Smartphone Maker Nothing Mandates Full-Time Office Return, Urges Dissenters To Quit (fortune.com) 158
Nothing, a British startup seeking to challenge Apple's smartphone dominance, is hauling its employees back to the office full-time in the quest for growth. From a report: In a lengthy email disparaging remote work, which had been a tenet of Nothing CEO Carl Pei's workplace policy since its creation four years ago, Pei explained why his 450 employees needed to come to the office five days a week. "Remote work is not compatible with a high ambition level plus high speed," Pei said in an email to staff, which he shared on LinkedIn.
Pei gave three reasons for the strict return-to-office mandate. First, he said, the logistics of developing a smartphone, where design, engineering, and manufacturing departments collaborate, weren't conducive to remote working. He added that creativity and innovation worked better in person, allowing the company to do more with fewer resources. Third, Pei said Nothing's ambitions to scale to become a "generation-defining company" wouldn't be achievable with remote work.
According to Pei's email, the new mandate will take effect in two months, and he intends to hold a town hall in London to answer employees' questions. In his email, the Nothing CEO also suggested that employees who could not commit to five days in the office look for other employment. "We know it's not the right type of setup for everybody, and that's okay. We should look for a mutual fit. You should find an environment where you thrive, and we need to find people who want to go the full mile with us in the decades ahead."
Pei gave three reasons for the strict return-to-office mandate. First, he said, the logistics of developing a smartphone, where design, engineering, and manufacturing departments collaborate, weren't conducive to remote working. He added that creativity and innovation worked better in person, allowing the company to do more with fewer resources. Third, Pei said Nothing's ambitions to scale to become a "generation-defining company" wouldn't be achievable with remote work.
According to Pei's email, the new mandate will take effect in two months, and he intends to hold a town hall in London to answer employees' questions. In his email, the Nothing CEO also suggested that employees who could not commit to five days in the office look for other employment. "We know it's not the right type of setup for everybody, and that's okay. We should look for a mutual fit. You should find an environment where you thrive, and we need to find people who want to go the full mile with us in the decades ahead."
Nothing is a good name (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Never heard of them, and sure as hell I won't be buying anything from them.
Exactly! Nothing is going to amount to nothing.
Just to clarify... (Score:2)
Re:Nothing is a good name (Score:5, Interesting)
This is mass layoff, and I suspect the five days in the office is such a culture shock they'll lose more than 50% of the staff within 12 months and they will not be re-hiring at the same salary, if they intend to refill the positions at all.
There's no evidence that in-office work has better results. The fact they were happy with it a few years ago is proof that it worked for them.
Nothing short of a reason to fire people, so using back to office policy change. They might have to cover relocation fees if people are based more than 40 miles away, which could be costly.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Right to work is about unions, and the ability to join a union workplace without joining the union. You may be thinking of at-will employment, where either employer or employee may terminate the relationship at any time for any reason (within certain legal bounds) or no reason at all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an interesting situation in the UK. Companies can decide to relocate and tell workers that they either come to the new office or are being made redundant (with full redundancy pay, of course). But the situation with WFH is more complicated.
Many of those employees didn't have WFH in their contracts, it was just something the company had to do due to COVID. Their contracts likely say 37.5 hours a the company office. There are more legal protections than just what the contract says though, and generally s
Re: (Score:2)
While it's not really part of the Polite Society picture I have of Brits in general,...
I agree about that in general, but having worked for a UK company, this fits exactly. Top down, damn the torpedos lead by donkeys.
I'll never work for a UK based company again, but I like visiting & have friends in the UK.
mass layoff (Score:2)
Not a mass layoff... more like constructive dismissal.
Re: (Score:2)
If this is in England, that might depend on how long people have worked there and some other legal technicalities, but yes, handling this badly could be an extremely expensive mistake by the time they add up direct costs to existing employees who aren't happy and indirect costs of difficulty hiring good replacements.
Re: (Score:2)
This is mass layoff, and I suspect the five days in the office is such a culture shock they'll lose more than 50% of the staff within 12 months and they will not be re-hiring at the same salary, if they intend to refill the positions at all.
On the surface, I would agree.
But you’re not going to take on Apple to build that dominating product, with that attitude. Lose 50% of employees and then turn work into startup mode? You better be handing out a few billion in stock options to keep the other 50% you’re screwing over entertained enough to come to work and slave away understaffed.
There's no evidence that in-office work has better results.
No one cuts back to turn and burn in startup mode. My guess is they’re that financially unstable due to the recession no stock market wants to adm
Re: Nothing is a good name (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence that in-office work has better results. The fact they were happy with it a few years ago is proof that it worked for them.
You are looking for proof and logic where none exists - in the eyes of a CEO. Running a company is a bit like designing a mobile phone interface. You chase the trend of the day. Oh we're working from home, it's the "new normal". Oh everyone is laying staff off, we just made a profit but ... time to "get leaner". Oh people are coming back to the office, quick let's host a townhall and tell our staff the what is old is new again. Oh we need to "go green", nah we need to "chase profits instead". We need to be
Re: (Score:2)
This is mass layoff, and I suspect the five days in the office is such a culture shock they'll lose more than 50% of the staff within 12 months and they will not be re-hiring at the same salary, if they intend to refill the positions at all.
There's no evidence that in-office work has better results. The fact they were happy with it a few years ago is proof that it worked for them.
Nothing short of a reason to fire people, so using back to office policy change. They might have to cover relocation fees if people are based more than 40 miles away, which could be costly.
This. Except in the UK you cant just fire people for no reason because we have rights.
So it's a layoff in all but name, they're making jobs so onerous and difficult that people will want to find a new job. The only problem with this strategy, which I'm sure the C-Levels with their heads up their P&L statements will see as a benefit, is that the good staff will leave, the bad staff will stay on and suffer through it because they know they can't get a better job. Productivity and customer service suffe
Re: (Score:2)
> This is mass layoff,
The great thing here is, anyone that leaves to get a new job gets to:
1) Take their time, do it on their own ter
Re: (Score:2)
This is mass layoff
I agree that appears to be part of the strategy, while my sense is that another part is demonstrating to investors / possible investors that *This Time Everything is Different and We are Really Trying for Reals* so give us money.
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to do the interviews? This type of sweeping statement could lead t >50% exodus within 90 days. It'll be blind leading blind
The phone is a flipping communication device so you don't have to be in person.
Re: (Score:2)
Never heard of them, and sure as hell I won't be buying anything from them.
For pretty much everyone here - this statement was probably gonna be true regardless of this news item.
Re: (Score:2)
I see what you did there...
What will this achieve? (Score:2)
The answer is in their name.
Asian Culture-infused (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's a cultural thing.
He can't conceive remote work as having any advantages whatsoever.
I'm not saying this to diss him in any way, I merely state facts.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It's a cultural thing.
He can't conceive remote work as having any advantages whatsoever.
I'm not saying this to diss him in any way, I merely state facts.
I work with some guys that used to work for Hyundai's North American branch. They tell me that their attitude was "If we can't see you at the office or factory, then you're not really working". Remote work is not a thing in East Asia.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been 100% remote work for more than 10 years and I have co-workers in Taiwan, China, and South Korea who all work from home 100%.
Of course not all jobs are remote, some require you do to stuff with physical things or act as physical support staff for people, so the mail clerk is still on site. The lab is still on site, but since I
Re: (Score:2)
I've been 100% remote work for more than 10 years and I have co-workers in Taiwan, China, and South Korea who all work from home 100%.
Well apparently they don't work for Hyundai, because I've had several people that worked there tell me that they don't allow remote work, not just the couple of guys I work with. Maybe that's just Hyundai's corporate culture, then.
Re: Asian Culture-infused (Score:3)
That's so dumb. I WFH four days/week now and I get MORE done on those days because I don't poop out early due to the effects of commute fatigue. As it turns out, driving for half an hour among a bunch of dumb shits is stressful.
Re: (Score:2)
That's so dumb. I WFH four days/week now and I get MORE done on those days because I don't poop out early due to the effects of commute fatigue. As it turns out, driving for half an hour among a bunch of dumb shits is stressful.
We used to do it some, post-'rona, but what killed remote at my place were the workers complaining that since they had to be onsite, it was unfair to allow others to do it regularly. And so unless there's illness or an emergency involved, regularly letting the troops WFH is now verboten. And that seems to be the general climate in the whole area (obviously, I'm not in Silicon Valley).
Re: (Score:2)
unless your 90 years old this is such a weak argument. you get sweepy fwom da journey?? diddums
You're not even aware of how bad your performance is at your best, you think anyone trusts you to be aware of how much it suffers due to commuting?
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? Elon Musk feels the same way, as do a bunch of other Non East Asians.. Recalibrate your pattern recognition system to cross-check for racial bias.
References:
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/1... [cnbc.com]
https://fortune.com/2024/08/14... [fortune.com]
https://inews.co.uk/inews-life... [inews.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
There are different reasons for this behavior:
- Being an asshole
- Being culturally-affected
- Both
Not everyone falls under option 3.
A theory (Score:3)
Nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Hi, remote worker here. I've been a highly productive remote worker since 2012 for numerous companies, most of which are startups - where I'm able to actually succeed at my own pace instead of being held back by office politics.
First, he said, the logistics of developing a smartphone, where design, engineering, and manufacturing departments collaborate, weren't conducive to remote working. ... what you mean to say here is that you've got poor communication channels, a lack of clear ownership/responsibility, no coordination, and collaboration is very ad hoc. Your security is undoubtedly absolute shit. This is not a strength of in-office work, it's a failure of/lack of architectural planning and systems management. There are systems which do these things for you, and if you hired competent people to do your engineering support, you'd have them tell you this.
10-1 odds they run everything "in the cloud" or on systems under desks in the office, and nobody is managing the company network.
There is nothing special or new about smartphones where you can just "agile" things to work. That's not "agile", like so many developers seem to think, it's a lack of planning, laziness and poor software development hygiene. Your product will suck.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
I've always worked operations or in the guts of R&D so I don't really know a whole lot about that.
Those roles tend to need a lot of touch points with a large number of people. IME they're usually quite busy, and not "part time" unless the company is really small.
one-size-doesn't-fit-all (Score:5, Insightful)
Hi, remote worker here. I've been a highly productive remote worker since 2012 for numerous companies, most of which are startups - where I'm able to actually succeed at my own pace instead of being held back by office politics.
That's good an all, but you're not him and you don't work for them. I've been a remote worker even longer than you have, nearly twice as long full-time remote. I have spent years working for bosses I've never met in person. I worked for one lady for 10 years before I figured out she was black (when I found her on LinkedIn). Dead serious!
The pandemic has taught me that some are good at remote work and many aren't. Some businesses are fine remote, some aren't. I honestly preferred working in the office, but my coworkers didn't, so I am still full-time-remote now. Our pace and productivity didn't improve with a distributed remote team. I can't prove it suffered...so let's assume it was a lateral move.
I generally think working in an office significantly helps interpersonal relationships and morale and productivity...when the office env is done right and there definitely needs to be options for extended remote work. Everything that is bad about a company gets much worse when people are remote. Interpersonal tensions get much worse. Shitty employees get shittier. It also erases the notion of a company culture. You have a bunch of freelancers working whenever they want thinking they're special and doing what they've always done all their life instead of adapting to change and the needs of the moment. That may be enough for your role. For mine?...it causes our product to suffer. I have a lot of awesome skills built up over decades....but....sometimes what is needed at the moment is not my decades of programming experience in popular languages, but some unconventional problem solving or mastery of the specific domain or environment...so in that sense, it requires a lot of information, a lot of context, and a lot of knowledge that is not clearly written down somewhere. When I am just "writing code"...sure, I am probably a little better remote...I have a nice env, comfy chair, and really good coffee....but sometimes the company doesn't need a really good coder, but someone who is really immersed in an env with 20 teams orchestrating a giant product...and that's when I miss being in the office. It was much easier to understand the comprehensive picture when I could walk over to the next team's desk or was having lunch with people from other teams daily...or just running into them in the coffee room.
I think your mistake is assuming your situation is applicable to all. It's not. What is perfect for you, is stagnation for us. What is perfect for us, might suck for you and someone else. This guy has stated he needs people on-site. That's his call to make. If it's a stupid call, people will vote with their feet and go get a remote job for a better employer. That's competition and an open market at work and a good thing. Sometimes companies need to make missteps and fail....but I think for this situation, it's best to let them run it how they see fit and be glad your employer is a better fit for your needs.
Also, consider the person. You and I are great remotely, but we both know people who are just fine in an office env, but could never be trusted remotely. There's nothing really wrong with either. IMHO...different strokes for different folks.
Re: (Score:2)
It also erases the notion of a company culture.
For many large company, that's a huge advantage of working from home.
You no longer have to give a shit about "brown bag sessions" and all that crap.
Re: (Score:3)
You pretty much hit the nail on the head on all points. The one item that is never brought up is for engineering, the mentorship that the young engineers are not able to benefit from...and which is quite important. I have a real bad feeling that there will be a whole generation of engineers that are simply lacking in key areas such as people management and figuring out how to "read the room".
Re: (Score:2)
Those are not the issues though. If a company wants to be full-time WFH and hire the people who like that environment, that's fine. If a company wants to be full-time in-office and hire the people who like that environment, that's fine. If a company wants to be a FT/WFH hybrid and hire the people who like that environment, that's fine.
The thing that makes people like Pei so despicable and contemptible, the thing that is absolutely NOT fine, is that they did/do not simply hire the people who preferred ful
Nunh-uh. Nope. Nooooo. Nah. (Score:2)
"Nothing, a British startup seeking to challenge Apple's smartphone dominance"
Nope. It is unlikely that will happen. That is what we call a low-probability event. This nimrod is gonna blame remote work for his failure, though.
Noticing a pattern of irony developing. (Score:2)
what about all my 5200 cartridges? (Score:2)
> has the ability to play first and third-party cartridges for the Atari 2600 and 7800
Somewhere I've got 50+ carts for the Atari 5200. I guess I won't be reliving my youth on this thing.
Re: (Score:2)
whoops, commented in wrong tab. ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
See what happens when you work from home?
Nope (Score:2)
All the employees should leave and form a new company named "Nope".
What changed? (Score:2)
which had been a tenet of Nothing CEO Carl Pei's workplace policy since its creation four years ago
So, this was a long-standing core of your operating philosophy and suddenly you're doing a 180. What changed? I don't have a problem with trying something and discovering it didn't work and changing course. What I have a problem with is this sudden reversal for seemingly stupid reasons. He could have just said "We were wrong about remote work and here's why..." but instead he trotted out the same old hack exc
Re: (Score:2)
What changed?
Monies dried up.
He can't get more funding from VCs or whatever unless he proves the company is taking drastic measures.
Fast forward to the office (Score:2)
and everyone is seated at desks and having video meetings.
Well, half right? (Score:2)
Third, Pei said Nothing's ambitions to scale to become a "generation-defining company" wouldn't be achievable with remote work.
It won't be achievable with in-person work, either, but it also won't be achievable with remote work. :-)
Don't worry. I'm sure the number of people who resign over this will be large enough to hit their layoff target.
Re: Well, half right? (Score:2)
I fee like not compliance is better because in many jurisdictions you can still claim unemployment benfits. Severence is also easier to negotiate if they want you to sign stuff on your way out.
Re: (Score:2)
I fee like not compliance is better because in many jurisdictions you can still claim unemployment benfits. Severence is also easier to negotiate if they want you to sign stuff on your way out.
Clearly it's better for the workers. The point was that these sorts of decisions tend to be an approach that management in failing companies uses to encourage workers to get fed up and leave so that they don't have to lay people off and pay severance and unemployment.
This guy is an ass (Score:3)
Not only does he want his employees to return to the office, the office is in central London, meaning that his employees will either have to very wealthy or endure an expensive and time-consuming commute.
An office in Central London is fine if the employees are all WFH, but then expecting them to commute to one of the most expensive parts of the UK is just adding insult to injury.
Contrast this expensive location with where their customers are: India!
if the products any good (Score:5, Funny)
Force Reduction Plan (Score:2)
Offshore vs. WFH (Score:3)
Nothing has *three* offices in India.
Workers in India are remote. They're in a wildly different time zone. Scheduling online meetings is a major hassle; scheduling in-person meetings is impossible. So why are companies increasingly moving to offshore positions, while prohibiting WFH???
Re: (Score:2)
>Workers in India are remote. They're in a wildly different time zone.
Breaking with tradition, I occasionally provide tech support to India and the Philippines from Canada for remote workers.
I feel sorry for them, because they work on Eastern time. Eternal night shift so they can get some Canadian dollars sent to their bank accounts. But scheduling appointments with them is not difficult at all.
Constructive dismissal? (Score:2)
Could this be considered constructive dismissal in the UK?
Make them fire you (Score:2)
Almost all of these RTO policies are a C-suite trying to have layoffs without paying severance or bad press. If this happens to you simply continue the exact schedule and quality of work and force them to fire you. Worst case, you can file for unemployment. Best case, they offer severance. Either way, fudge that noise.
Re: (Score:2)
Check with a lawyer familiar with labor law in your area before taking this advice.
Re: (Score:2)
Check with a lawyer familiar with labor law in your area before taking this advice.
Don't bother in the UK (where this company is). Employment law is pretty clear, if you do something to force them to fire you (I.E. managing out) then you have little recourse. You're better off doing the best job you can and making them find little things to get you on, keep all documentation between you, your boss and HR (make sure you copy it offsite or have hardcopies), no phone or in person conversations, insist on everything in writing and then you might have a chance at a wrongful dismissal suit.
I
code (Score:2)
"We know it's not the right type of setup for everybody, and that's okay. We should look for a mutual fit. You should find an environment where you thrive, and we need to find people who want to go the full mile with us in the decades ahead."
This is code for: "We do not offer competitive pay."
Forget your style of working... (Score:2)
... this is to accomplish two things: justification of their real estate holdings and committing wage theft. That's it.
Empty offices and their equipment cannot be counted in expenses, and therefore worked into how they underpay taxes, unless they are being credibly used.
If you are physically there, they can strong-arm you into staying longer than the eight hours you've contracted with them to work. Please cast all of your salary-justifies-wage-theft commentary to the ocean.
--#
generation-defining company - LOL! (Score:2)
You know what people will remember about this company in a decade?
Their name.
Re: (Score:2)
A decade? I dont even remember it from the summary up top.
The song... (Score:2)
The song is very prescient https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Blimey. I guess Pei in the face is not humble pie, but remotely crow.
JoshK.
Sure, here's my offer (Score:2)
People who are willing to deal with a commute and and physically be in an office (with all the shit that that entails) should be paid more for the hassle, stress, and extra expense they have to endure. The price of everything is going up, and that includes the cost of labor.
Plus, if they're really willing to step up and be willing to "go the full mile" then shouldn't they be paid more?
They're already nothing. (Score:2)
Stupid, but honest (Score:2)
Or... (Score:2)
... employees should first look at their employment contracts, or talk to a lawyer to see if such egregious changes to their working conditions amount to unfair dismissal. And even if they don't and they are compelled to work in the office, then I suggest working exactly the number of contracted hours and not a single second more. After all, if this company is going to force people to waste hours getting in and out of work, plus additional costs & inconvenience they certainly don't deserve it.
The response to quiet firing (Score:2)
The response to quiet firing is quiet quitting.
Re: (Score:2)
> But two months of lead time seems generous,
No, it's not.
In the EU it's the standard notice period (I bet the UK is similar). You can bet the firings will start coming in next week, so that in 2 months they will be "on-site only".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand, but:
This policy will come in force in two months. Hand in your notice now, in 2 months you're gone.
> employees who could not commit to five days in the office
This is the main point: what will commitment look like? A new contract next week? You don't sign it you get a notice?
The "nice" way to do this is : we enforce this in 4 months, if you don't like it, here's 4 month's pay, and go away.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
ofc I'm looking at it from my perspective, where work from home was enacted contractually, and the contracts are still valid while management is trying to get us in the office. We're all very grumpy now.
Also from experience, where my employer once did a major strategic shift, and precisely such a program was enacted: if you don't like it, here's 6 month's pay, and go away. ofc it was mainly a layoff program, where many people weren't laid off per se, but persuaded to take the deal. It was also probably a wa
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> But again, under no circumstance would the employer pay for time where the employee is not working. What would be the basis of that?
That differs country from country, in most civilized countries, when you're laid off, you're entitled to severance pay, sometimes even tied to the amount of time the employee was employed by the company. Case in point: an ex-colleague got 20 months severance pay during restructuring.
My point is: this is a major policy shift, and could be interpreted as firing without good
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> the employee has to work while receiving the severance pay.
yes & no : has to work for the notice period, unless differently agreed to by both parties), and the severance pay is granted as a one time payment. So this guy had to work for a month, for which he got a normal salary, and then upon ending his contract got 20 salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless their contracts stipulate work-from-home as a right, why should the employer have to do that?
Because employment contracts here can and often do have implied terms based on custom and practice, those terms can be enforceable, and attempts to unilaterally change them in significant ways can constitute a breach of contract.
Arguing that WFH is just a COVID thing if it's been the norm at a company for 4+ years now and we've been free of everyday restrictions due to COVID for a couple of those years is a stretch that I suspect is not going to hold up for long when seriously challenged at a tribunal. The
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Custom or not the employer can decide how they want the work performed.
Under our employment laws, an employer can't unilaterally alter the fundamental nature of the employment relationship, which takes into account custom and practice. Of course they can decide the work needs to be done a different way, and that might result in some of their current employees becoming redundant, but they still have to provide the usual support for affected employees in that case. They don't just get to make a big change that effectively forces people who lose out as a result to quit without pr
Re: (Score:2)
"I Am Altering the Deal, Pray I Don’t Alter It Any Further."
-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Custom or not the employer can decide how they want the work performed.
So the employer can add a new custom to "commute 2 hours a day/move cities/uproot family"?
The employee also cant argue if the employer decides that now they have to use a mac instead of a PC
Somehow, "Mac versus PC" doesn't quite have consequences similar to above.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arguing that WFH is a norm when there are hundreds of years of history for work being done at a workplace is a stretch.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is what is normal for that employment relationship. Unless you've been working for the same employer for hundreds of years, your argument is irrelevant in law.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless their contracts stipulate work-from-home as a right, why should the employer have to do that?
Rephrase that:
Unless the employer's contract stipulate work-from-office as a right, why should the employees have to do that?
The very first thing that the employees should do is unionize and strike.
Re: Sounds reasonable (Score:2)
Mod parent up, this Troll mod is embarrassing
Re: (Score:2)
No. It's not reasonable. Reasonable would be simply recruiting and hiring people who prefer full-time in-office work in the first place. Pulling a bait-and-switch by luring in people who prefer WFH or hybrid and then reneging on the agreed-upon deal is absolutely not reasonable and IS the mark of an authoritarian bastard.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm inclined to agree that an employer has a right to decide whether their work place is remote or in person, subject to local laws and whatever contract if any employees are working under.
But having a *right* to do it doesn't make it a good idea. Even if you realize you would have been better off if you'd been 100% in person from the start, changing from remote to in-person won't put you in the same place, because it's a change and change in itself is disruptive. They're going to lose people key to what t
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, that belief is fiction. There has not been some power-to-the-worker shift in our world. The need for an income outweighs comfort preferences and philosophical positions. There will be no country-wide unified stand against office work. People will be pulled back to the office because those in power prefer it that way. Any discussion about what works better or (as I have put forth in some of my own posts) solid data about what works better is irrelevant, because none of it will convince employers
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's the quiet quitting as well, and it's way more dangerous for a company. It's like bread mould: by the time you start to see it, the whole thing is compromised, because the root system already infected everything and only then it starts to show.
I encounter situations daily which might negatively be affected by quiet quitting, and I do have one quiet quitter in my team. Totally silent during the meetings, never answers indirect questions such as "does anyone have feedback on this?" (and always answers
Re: (Score:2)
Odds are the smart ones want to get the eff out of the UK anyway.
Their WFH arrangement probably kept them working for Nothing.
From what I can tell it's just an Android with lights on the back? Wow - only for the caseles.
The CEO just let them know they have to risk bodily injury to keep their job by venturing into London.
"Nope. Nope. Nope."
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have any solid performance metrics to back up your belief that all or nearly-all of the remote workers were doing 1/4 of their prior work?
Or are you just sticking to your forgone conclusions?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you have any solid performance metrics to back up your belief
Yep. We use two good metrics. We have a case management system showing how many cases they've closed and how many hours they've logged to any case. We also have a VCS for our code and we look at how many lines of actual code they check in (plus a developer reviews all our commits to make sure nobody is committing BS to get credit since people have tried that already).
In both cases the remote people have pathetic metrics and despite saying they will bring them up, haven't brought them up. The bosses are p
Re:I wonder how that changes... (Score:5, Interesting)
That's really interesting. I mean, there IS an argument to be made about how lines-of-code is quite a bad productivity metric, but assuming that what you say is true (that the metrics are "pathetic" by comparison) then probably this isn't a case of all the remote people just coding smarter.
So, that looks to me like a terrible failure of management. Clearly they have hired coders that don't actually like to code, have failed to motivate them to complete projects, and have failed to discipline them for under performing. Where I work, when a developer's peers notice that a developer isn't completing tasks in a reasonable amount of time, they take that straight to the manager who then lets them go (they don't like watching their team velocity drop, after all). This has worked really well for us, as the checkins and throughput we have seen have stayed as high as they were before the pandemic.
So, that's what I am trying to square in my mind. I have seen direct evidence that working from home boosts productivity on my teams, and we had easy detection and swift response to the few people who tried to take advantage. But it sounds like your experience has been the exact opposite.
I wonder what is so different about your environment that things went so badly. It's gotta be poor management who can't adapt to managing remote. Either that or the job is really soul-sucking in your case. Maybe both.
As an aside, on our teams, the parents have remained top tier workers. Their online hours bounce around but they get it all done. It's almost as if they are motivated to keep their jobs.
Re: (Score:2)
Where I work, when a developer's peers notice that a developer isn't completing tasks in a reasonable amount of time, they take that straight to the manager who then lets them go (they don't like watching their team velocity drop, after all).
This only works in environments where you generally can get backfill hires for people you let go. Otherwise managers would often rather have an underperforming developer than none at all.
Re:I wonder how that changes... (Score:5, Informative)
The outcome? "You only worked on one issue and only added a few lines of code. Bad review for you this quarter."
I complained that this was not reflective of the importance and achievement of the work. The answer? "It is what it is."
I told them much the same thing four weeks later, when I gave notice and resigned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've increased remote working in my area (UK IT departments in Manufacturing) at my last three companies and it's been fantastic. We get far more capable candidates, less issues with retention, and demonstratably higher performance. Yes there are some people who don't perform when working remot
Re: (Score:2)
So why is your problem remote work and not poor performing employees, and why haven't you done something about it if you have such clear performance metrics that you believe accurately demonstrate underperformance?
We have. We coorelated whining W@H workers to poor performance and fired them.
Re: Last ditch effort (Score:2)