More Return-to-Office Crackdowns, with 61.7% of Employees Now in Office Full-Time (msn.com) 66
Paramount and Comcast's NBCUniversal are joining Microsoft in telling employees "they could face consequences if they don't return to the office more frequently," reports the Washington Post:
NBCUniversal sent a memo to its employees telling them to return to the office four days a week starting in January [with the option to work remotely on Fridays]. Last week, Paramount told employees to return five days a week, with the first group starting in January. Both Paramount and NBCUniversal said they would offer severance packages to eligible employees who are unwilling or unable to make the switch... Companies have been cracking down on flexible work for the past several years, with Goldman Sachs being one of the first to implement a five-day office policy. Since then, others have joined in including Amazon, AT&T, JPMorgan Chase and the federal government...
Overall, the number of people working full time in office hasn't changed much over the past couple of years. About 61.7 percent of salaried employees worked from an office full time in August, according to data from university researchers Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom and Steven J. Davis, who are studying the matter. That is down one percentage point from August 2024, their research shows. During the same period, the amount of people working remotely dropped two percentage points and those working hybrid schedules increased three points.
While most of the big office pushes are coming from some of the largest employers in the nation, the majority of companies in the United States aren't requiring full-time office work, said Brian Elliott [publisher of the Flex Index, which tracks flexible policies, and CEO]. And about half of U.S. workers are employed by smaller companies, he added. Some companies are capitalizing on the mandates, using flexible policies as a way to poach talent from their competitors, he said....
Some employers are using office mandates to purposely shed workers. An August report from the Federal Reserve Bank shows that "multiple districts reported reducing headcounts through attrition — encouraged, at times, by return-to-office policies and facilitated, at times, by greater automation, including new AI tools." Still, with fewer job openings in the market, some employees will have to comply with office mandates.
Announcing their return-to-office mandates, employers gave the following reasons:
Overall, the number of people working full time in office hasn't changed much over the past couple of years. About 61.7 percent of salaried employees worked from an office full time in August, according to data from university researchers Jose Maria Barrero, Nicholas Bloom and Steven J. Davis, who are studying the matter. That is down one percentage point from August 2024, their research shows. During the same period, the amount of people working remotely dropped two percentage points and those working hybrid schedules increased three points.
While most of the big office pushes are coming from some of the largest employers in the nation, the majority of companies in the United States aren't requiring full-time office work, said Brian Elliott [publisher of the Flex Index, which tracks flexible policies, and CEO]. And about half of U.S. workers are employed by smaller companies, he added. Some companies are capitalizing on the mandates, using flexible policies as a way to poach talent from their competitors, he said....
Some employers are using office mandates to purposely shed workers. An August report from the Federal Reserve Bank shows that "multiple districts reported reducing headcounts through attrition — encouraged, at times, by return-to-office policies and facilitated, at times, by greater automation, including new AI tools." Still, with fewer job openings in the market, some employees will have to comply with office mandates.
Announcing their return-to-office mandates, employers gave the following reasons:
- "In-person collaboration is absolutely vital to building and strengthening our culture and driving the success of our business. Being together helps us innovate, solve problems, share ideas, create, challenge one another, and build the relationships that will make this company great."
-- Paramount CEO David Ellison (in a memo to staff)
- "It has become increasingly clear that we are better when we are together. As we have all experienced, in-person work and collaboration spark innovation, promote creativity, and build stronger connections."
-- Adam Miller, NBCUniversal chief operating officer (in a memo to staff)
Studies show people work less hours WFH (Score:5, Funny)
Internal data and other sources such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed workers averaged 2.6 hours less [fortune.com] than their in office counterparts. AAA touted WFH as the great savior of new talent until their spyware revealed people logged in less than 4 hours a day. Now it is BUTS IN SEATS after the CEO saw this.
Microsoft said they would continue their WFH and hybrid policy unless there was a drop in productivity. I guess part of their new collaboration aka PHB term for micro managing people to track attandance, potty time, and phone use, is now all the rage.
Part of me is so angry. A few bad apples blew it! I work in IT like many ./'ers and met people who worked multiple jobs in secret and weren't available in Teams until like after 11am.
The data now vs 2020 is polar opposite and people took advantage of it. Now I have to commute and waste 30 hours a month driving and tearing up my expensive car so I can be watched at work like I am 12 because people lack accountability and self discipline. I am also dissapointed as I thought society would evolve in a new era as the office was an outdated 19th/20th century concept. Oh well.
Re:Studies show people work less hours WFH (Score:5, Insightful)
Apples and oranges.
These studies measured time in-office as 100% work. Anybody who has worked in-office knows that the percent of actual work time is far less than the amount of time you are present in the office. THAT is the number that should be compared to people's WFH hours. I'm pretty sure that actual in-office work hours are about 2.6 hours less than the time they are present in the office.
Also, if you're a manager of a remote team, and you can't tell who's working, you aren't paying attention. (For that matter, if you're in office, and you can't tell who's working, you aren't paying attention.)
Re:Studies show people work less hours WFH (Score:4, Informative)
Never mind the raw productivity increases from not spending 2 hours a day driving back and forth from the office.
Re: (Score:2)
For most companies, the goal of effective middle management is to get promoted, and backstab your coworkers. You do that by making your underlings less efficient so you can hire more of them.
Re: (Score:2)
The problems of studying productivity from home are the same as those of measuring it at work. Neither side does a good job - nor can they. People are far too diverse and crafty.
Re: (Score:2)
I like WFH, but I also know how much I fucked off when everyone had to do WFH. Maybe it's not all that different from the amount of "fucking off" time in the office when all things are considered. There wasn't any drop of work accomplis
Re:Studies show people work less hours WFH (Score:5, Insightful)
We went 2 years working from home, did the same work, hit the same deadlines, delivered the same products. If they're measuring a decline in productivity WFH vs. WFW, they're clearly making a mistake.
Re:Studies show people work less hours WFH (Score:5, Insightful)
We went 2 years working from home, did the same work, hit the same deadlines, delivered the same products. If they're measuring a decline in productivity WFH vs. WFW, they're clearly making a mistake.
What they experienced is the decline in boot-licking and ass-kissing that management enjoyed as a perk in the office. Or the sexual harassment that some managers do in office. WFH deprived those managers of their joy, hence, back to offices!
Actual work? No one cares about actual work. Finishing your work earlier in the office just means you get to waste the remaining office hours.
Re: (Score:1)
Who can't they just come out and say "We want to run experiments on you, and it's a logistical nightmare if you're not physically present so we require you to be in the office several days per week to receive your next dose" ?
Re: (Score:1)
Who -> Why
Re: (Score:2)
It's not about experiments. It's about money. It's always about money.
The big bosses spent insane amounts of money on office space, and they don't want to look like they spent all that money for nothing. The big bosses also like those big corner offices, and they can't show off their digs if nobody is around to see it.
Re: (Score:1)
Noone's that stupid - gotta be experiments involved - also, selling your staff into drug-testing programs without their knowledge probably pays well :-)
The alternative - that bosses just don't trust their staff - that they themselves hired, or honestly believe that jamming everyone into a box where every single anecdote about upcoming/recent weekend exploits or yelling at some guy who broke your letterbox to ensure everyone knows you're the alpha dog, prevents everyone working so there's zero productivity i
Re: (Score:2)
You really *are* out there, aren't you! Are you an RFK supporter?
I don't know how a company would conduct a drug-testing program without employees' knowledge, since generally you have to take a pill, or receive an injection, to be part of a drug test. That's not something that happens at places of employment.
If you don't think bosses crave those corner offices, you haven't worked in corporate America.
They often certainly don't trust their people, that's a real thing, probably because they know how they them
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get me wrong, I myself have not "worked from home" ever unless when forced to, and I do see advantages of people working together in one place. But arguing with statistics on mere time spent on the job is ridiculous, especially when it is so obvious like now that these "return to office" mandates are just meant to get rid of headcount.
The honest thing to do would be evaluating people by results delivere
Re: (Score:3)
I could see if I were a CEO or leadership and saw this over a large sample set I would freak out and implement a RTO. I would realize it is true that clocking in and clocking out may work great on an assembly line a century ago in a factory and people clocking in 15 minutes would hit numbers FAST, however I can't have people logging in only 4 to 5 hours a day.
We have spyware at my employer in which I HATE so my boss let me know when he caught me tired using my phone to log into teams and it was 8am and not
Re: (Score:1)
yeah, as if any work had ever been done on meetings.
Re: (Score:1)
C'mon man, don't be misogynist.
You know it takes a woman 45 minutes to do her beauty routine before coming to the office.
Do you *really* want to see Karen from Accounts without her warpaint?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Studies show people work less hours W (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We had unions once... And the rank and file bought into "Without a union, YOU can make more. Maybe not Marvin next to you, but he's a tool, right?"
Until we can get over "I'm better than Marvin", unions are virtually dead. Simple "collective action" (lookin' at you google heads) isn't enough. Being in a union means maintaining solidarity no matter what; Not just when it's convenient.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to hear from ya Elon
I did apply myself. I have retired.
I know who the tools are
Re: (Score:2)
The union helped make a more sane working environment
The union made it so that when I worked more than 8 hours in a day, more than 5 days in a week, I was paid for it (when I worked in non-union jobs, a 12-hour day for the same pay was NOT uncommon)
The union made rules that kept management abuse to a minimum (faster! your metrics are too low... I did the math and my metrics were fine. They were cheating and no one to call them on it.)
Who says I retired early? If you did, good on you. I worked for 46 yea
Re: (Score:2)
Part of me is so angry. A few bad apples blew it! I work in IT like many ./'ers and met people who worked multiple jobs in secret and weren't available in Teams until like after 11am.
The data now vs 2020 is polar opposite and people took advantage of it. Now I have to commute and waste 30 hours a month driving and tearing up my expensive car so I can be watched at work like I am 12 because people lack accountability and self discipline. I am also dissapointed as I thought society would evolve in a new era as the office was an outdated 19th/20th century concept. Oh well.
It is hard to imagine any other outcome though. There are three groups that like WFH. First is people who can work largely unsupervised. The second is people who will abuse the system by taking on multiple unsupervised jobs, and the third is people who want to do as little as possible.
It is simply too easy to cheat with WFH when applied to large numbers of people. I do half of my work from home. But since the half I have to do on site shows that I did the work, there is no question that I did the work as
I don't understand (Score:1)
I'm a huge fan of WFH and don't have much good to say about RTO.
But what I don't understand is this whole business about ignoring work attendance policies and simply not being fired, just like what would happen if you if flat out defied other major employer policies, and expecting to get away with it, or allowing employees to get away with flat out defiance.
Fire the motherfuckers. What's the hold up? If all the big employers had any balls and stuck to their guns, people would fall in line rather quickly. Su
Re: (Score:2)
Most managers do not like firing people, both for personal reasons, because firings can be demoralizing to a team, and because the cost to train a new employee can be large. Its both the policy at most companies and generally good practice to find a way to fix problems, not just fire people.
Re: I don't understand (Score:3)
How will you enforce this short of installing spyware on PCs which companies are doing in increasing numbers ...the ones using that to justify RTO. Remember people can use mouse jugglers and just use their USB ports like the ones caught at Wells Fargo.
Also, real estate values. Many renewals have butts in seats requirements as the landlords feel left out not collecting at the deli in the basement and parking lots. So it's 5 days a week to make the one landlord richer
Re: (Score:3)
I'd enforce it fundamentally with things like:
1). Are you reachable when you are supposed to be?
2). Are you fulfilling your work commitments?
2.5). Is your output similar to employees with similar assignments?
3). Are you attending required meetings?
4). Are you constantly giving excuses about *WHATEVER*?
5). Are your peers complaining about you?
6). Are you simultaneously employed elsewhere?
These are not hard things to monitor.
Other than point 5, and maybe point 6, I don't think they are particularly controvers
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, absolutely. I've worked for those shitty managers. No longer than I had to while looking for another job, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Me?
What are you taking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. So the solution is to not have RTO, which I promote.
I guess what I am objecting to is having the policy and it enforcing it rigorously. All that does is cause problems.
Either have a policy and enforce it, or don't have the policy at all.
Re: (Score:2)
That should have read, "..and NOT enforcing it..."
Re: (Score:1)
I think the problem is that it's 7am and people are walking up to the fact that they're being exploited for no benefit to anyone so the challenge is:
Fire someone for not doing the stupid shit I'm asking them to and then go through the hassle of finding someone who is (a) half way rational but (b) not too rational so they'll do the stupid shit I ask at the time and place I demand - all for shitty pay.
It's tricky. Employers have it way harder than employees that's why they deserve to get punked :-)
Huge productivity increase next quarter (Score:2)
I mean if we don't see some kind of positive benefit to the return to work mandates, why should businesses bother with them?
Re:Huge productivity increase next quarter (Score:4, Insightful)
Study shows Narcissistic bosses drive RTO (Score:1)
Why even write (Score:2)
"In-person collaboration is absolutely vital to building and strengthening our culture and driving the success of our business. Being together helps us innovate, solve problems, share ideas, create, challenge one another, and build the relationships that will make this company great."
They've been fine working from home since COVID, for years, and now somehow it's absolutely vital?
If you're going to use such transparent lies, you're better off using ChatGPT. The output will be more coherent.
Re:Why even write (Score:4, Insightful)
"In-person collaboration is absolutely vital to building and strengthening our culture and driving the success of our business. Being together helps us innovate, solve problems, share ideas, create, challenge one another, and build the relationships that will make this company great."
They've been fine working from home since COVID, for years, and now somehow it's absolutely vital?
It is absolutely vital that collaboration of a quality seemingly not achievable when remote occur in their companies. Of course, this ideal never happened in these companies before COVID, hasn't happened since RTO, and seldom happens anywhere. But it is vital that employee happiness not interfere with this hypothetical possibility.
Re:Why even write (Score:4, Informative)
How my RTO would allow collaboration if I am in a global team from 4 different countries?
From my country there are 5 guys, only 2 of them are in the same city.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why even write (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everybody has been fine during COVID. I've been in the industry since 1992. I led software development teams/projects from 2015-2024, and in my experience productivity, creativity, and cooperative solutioning all suffered during COVID and afterwards, and have not yet recovered.
If your job is to just be "the guy", with no external dependencies, and you do the IT equivalent of stamping out widgets every day, then sure. I'll agree you can be just as productive as you were before. But the moment your work depends on creative thinking and collaboration, I have seen no reason to think that work from home results in equivalent or better outcomes.
The benefit in WFH is employee-side. And make no mistake - I'm not trying to minimize that. I actually think that we should accept "lessened" delivery in favour of better conditions for workers. I really do. I just object to this continuous whitewashing of WFH as having no down sides.
Re:Why even write (Score:4, Insightful)
WFH has significant benefits for the employer too - reduced costs (office space is expensive, even more so if you actually want to make it a decent space), wider talent pool etc.
There are a lot of people who work better remotely and some that don't. As an employer you should be seeking out those that do.
A lot of employers have absolutely terrible office environments because they wanted to cut costs (noisy, distracting, inconvenient location, poor facilities etc) and this cost cutting also harms productivity. If they cut costs even more and simply did away with the office then everyone would be better off.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't disagree in principle with your points. I have personally hired remote workers even before the pandemic because they were- and are- the right people for the job. They are exceptional - and so they are exceptions.
And the costs for floor space are real. No doubt. And the problems you mentioned with the office are real. And yet in my observation the results outweigh the costs by a wide enough margin.
In this post I have to speak about the aggregate. There are exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of employers have absolutely terrible office environments because they wanted to cut costs (noisy, distracting, inconvenient location, poor facilities etc) and this cost cutting also harms productivity.
Sometimes it's not even for cost cutting.
E.g. I mean yeah, I get it; you're in marketing/"creative", so your converted-into-an office house in a bad neighborhood downtown is very cool and hip. Yet for some reason, some of your employees just still don't want to go there physically every day.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to have the deep knowledge of the creatives - are you wearing a lumberjack shirt ironically?
Re: (Score:1)
Because frankly, your post sounds like bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Blah blah blah. Textbook response - blame the observe.
More control and more passive layoffs (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Let's hope it works and that people have memories when it's all gone to shit and they decide they want to feed on the meatbags again.
In other words (Score:2)
61.7% of Employees Now working at organisations embarking on quiet firing strategies for shareholder value
I Blame Social Media (Score:3)
Even if you can get all your work done, and then some, and then still be able to run your errands, these companies want you locked in the company mind-state all day long. They may claim they care about your work-life-balance, as long as your life doesn't affect the solid 8-9 hours they want you in the office.
So thanks to all the TikTok videos, reels, and shorts depicting all the goofing off. I hope the likes, subscribes, and Internet Points were worth it.
Trump is going to make Slavery great again (Score:2)
We need to keep track of the peons so they don't slack off and decrease our profits.
Re: (Score:2)
So ... (Score:2)
\o/ (Score:2)
Apparently, allowing your employer to control where your work even though:
* Reduced work-life balance: watching your kids take a nap for five minutes, taking them to the doctor etc
* Not seeing your spouse
* Not spending time awake in the house which arguably is one of the main reasons to work
* Wasted fuel
* Unnecessary wear-and-tear on vehicle
* Wasted time - productive hours turned into staring-into-space hours
* Increased risk of crash
* Increased