5 days a week in office is horrendous, I need a new job asap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

Nope. WFH should make more since we help our companies save money on real estate. You should make less since you require a building, office space and an FTE looking over your shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

Nope. WFH should make more since we help our companies save money on real estate. You should make less since you require a building, office space and an FTE looking over your shoulder.

LOL you're ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

Companies are starting to realize that everyone WFH is costing them money, and not because of the building leasing. There's SO much productivity lost by people WFH, and they can hire fewer employees to get more work done, with greater accountability. Many of the WFH workforce is just not important anymore. They were overpaid to begin with, and much more so working from home.

And yes, people who work in person should be paid more. Way more. Bottom line is that their jobs are more important, they do more work, and commit more time.

WFH? Fine, but take a pay cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

Companies are starting to realize that everyone WFH is costing them money, and not because of the building leasing. There's SO much productivity lost by people WFH, and they can hire fewer employees to get more work done, with greater accountability. Many of the WFH workforce is just not important anymore. They were overpaid to begin with, and much more so working from home.

And yes, people who work in person should be paid more. Way more. Bottom line is that their jobs are more important, they do more work, and commit more time.

WFH? Fine, but take a pay cut.

I think in person jobs with no flexibility will naturally have to pay more because it’s become so undesirable. I have a full time, in person job and many people are leaving for lower pay with the flexibility to work from home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

Companies are starting to realize that everyone WFH is costing them money, and not because of the building leasing. There's SO much productivity lost by people WFH, and they can hire fewer employees to get more work done, with greater accountability. Many of the WFH workforce is just not important anymore. They were overpaid to begin with, and much more so working from home.

And yes, people who work in person should be paid more. Way more. Bottom line is that their jobs are more important, they do more work, and commit more time.

WFH? Fine, but take a pay cut.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

Companies are starting to realize that everyone WFH is costing them money, and not because of the building leasing. There's SO much productivity lost by people WFH, and they can hire fewer employees to get more work done, with greater accountability. Many of the WFH workforce is just not important anymore. They were overpaid to begin with, and much more so working from home.

And yes, people who work in person should be paid more. Way more. Bottom line is that their jobs are more important, they do more work, and commit more time.

WFH? Fine, but take a pay cut.

This is the truth!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to a lot of audit and consulting work and the happiest by far company for working moms I ever did work at and had longest tenured employees had a strict zero WFH policy. Zero Flex Time on start and end dates, assigned lunch hours and an assigned break. With only a max of 10 minutes a day personal calls allowed during work hours. No internet on work computer and no personal cell phone use at desk. In emergency you get call on work phone.

The women I say that as it was literally 95 percent Moms loved it. Had choice of 7-3pm or 7:30 to 3:30pm.

Most women picked 7am it forced husband to chip in an make breakfast and gets kids on bus. Mom just got up showered and left. Mom
Then got home in time around kids getting off bus.

Mom had time ever day doctors appoints, dentists, sports for kids. Work outside office hours prohibited. There was no home access to work systems.

Work was very productive no chatting, politics and ran like a clock. Bosses would be written up if staff stayed late. The boss would tell everyone five minutes before me time to pack up, get coats. I recall area I was auditing they literally pulled push me out door a 3:35 pm and door locked a d lights out.

What it showed me it is not WFH people want it Is consistency. Yes they have sick days, maternity leave. Personal days. But ZERO half days no coming in late. They are even had Floaters assigned to cover your job when you were on vacation.

I was shocked. I never saw another company do this.

It was a 7.45 hour day in office. They worked 6 hour and 45 minutes a day.

Sure sure. No working mother has EVER wanted any kind of flexibility. Right. Great research you did there!

Actually all the Moms Did. It was in the suburbs most Moms lived 15 minutes from office. And was professional business jobs. The deadline to send wires do settlement is 3 pm and usually need to be in system by 2pm. They worked on exceptions and client issues in morning.

I did the work one summer was heaven. I be at the pool in the hotel nearby at 3:40 pm, then by 5pm changed for happy hour. And on Fridays in summer I see people headed out to beach house at 3pm straight from work. In winter women went to supermarket on lunch break. They had a great subsidized cafeteria.

Today I have a lot of women staff with kids and all 100 percent remote. I think they rather be out of house. All their husbands work in person and they are stuck double duty at home.

People don’t want to admit the ideal job is like a 15 minute commute, own office, subsidized cafeteria, perks, my last in person job I could leave anytime and run errands. My old job so close I still go over there for lunch sometimes!

Stop posting, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

oh boy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to a lot of audit and consulting work and the happiest by far company for working moms I ever did work at and had longest tenured employees had a strict zero WFH policy. Zero Flex Time on start and end dates, assigned lunch hours and an assigned break. With only a max of 10 minutes a day personal calls allowed during work hours. No internet on work computer and no personal cell phone use at desk. In emergency you get call on work phone.

The women I say that as it was literally 95 percent Moms loved it. Had choice of 7-3pm or 7:30 to 3:30pm.

Most women picked 7am it forced husband to chip in an make breakfast and gets kids on bus. Mom just got up showered and left. Mom
Then got home in time around kids getting off bus.

Mom had time ever day doctors appoints, dentists, sports for kids. Work outside office hours prohibited. There was no home access to work systems.

Work was very productive no chatting, politics and ran like a clock. Bosses would be written up if staff stayed late. The boss would tell everyone five minutes before me time to pack up, get coats. I recall area I was auditing they literally pulled push me out door a 3:35 pm and door locked a d lights out.

What it showed me it is not WFH people want it Is consistency. Yes they have sick days, maternity leave. Personal days. But ZERO half days no coming in late. They are even had Floaters assigned to cover your job when you were on vacation.

I was shocked. I never saw another company do this.

It was a 7.45 hour day in office. They worked 6 hour and 45 minutes a day.

Damn, are they still hiring?

I had a similar job and loved it, but the day was only 5 hours, I think, with no real breaks. But if we stayed more than a few minutes late we got kicked out, literally. No coming in early, either. It was great because I was forced to be efficient at work, and always had my off time off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

Companies are starting to realize that everyone WFH is costing them money, and not because of the building leasing. There's SO much productivity lost by people WFH, and they can hire fewer employees to get more work done, with greater accountability. Many of the WFH workforce is just not important anymore. They were overpaid to begin with, and much more so working from home.

And yes, people who work in person should be paid more. Way more. Bottom line is that their jobs are more important, they do more work, and commit more time.

WFH? Fine, but take a pay cut.

Do you have any evidence to back that up, or is it just your own anecdotes? Because my husband's company is 100% WFH since covid and the funny part is that most of the staff wanted to go back. Apparently they really like each other and used to have fun at work, and are all really bored working from home. They seem to be more productive, not less, and the company saved a bunch of money closing all the offices. My husband works way more than he ever did before - that commute time is now work time, and there doesn't seem to be any real end to the work day since he's basically "at work" all day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Choose another job.

It's fine if you WFH, but you should be paid less. Jobs that require in-perosn work (retail, teachers, businesses, restaurants) should be paid more as the WFH jobs take a pay reduction.

Y'all are just spoiled babies, honestly. I work in person 5 days/week, and don't want your cars added to the traffic. But your complaints are really pathetic.

Nope. WFH should make more since we help our companies save money on real estate. You should make less since you require a building, office space and an FTE looking over your shoulder.

Plus a million. PP is an expensive employee due to the babysitting required 5 days a week.

[Anonymous]

I’ve got 50% remote, 50% in-person, and I love it. The perfect balance between getting to see other adults for a few days, then getting to throw in a load of laundry or prep dinner on my afternoon break on the other days.
We have set days, but you can trade off days if needed as long as you meet the 50% in office for each pay period.
My commute is 18 minutes door to door—but I usually cut through my building to pick up Dunkin next door, so more like 22 minutes.
So far no one has abused it (cross-thread—looking at you, refuse to report to work poster) and the powers that be see that our team is more productive and happier this way. So it’s here to stay. We were 100% in office prior to COVID.