The Rush To Return to the Office Is Stalling (msn.com) 51
Major U.S. corporations are mandating more office time but seeing minimal compliance changes. Companies now require 12% more in-office days than in early 2024, according to Work Forward data tracking 9,000 employers. Yet Americans continue working from home approximately 25% of the time, unchanged from 2023, Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom's monthly survey of 10,000 Americans shows.
The New York Times ordered opinion and newsroom staff to four days weekly starting November. Microsoft mandates three days beginning February for Pacific Northwest employees. Paramount and NBCUniversal gave staff ultimatums: commit to five and four days respectively or take buyouts. Amazon faced desk and parking shortages after its full-time mandate, temporarily backpedaling in Houston and New York. Nearly half of senior managers would accept pay cuts to work remotely, a BambooHR survey of 1,500 salaried employees found.
The New York Times ordered opinion and newsroom staff to four days weekly starting November. Microsoft mandates three days beginning February for Pacific Northwest employees. Paramount and NBCUniversal gave staff ultimatums: commit to five and four days respectively or take buyouts. Amazon faced desk and parking shortages after its full-time mandate, temporarily backpedaling in Houston and New York. Nearly half of senior managers would accept pay cuts to work remotely, a BambooHR survey of 1,500 salaried employees found.
Remote for me but not for thee (Score:3, Insightful)
"Nearly half of senior managers would accept pay cuts to work remotely, a BambooHR survey of 1,500 salaried employees found."
And how many of that 50% would support the same for their own workers? Certainly not 100%, and most likely a whole lot less. As though the convenience of doing laundry, making a quick run to the bank or grocery store and picking up kids is something that only they should have. Remote for me nut not for thee.
Re:Remote for me but not for thee (Score:4, Insightful)
I did accept a pay cut to work remotely, but once you factor in the commuting costs it wasn't actually a cut at all.
Re: (Score:2)
"Nearly half of senior managers would accept pay cuts to work remotely, a BambooHR survey of 1,500 salaried employees found."
The key in the survey question is how much money one is wiling to give up. 1 or 2 percent, sure we'd all be willing to give up an insignificant portion of our compensation. 50%? Well, I imagine very few would be willing to give up that much.
These quixotic thoughts are just that. Most of those who are willing to say that they would accept a pay cut or quit or move out of an area not only wouldn't but wouldn't actually seriously consider it. Just like those surveys a few years ago saying that the majorit
Re: Remote for me but not for thee (Score:2)
If my costs fell, I'd be willing to decrease my salary, but no more than by the same amount, and also possibly less depending on how my finances were doing.
I WfH 4 days and this saves me 300/mo in fuel costs alone. But even with that my compensation is poor, so I'm not willing to take a cut.
There's stealth layoffs (Score:4, Insightful)
So yeah of course if you want one of the people they're trying to lay off they don't really care if you come in the office.
This is the kind of nonsense you get when you refuse to pass laws to protect workers' rights and you refuse to organize to protect those rights. It's going to get a lot worse.
Re:There's stealth layoffs (Score:5, Insightful)
They are indeed stealth layoffs, but they are extra stupid layoffs. The people who will quit over RTO mandates aren't the ones you want to quit. They are the most in-demand positions and the hardest to replace because those are the people who can easily go out and get something else. Yeah, you save a bit on severance, but you end up spending a lot more than that down the line on recruiting costs and increased salaries to replace key positions that have left.
Re:There's stealth layoffs (Score:4, Insightful)
There's nobody they "can't afford to lose." Everyone is replaceable. But many companies have pretty strong "no exceptions" policies with these RTO mandates. If they make one, it's probably only executives or their direct reports. However, even rank and file employees can be disruptive and expensive to replace if they are in in-demand specialties. And it can be hard to attract new employees to companies that have recently imposed RTO mandates, which means they may need to increase pay to actually get the people they need or accept less qualified candidates.
In practice, what happens is not quite so clear cut as "RTO mandate? I'm out." What happens is that good employees get frustrated by restrictions and loss of perks. When the recruiter calls/emails, they may be more inclined to take the interview whereas before they would have ignored it. They probably won't tell HR in the exit interview they quit over RTO. They will just say they found a new interesting opportunity, but they might have never followed through without RTO.
Re: (Score:2)
> No high value employees are getting let go over RTO mandates, period.
You're funny. They absolutely are getting let go.
I absolutely wasn't one of them (I made damn sure of that...) , but a couple colleagues just also said fuck this, and the process of getting an exception (initiated by higher ups) was so demeaning that it just cemented their decision.
The team lost half its senior people that month.
Re: (Score:2)
> I absolutely wasn't one of them
lack of edit: wasn't one of high value. Was one of those "let go".
as per the meme: I accidentally became important at work, it ruined my life.
I saw a few people go that route.
Re: (Score:2)
The only people I've seen that were not firable were devs who had their code so obfuscated that it would cost the company more to rewrite their stuff than to keep the dev around as dead weight. These are the guys who use obfuscation tools, rename variables to "l0iI1", use the same variable name, but in different scopes, and had documentation rife with land mines, inaccurate document... or just zero to begin with. However, even these guys went out the door when a project got abandoned.
Re:There's stealth layoffs (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure that is happening in some organizations.
What I can't reconcile is that I work at a wildly profitable company with a great big market share in their core market and a vast moat around it due to the massive costs with entering this business. And yet, we're requiring "hybrid" work for employees.
We've been unable to hire folks to cover open positions because of the ridiculous "hybrid" requirement for no good reason - I know at least 3 people that we could hire for senior engineering roles that we have open, except they aren't in this geographical region.
I recently asked our director of engineering if there's going to be any change so that we don't have to slip schedules by not having asses in seats and he just kind of shook his head because he also understands how stupid this is. So now we're going to have to slip milestones and deadlines because of some arbitrary policy that is actually hindering us from getting the job done. Well done, C-suite!
The Rush? (Score:3)
Re:The Rush? (Score:5, Insightful)
the current variants are very mild. If you're a chain smoker, elderly, morbidly obese, weak of constitution etc. sure get your shot if you're worried.
But for most of us it's "the sniffles"
Not a reason to stay away from work. If you're that close to death the next bad "common cold" or flu not covered by vaccine will do you in.
Getting my flu shot next month, like every year. Had shingles series too. But covid? Pfffftttt
Tell that to the people who are suffering the effects of "long Covid", some of which last a LONG time and can be quite debilitating. Both my wife and I came down with fairly mild cases - even though we're vaccinated - and had mild-but-persistent tiredness and 'brain fog" for the following 18 months or so. And we're lucky - lots of people are way worse off.
I've never had long-term effects from the flu - even cases bad enough that I thought I might need to be hospitalized. So in response to your "Pfffftttt" I'll just say that you're being Pffffoolish.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tell that to the people who are suffering the effects of "long Covid","
Tell THAT to the people suffering the after-effects of repeated flu infections (due to vaccines that miss the current variants), pneumonia after pneumonia as a chaser (no vaccines for this until fairly recently), innocuous but after a few decades leaving many with a new problems.
For instance, bronchiectasis...
You think Covid is unique? It's fashionable. Everyday COPD is not. You're special, though. Just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
"Tell that to the people who are suffering the effects of "long Covid","
Tell THAT to the people suffering the after-effects of repeated flu infections (due to vaccines that miss the current variants), pneumonia after pneumonia as a chaser (no vaccines for this until fairly recently), innocuous but after a few decades leaving many with a new problems.
For instance, bronchiectasis...
Thank you for the info - I honestly wasn't aware that some people suffer long-term effects from flu.
You think Covid is unique? It's fashionable. Everyday COPD is not. You're special, though. Just like everyone else.
Please try not to conflate my ignorance with snow-flakery.
Re: The Rush? (Score:2)
Well, first, many suffer from the effects of repeated influenza infections. Often these are followed by pneumonia etc., or influenza follows (or coincides with) that. Each of these infections can cause lung damage, and eventually you are afflicted with something in the COPD spectrum.
And I use the phrase 'special, just like everyone else' often to highlight the reality that so many are afflicted, it's more common for someone you meet to have a physical challenge than not. Some aren't so obvious. So long as I
Re:The Rush? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not a reason to stay away from work.
First: fuck you. Covid is still a reason to stay away from work, because your coworkers don't want to catch that shit. Don't be a fucking prick who spreads disease because of equally diseased politics.
Were you advocating for horse dewormer a couple years ago too?
Second: this still applies to any other easily spreadable disease, such as common colds and influenza. That shit spreads and you're an asshole for still going into the office.
Re: (Score:1)
That's true. I've taken far less sick days while working at home because I don't have people coughing and sneezing around me all day.
Re: (Score:2)
And the converse. The company gains productivity, because instead of staying home and not working when I've got [INSERT-MILD-ILLNESS-HERE], odds are I will be at home working at my job, because while I want to stay out of the office to protect my co-workers, I'm feeling good enough to work.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no way you've had covid. It's not "the sniffles," it's the worst goddamn flu you can imagine. I've also had dengue fever and it felt pretty similar to that. And as someone who's lost some friends and family to it, including an uncle who didn't get vaccinated, fuck you. I hope you get long covid.
Re: The Rush? (Score:2)
People have different experiences and different infections are also different. I've had it at least three times (once before there was available testing but I had textbook symptoms, twice more confirmed by tests) and while the first time kicked my ass, the second time was not too bad and the third time I wouldn't have known it was COVID without a test, it was so mild.
Re: (Score:3)
From what little recent data is available, the COVID19 variants circulating now are at least in the same ballpark of mortality rate as all those that have been circulating since early 2022, although data from India suggests that variants circulating this year may have mortality closer to the early-pandemic peaks:
https://ourworldindata.org/mor... [ourworldindata.org]
https://ourworldindata.org/cov... [ourworldindata.org]
Also it's significantly higher than the mortality rate of the flu, so if your vaccination choices are based on the danger of contrac
Re: (Score:2)
When they release Omicron.
Good news [steampowered.com]! /s
If only teleportation was real... (Score:2, Interesting)
I've got no problem with working from the office. In fact, I prefer it. Proper work/home separation, no cabin fever and no need to allocate an extra room/space for an office at home. As long as you get an allocated desk and decent coffee at the office, that is.
It's the commute that I have an issue with. Hours of your life wasted in traffic that no one pays for and that you'll never get back.
Perhaps we should ditch this silly AI bubble and start working on teleportation instead. It would surely be a better u
Re: (Score:2)
Re: If only teleportation was real... (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but if you believe that any focused, quality work can be done during your commute, then you still have a long way to go, young padawan.
Besides, I'd drive.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why I prefer flexible/hybrid arrangements. I don't think I could handle 100% work from home with no office. I like actually being able to see people face to face. But forcing people to commute 5 days a week is a colossal waste of everyone's time. A 2-3 day soft mandate (with reasonable exceptions made) is a good compromise. You can see people in-person, but you can also work from home when you need/want to. People with special needs can be accommodated with more or less WFH.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't actually need teleportation. "Simple" hyperloop would do the trick (but it would most likely cost too much).
Cheaper alternative would be to have apartments, companies, schools, shops etc. in the same big building, so you could just walk to where ever you need to go.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't actually need teleportation. "Simple" hyperloop would do the trick (but it would most likely cost too much).
Cheaper alternative would be to have apartments, companies, schools, shops etc. in the same big building, so you could just walk to where ever you need to go.
Or just build cots into our offices and install common showers in the bathrooms. Badda-bing, perfect commute times. Who needs a home, anyway? It's just an added expense for a little bit of work-life balance, which we've been told is a made-up bit of new-age nonsense and has no relevance in the modern world.
I wish I could brush this idea off as a joke, but we're headed towards such a shit future that I could see it happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Cheaper alternative would be to have apartments, companies, schools, shops etc. in the same big building, so you could just walk to where ever you need to go.
This sounds like the urban planner utopia until you consider that it's just the 21st century version of a company town, and you're only a very short step away from getting paid in company scrip.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have a suburban area where the driveways are on one side, and in the front are shops, offices, and such in easy walking distance. This way people can have their homes and an easy trek to get groceries and such, without sacrificing the ability to hop in the car and go. For apartments, the stores can be multi-storied. Maybe even some venues which are soundproof, so one can have a loud concert, but it not affect people outside. This would be close to ideal, if done right... but if done wrong, it
Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
I currently work hybrid. It reduces my effective pay by around 10%, which is a hell of a cut. It gains me nothing, since all meetings - even when we're all in the same room - are via teams, because company policy.
I see no added value from visiting the office.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm supposed to start working in the office more next week where I'll be making Teams calls to the people I work with who are all at least 200 miles away. Except we now have too many people to fit in the office so they're still trying to figure out where they'll put us.
I presume they're doing it to see if they can get people to quit since it makes no sense otherwise.
I work in a SCIF (Score:3)
I never stopped coming in to the office. Before that I worked in industrial automation, and that work couldn't be done remotely either.
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of companies willing to offer (Score:2)
There are plenty of companies willing to offer remote work, in order to be able to get them for less money. Many employees are willing to take less, since they see remote work as a huge perk. So all those big companies shooting themselves in the foot by forcing people back to the office, are helping out other companies who have struggled to get talented people. And those people end up happier, despite the lower pay. I'm one of them.
There's a reason for that... (Score:2)
On-site is not the only way to get things done.
Empire-builders who are forcing the RTO movement are aging drones who advanced through the ranks and now want to see full cube-farms to make them feel successful. Heaven forbid one of them should have feelings of inadequacy or emasculation because they can't see dozens of people in their cube farm.
Two big problems with remote work (Score:2)
Re:Two big problems with remote work (Score:4, Insightful)
There are two big problems with remote work.
If a computer or an app can do your job, then your job is no more secure in a company office than it is on the beach. In either case, your worth to the company is inadequate.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two big problems with remote work. The first is that office workers see their managers daily, are more likely to interact with them ( water cooler conversations, going out to lunch, etc. ) and so are more likely to be promoted than remote "zoom" faces.
I can say with certainty after 30 years that's never been true for me, and almost certainty for any of my peers. Promotions are actually pretty rare, and when a manager leaves who takes their spot is more who wants it most, which tends to be only 1 or maybe 2 people applying. Title promotions tend to be a combo of length of time and demonstration of doing a job (which all can see). In fact, I'm having trouble remembering the last time a "water cooler conversation" was actually useful to me to even gather in
In many cases it isn't stalling, it never happened (Score:2)
In large companies, these pointless mandates come down from higher-ups who are completely divorced from individual contributor reality - and are initially completely ignored by everyone below a certain level in the org chart. Ground-level HR doesn't want to enforce these orders, because they're measured on (inter alia) employee satisfaction. If the higher-ups don't go investigate, they won't find that their whims are being ignored, and life will go on - everyone remote, but the top brass in blissful ignoran
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. Our firm, very US company >9,000 employees, had a back to the office mandate. People respected it at first, but it became apparent that a big chunk of people did not. After about 6-8 weeks people found various ways around it. Changing their status to hybrid (can't change to remote anymore), getting weird exemptions, or frankly just showing up once per week to stay on the radar and wait and see what happens.
The problem is that there are a ton a managers and executives, VP's even SVP's that als