourselves is up to you. If I see calls going unanswered at 7:30 AM and there's only one employee in because everyone loves to sleep in, we're going to have problems. There are occasionally weekend projects. I don't care if you take Monday and Tuesday off because you worked the weekend to help bring in more money to the company. Just make sure there are enough people covering. Our vacation, sick, and leave policy is 'if you need time off, take it, just make sure things are covered'".
I've been running my company for 9 years now. It's extremely rare that anyone ever abuses the policy, and the only time I had a lapse in coverage was during the 2018 flu season. Quite literally every employee was sick (including myself). Most employees got it pretty bad and took a few days off. A few pushed on through (because working 5 feet from your bed it pretty easy) and helped deal with any emergencies or high-priority items.
Hire good employees, pay them well, and make sure they understand that they don't make money or bonuses if the company isn't making money. Most people will treat you well. The rare few that abuse the system get given a list of accomplishments they need to achieve over a 30 or 60-day period and if they fail to achieve it because they are abusing the system, they get let go.
I have one employee currently doing that. They're always away from their keyboard on a break, walking their dog, taking care of the kids, cooking meals, etc... They were told a month ago "here are 4 training videos. Each one is about an hour long. Please review them. Ask questions if you don't understand something. I expect you to be an expert in $SUBJECT_MATTER within 30 days."
Yesterday I asked them to handle a few really simple tasks related to the subject matter that every other employee knew how to do after watching the training videos. They were clueless as to what to do and fucked the whole situation up. When I dug deeper and asked more questions I found out they are either a complete idiot or they didn't watch the videos. Today is their last day. Since they were earning $5k/mo, everyone in his department is going to split a $5k bonus because we are no longer spending $5k on useless dead weight.
TLDR: Don't be a useless piece of shit manager.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:then give out gas cards or other stuff to cover (Score:4, Informative)
Such argument is DOA. Your salary covers the cost. Instead, make arguments based on productivity and retention.
Your declaration is unfounded and DOA :)
First off - the last two years have basically forced people to rearrange their living situation/house/apartment to work from home. Businesses partly supported of it by providing IT gear (in some cases) but certainly did not allocate people additional funding to offset the rent/mortgage. Right from the get-go, businesses got a huge gimmie which they've ignored and will continue to do so.
That aside, my salary coverED that cost when it was relevant and I had to. This wasn't two weeks. It wasn't two months. It's been two YEARS. You're arguing that status quo from two years ago should magically return just because you said so and managers "want it". I call BS on that and say the opposite is true:
When the CV19 pandemic hit, everyone had to scramble to make things work. Now, though, we have all the time in the world to arrange things properly - evaluate, plan, implement. Things like transit stipend, meal stipend or cafeteria, partial WFH, flex schedule, etc. absolutely should be on the table. The labor market is tight because enough people realized how sick they were of working like slaves...and made accommodations in their life to not do that. Companies will have to step up and start treating employees like valued parts of the company instead of the means for shareholder/owner profit.
ALSO FYI - much of the rest of the world has so many of the basic principles that people are fighting to keep in the good ol' USA. Heck, go to the philippines where offices over a certain size (~100 people or maybe less) are required to have a FREE doctor clinic IN THE OFFICE for all staff. Go to india where many regions require businesses to provide private transportation for women and people on alternate shifts to keep them safe. Go to europe...where fast food pays a livable age FFS.
Re: (Score:2)
but certainly did not allocate people additional funding to offset the rent/mortgage. Right from the get-go, businesses got a huge gimmie which they've ignored and will continue to do so.
Huh? You're already paying your rent/mortgage from your salary. Why would you need additional funding? The only slight change is the additional electricity you're using to work from home, but that amount is completely offset by not driving/busing/whatever to work every day, not having to wear out clothes by going to wor
Re:then give out gas cards or other stuff to cover (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about what you just said...
The most common case is:
I have a company offering me $72,000 but requires that I work in the office.
This will require a 30 minute daily commute-- 1 hour if there is an accident. Some of that likely from my sleep.
This will put 12,000 miles a year on my $40,000 car.
This will cost me $1,600 to $3000 in fuel costs.
This will put *me* at risk of an accident once per 8 years.
This will put *me* at risk of traffic tickets for speeding.
This means I have two extra maintenance cycle on my car per year.
This means I use up my car twice as fast and have to buy a *new* $40,000 car.
And this is assuming no tolls-- if I have to drive a toll road, it's another $1500 per year (easily).
and then
I have another company offering me $72,000- heck- let's say $70,000 to work from home.
Why on earth would I take the 1st job without some kind of travel time and cost adjustment?
And that's without occasional weekend work.
Nope. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still working from home, and will continue to. My company is built to work properly with remote workers anyway - we have offices in Grand Cayman and New York, engineers in UK, Portugal, New York, California, Oregon, Colorado, etc. and we have C-level execs that are remote.
As it turns out, if you work for reasonable organizations, you get reasonable work conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Glad you agree that working in the office is not for everyone.
Glad you agree it is for some.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, sometimes the job finds that paying silicon valley salaries is too much, so the attrition starts. Then they find that the jobs in Alabama cost too much, so attrition starts there. Then pretty soon anyone doing actual work is overseas, including half of the management. Now if everyone insists that they must stay at home, and be paid the same as they used to when they were in the office, upper management might start considering ramping up the outsourcing plan...
If someone is in a job that can be done
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still working from home, and will continue to. My company is built to work properly with remote workers anyway - we have offices in Grand Cayman and New York, engineers in UK, Portugal, New York, California, Oregon, Colorado, etc. and we have C-level execs that are remote.
Certainly, but a lot depends on the company and type of work. As a consultant, I have no worked in office for over 20+ years; I am either at home or when needed at the client. OTOH, when I worked at power plants, it's real tough to operate a control room or fix a pump from home.
As it turns out, if you work for reasonable organizations, you get reasonable work conditions.
I suspect many companies will wind up with a blended model. Jobs that are more independent where all you are doing is designing something to a specific spec and using a computer are ripe for that; both in terms of favorable workin
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you just work for a shitty company?
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps most companies are shitty?
Re: (Score:2)
They're welcome to try. I have at least two other orgs that would like to hire me if I become available, also for remote positions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Paraphrased Matrix (Score:5, Funny)
But how will you manage if you have no people working for you any longer, Mr Anderson?
Hiring just got easier (Score:5, Interesting)
From a selfish perspective, I hope managers do start forcing workers back into the office so hiring will become much easier for me over the next few years. Being able to offer workers the ability to work fully remote or hybrid will be a very cheap benefit to lure employees for a while.
Re: (Score:3)
100%. Other companies making stupid decisions just makes a larger talent pool available to companies making decisions that are employee-friendly. I can't wait to hire a couple more engineers that get burned out on their current shitty employer forcing them to sit in traffic for several hours per week for less money.
Re: (Score:2)
Headline is compete bullshit, yet again (Score:5, Informative)
The actual survey shows a small majority of managers think remote work has gone well.
So what's with this "77% willing to threaten" thing?
They asked managers about *if and when* your company mandates return to the office, would you be willing to implement consequences for those who refuse?
The headline and summary try to make it sound like they want to mandate return to office. That's not what the survey found. The survey found that **IF** and when the company says it's time to go back to the office, only 23% of managers would look past people flat out refusing (potentially putting their own jobs at risk by doing so).
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks for RTFA...I should have known better. New headline:
"If your boss forces you to do something will you do it? 77% said Yes"
Bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
The people who care are the ones that own real estate. The don't want to see the value of it plummet as people move out of big cities and office buildings are converted into apartments.
Re:Bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
I hoped someone would point this out. It's real estate investors that are pushing this the hardest. So much big money is invested into huge office buildings. So many of our lawmakers are heavily invested in real estate.
I haven't specifically heard it but I'm guessing the oil companies are pressing pretty hard for a return to the office too.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also the mayors of big cities and people in the service industries that are pushing the return.
MONEY.
Re: (Score:2)
"I can't believe you like money too. We should hang out." --Frito Pendejo
Re: (Score:3)
The guys who own real estate own all the media too. And they sit on the boards of all major companies. Look at the overlap between board members of the Fortune 500. There's no real competition at the highest levels anymore. Just a simulation, a charade.
Basically, it's the .01% wealthiest fuckers. And they are conspiring to fuck the rest of us and steal everything of value. Seriously, do you not get that? The last twelve years looks normal to you?
Hahaha (Score:4, Insightful)
I fired my manager and started my own company.
Always remember - engineers create value, not managers.
Re: (Score:2)
Which managers? (Score:2)
Fed-up Managers Declare Work From Home is Over
Actually thought it said "Fed-Ex Managers" -- glad I was wrong, their drivers would be *really* upset ...
I imagine its like this. (Score:2)
Severe Consequences? (Score:2)
Now don't get me wrong, I have no issues with people working from home but how is some one getting fired for not going into the office severe? If I'm not where my job needs me to be (and without a good excuse) I'd get fired and that was true during covid as well. It's a pretty normal thing.
Market (Score:2)
Workers are just exercising what the state of the market is.
Funny how it sucks when it goes the other way, eh?
Fed up workers tell fed up managers to get bent (Score:5, Interesting)
I personally know of a few places playing hardball and they are hemorrhaging like mad.
Zoom calls (Score:2)
I'll Be Using Biological Warfare (Score:2)
I've had gastric bypass surgery, and my remaining bowels have become a miasmal generator of cthonian proportions.
Between the friable glubberings and the unholy stench, I should be able to convince management that working from home is in all of our best interests.
Eric Schmidt (Score:5, Insightful)
Former Google CEO and chairman Eric Schmidt even recently weighed in about the return-to-work debate, saying that it's important people be at the office and he's happy the remote era seems to be ending.
Riiiight, because we should trust someone that, given how Google treats its customers/developers/users now and how he was 'adult supervision' while Google was 'growing up', was clearly a shitty 'parent'.
Okay, but I still have COVID. (Score:2)
Good luck with that. (Score:2)
We just poured a few million into a complete infrastructure overhaul including -- and spotlighting -- VDI expressly for remote work.
Always ask yourself, with these articles:
1. Which magazine / website? What is that publications usual tilt / agenda / spin?
2. With "studies" and "surveys" -- who paid for them? What is their vested interest? This one was ran by a background-check firm, that ostensibly has an interest in screening slaves for employment suitability. Of course they want workers back at the of
wrong title (Score:2)
should read "useless managers"
If people don't go back (Score:3)
the managers are not needed anymore.
success! (Score:4, Funny)
Because I am an incompetent manager and can't adapt with the times...
I think ALL of you should have to come back to the office so I can show up to your cubicle and ask you stupid questions.
I only GET CREDIT for management if I have people around me so I can hinder project progress in "real time".
I can't CONTROL people properly when they are at home.
We even tried monitoring their web cams....but they didn't like that either...
I just don't understand these modern workers who want to "finish" and get back to their families and personal interests.
Won't someone PLEASE think of the shareholders!
Semi-flexible options (Score:2)
While I wish my employer would allow a full-time WFH solution, I'm grateful they've moved to a partial-WFH solution that is flexible. Each division's manager is able to set their own policy, and mine had stipulated 2 days per week in the office. 3 days WFH is nice enough and seems a good compromise. I can definitely tell that I'm more interrupted and therefore less personally productive when in the office. Whereas at home I'm only interrupted when it is work-related and typically for as short a time as
Just sell the buildings (Score:2)
Figure out how many employees WANT to come back to the office, and then consolidate your real-estate footprint accordingly. If you have 10 buildings and only enough people to fill 6 of them want to come back to the office, then you can let go of at least 3 buildings to keep a little excess capacity. Beancounters are happy as you're paying less in leases/property taxes, employees are happy, and everyone can STFU and focus on their jobs.
Have to protect the value (Score:3)
The Oscars are over (Score:2)
The seat fillers are currently available, but you might have to remember their names before you ask them to make your coffee. Points are awarded if you remember their dog's name as well.
Now I have an easy screen for Dickhead Managers (Score:2)
doubt it (Score:3)
Nobody's going back as long as your competitors want your employees.
Deming nailed it again (Score:3)
People whose jobs depend on meeting targets will probably meet targets; even if they have to destroy the enterprise to do it.
-- Deming
Re:Some jobs can be done ok at home (Score:4, Funny)
You way of life is fundamentally sinful. Your time is ending. These are your last desperate grasps at relevance.
Re:Some jobs can be done ok at home (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Old man yells at cloud.
Re: (Score:2)
I had a fried who used to work at a hotel. The cleaners were expected to clean a certain number of rooms each day (I don't remember the number, but let's say 10). One of the cleaners had other things she wanted to do so she cleaned very quickly - effectively, but quickly. Then when her 10 rooms were done, she tried to leave. But the manager would stop her. "It's only 1 PM, your shift lasts until 3, so
Benefits outweighed by downsides. (Score:2)
But most people - basement dwelling mushrooms aside - work better in a collaborative enviroment face to face.
There are some things I think that is true for, but I don't think that is true for technical work.
Any slight benefits that may be had from face to face work evaporite when the difficulties of living outside the home - lunches taken, commuting issues, stress from having to take care of home stuff at work.
You can regain 99% of those face to face benefits with occasional in-person meetings - like maybe
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Not sure if you are salty, ignorant, or one of the managers that this article is about. Why are you so opposed to people having happier working conditions? Happier workers means higher quality work, done on time. The last two years proved that if workers are ethical and responsible, there's no productivity drop to remote work, so either you are ignorant, manage workers that are not ethical and responsible, or you are an untrusting micro-managing asshat.
Which is it? Did you make bad hires, are you a bad
Re: (Score:2)
Probably all three.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some jobs can be done ok at home (Score:4, Informative)
There are jobs that are easier in person and those that aren't. Trading 1-2 hours of commute time for a better face-to-face experience may or may not be worth it. There's no broad yes or no answer.
For those jobs where WFH is more productive, it can be thought of as just another amenity, not all that different from providing 25-inch monitors and Aeron chairs. Now that means managers need to be trained on how to manage remote workers, e.g. look at output as opposed to time-in-seat, but if that's the sticker, then your problem is the managers.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic for the last part. The growth in per-worker productivity means individual workers are far more important to the company's bottom line than ever before. Back in the day you'd lose a few workers to an accident and can have the replacements working the next day. That's not true anymore. Many roles have become highly specialized and requires months if not years of experience to be effective, and some of those can only be acquired while working at your business. That's one of the reasons you see tons of unfilled positions at every company and long lists of requirements on recruitment ads that only a few people can realistically satisfy. They're looking for perfect replacements for experienced workers who left, and in some cases those simply don't exist.