Companies are on the war path against remote work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A friend told me her company has told everyone, no more remote, and she understands because so many people are "goofing" off with their time. Management is tired of it and is begging for the five day work week in office again. The conversation with her went along the lines of well, people will just quite and go elsewhere, her answer, "the have so many resumes piling up in HR that the company is confident they will be fine." Don't know if that's true, the HR part, but I personally know three people who were laid off just this past week for economizing purposes. Little scary. I don't think WFH advocates are in control any longer.

It depends on the job type, maybe. But I think they might be surprised what happens if/when they start telling candidates there is no remote. We are mostly back in-person, downtown, and we have an incredibly hard time finding candidates who are game for this in most professional and admin roles. These are very well-compensated jobs. We have had people (more than one!) bail out of interviews upon realizing that there is so little flexibility. To be honest, we are hiring from a much poorer pool as a result of this.

[Anonymous]

We live a 10 minute drive from our jobs in downtown DC. It makes going into the office pretty easy.

If you want an executive level job, you need to be a regular face in the office. I’ve gotten two huge boosts in my career over the last two years due to willingness to be in-person. I’m now the deputy to a C-suite level exec, my comp went up 50% since last September.

Leadership is in-person. If you’re in the office, people see you and you get included in the big decisions.

My friend works in Big Law in nyc and his firm is starting layoffs. They are letting go of people based on a combination of lack of revenue generation AND lack of in-person work. All else equal, the person who only comes in once per pay period is getting laid off first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need to strike

This. And maybe it’s time that office workers wholly embrace unions? Especially FLSA exempt workers.

Okay, go ahead and strike. How are you going to put food on the table? It's a lovely little idea for an 18 year old but I have a family, mortgage, life expenses, I NEED to have my job. GTFU.

Um, you are aware that Hollywood writers are striking right now, right? They're hardly a bunch of 18 year olds. I hope you enjoy reality TV shows because if the studios don't come to the table soon, that's all you'll be watching for a bit.

Also Oakland Ca teachers

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A friend told me her company has told everyone, no more remote, and she understands because so many people are "goofing" off with their time. Management is tired of it and is begging for the five day work week in office again. The conversation with her went along the lines of well, people will just quite and go elsewhere, her answer, "the have so many resumes piling up in HR that the company is confident they will be fine." Don't know if that's true, the HR part, but I personally know three people who were laid off just this past week for economizing purposes. Little scary. I don't think WFH advocates are in control any longer.

It depends on the job type, maybe. But I think they might be surprised what happens if/when they start telling candidates there is no remote. We are mostly back in-person, downtown, and we have an incredibly hard time finding candidates who are game for this in most professional and admin roles. These are very well-compensated jobs. We have had people (more than one!) bail out of interviews upon realizing that there is so little flexibility. To be honest, we are hiring from a much poorer pool as a result of this.

+1. I’m experiencing the same. The labor market for skilled workers is extremely tight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live a 10 minute drive from our jobs in downtown DC. It makes going into the office pretty easy.

If you want an executive level job, you need to be a regular face in the office. I’ve gotten two huge boosts in my career over the last two years due to willingness to be in-person. I’m now the deputy to a C-suite level exec, my comp went up 50% since last September.

Leadership is in-person. If you’re in the office, people see you and you get included in the big decisions.

My friend works in Big Law in nyc and his firm is starting layoffs. They are letting go of people based on a combination of lack of revenue generation AND lack of in-person work. All else equal, the person who only comes in once per pay period is getting laid off first.

How many DCUM posters that WFH really want an executive job?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live a 10 minute drive from our jobs in downtown DC. It makes going into the office pretty easy.

If you want an executive level job, you need to be a regular face in the office. I’ve gotten two huge boosts in my career over the last two years due to willingness to be in-person. I’m now the deputy to a C-suite level exec, my comp went up 50% since last September.

Leadership is in-person. If you’re in the office, people see you and you get included in the big decisions.

My friend works in Big Law in nyc and his firm is starting layoffs. They are letting go of people based on a combination of lack of revenue generation AND lack of in-person work. All else equal, the person who only comes in once per pay period is getting laid off first.

You seem like you’re trying to justify your decision to live 10 minutes from downtown DC.

If law firms are laying off high revenue lawyers simply because they aren’t in the office then it sounds like your friend needs to leave that law firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities threatening to get rid of tax breaks for companies if they don’t RTO, because apparently small businesses are suffering, downtowns are becoming ghost towns, CRE values are plummeting & public transportation is being crime-filled due to normies no longer taking it.

Honestly, I am sick and tired if the FT WFH evangelists acting like these are not valid concerns. They are. Acting as if they are not is making the RTO worse. If you’re unwilling to meet halfway with hybrid, they’ll just make everyone come in all the time. The war path is over. People go back now.

Like many here, I don't buy lunch. When RTO fails to save downtown retail, what then? Will I be paid in vouchers for local restaurants? Capitalism means that sometimes businesses die.

Although, if RTO was really about boosting retail spending they would not be forcing a recession. This is all about keeping workers from gaining leverage.

NP. I'm a manager and I can see that permanent WFH isn't working. I don't care AT ALL about your retail spending or downtown rents.

It’s not your problem unless you own the company.

Actually it is the manager's problem. But good managers know how to get good work out of folks, regardless of location. When I hear about employees not being as productive or not producing as good work, I really think it's because their supervisors just aren't very good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live a 10 minute drive from our jobs in downtown DC. It makes going into the office pretty easy.

If you want an executive level job, you need to be a regular face in the office. I’ve gotten two huge boosts in my career over the last two years due to willingness to be in-person. I’m now the deputy to a C-suite level exec, my comp went up 50% since last September.

Leadership is in-person. If you’re in the office, people see you and you get included in the big decisions.

My friend works in Big Law in nyc and his firm is starting layoffs. They are letting go of people based on a combination of lack of revenue generation AND lack of in-person work. All else equal, the person who only comes in once per pay period is getting laid off first.

You seem like you’re trying to justify your decision to live 10 minutes from downtown DC.

If law firms are laying off high revenue lawyers simply because they aren’t in the office then it sounds like your friend needs to leave that law firm.

+1. Former biglaw married to a biglaw partner, now in-house. No firm that isn't run by donkeys is going to fire a high revenue lawyer because that individual isn't in the office. Hell, in M&A, you knew someone was slammed when they weren't in the office - they literally didn't have time to stop working to get there.

They will identify low billers and then if they don't want to lay off all of them, use in-office metrics to keep some (if those happen to be the ones they want to keep).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Cities threatening to get rid of tax breaks for companies if they don’t RTO, because apparently small businesses are suffering, downtowns are becoming ghost towns, CRE values are plummeting & public transportation is being crime-filled due to normies no longer taking it.

Honestly, I am sick and tired if the FT WFH evangelists acting like these are not valid concerns. They are. Acting as if they are not is making the RTO worse. If you’re unwilling to meet halfway with hybrid, they’ll just make everyone come in all the time. The war path is over. People go back now.

Not true. There are still companies and jobs that ate fully remote. They will be more desirable.

Yup. I'm a fed who goes into the office once a week. The new OMB memo has me throwing in an application for every remote job I'm remotely qualified for, just in case they order us back 3-5 days. I'm also starting to look for non-fed jobs closer to home for the first time in years. I'm not eager to leave, I am invested in the program I manage and had planned to stay in this job a couple more years and the government for the rest of my career, but the 2.5-3 hours of commuting a day is just a deal breaker.

Hope you leave. Agencies have been inundated with applications. Just look at all the DCUM threads wanting advice about the gravy train. In reality, you’re going nowhere because you have it so good. You know that. You’re just gaslighting management to see if they blink. It was your choice to live where you do. You were probably one of those during the pandemic that trolled your neighbors and friends about your new 6000 sq ft home in the suburbs. Well, the joke is now on you.

I was hired during the pandemic from my small home near my spouse's job, and was very clear that I already lived where I lived and was not willing to commute in every day. I make 100k, thats not enough to move a family into DC in 2023, not sure what "gravy train" you're talking about.

I'll do my job as long as it works for my life, and if it doesn't, I'll get a new one closer to home. Just like anyone would do. I'm not mentioning this to my boss or threatening to quit, so I'mnot sure where you're getting gaslighting. And if I resign, my position will be vacant for 1-2 years - there are definitely qualified people but HR is a total mess and we can't actually hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I personally would give anything to have meetings without screaming children and dogs barking in the background. The obvious mid morning breaks by some of my colleagues are clearly personal issues being handled (think kids doctors appt) are really starting to affect my productivity.

You know I still have those kids and those kids still have to go to the doctor regardless of where I work, right? They existed and went to the doctor in 2019 also. But now, I can grab them from school and take them to the doctor in an hour and be back to working. In the before-times, I just took half of a day off instead of an hour off. I guess if you want me to use more of the sick time, I can. But seems stupid on your part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s an impossible dilemma. Many workers are highly productive in the work from home model, and it has been a major upgrade to their lives. They will strongly resist RTO policies. Many other workers abuse work from home policies to slack off, and the only way to get any reasonable productivity out of them is to mandate RTO. Human nature being what it is, you can’t let some people work from home and tell others they can’t without creating major problems. And it’s very difficult to integrate new, especially junior employees when all the good people are working from home. We’re just going to muddle along in a hybrid approach indefinitely, there is no way out IMO.

I am willing to bet lots of money that those unproductive workers are just as unproductive sitting in their cubicle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live a 10 minute drive from our jobs in downtown DC. It makes going into the office pretty easy.

If you want an executive level job, you need to be a regular face in the office. [i][u]I’ve gotten two huge boosts in my career over the last two years due to willingness to be in-person. I’m now the deputy to a C-suite level exec, my comp went up 50% since last September.

Leadership is in-person. If you’re in the office, people see you and you get included in the big decisions.

My friend works in Big Law in nyc and his firm is starting layoffs. They are letting go of people based on a combination of lack of revenue generation AND lack of in-person work. All else equal, the person who only comes in once per pay period is getting laid off first.

That's fair, I guess. But a lot of people don't want an executive level job. I'm perfectly happy in my middle management job and will gladly never make it to the C-suite to keep my WFH 3 or 4 days per week and my flexible hours.

[Anonymous]

There's a restaurant/bar near me (in a suburb where there are basically no office workers) that opened about five years ago. Has a huge outdoor area. I am nearly certain it was on the verge of shutting down. Was always empty, and they were constantly running specials. Covid saved it. People discovered the massive outdoor area and have continued going back ever since. No specials anymore; not even a happy hour. They don't need to.

There will always be winners and losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live a 10 minute drive from our jobs in downtown DC. It makes going into the office pretty easy.

If you want an executive level job, you need to be a regular face in the office. [i][u]I’ve gotten two huge boosts in my career over the last two years due to willingness to be in-person. I’m now the deputy to a C-suite level exec, my comp went up 50% since last September.

Leadership is in-person. If you’re in the office, people see you and you get included in the big decisions.

My friend works in Big Law in nyc and his firm is starting layoffs. They are letting go of people based on a combination of lack of revenue generation AND lack of in-person work. All else equal, the person who only comes in once per pay period is getting laid off first.

That's fair, I guess. But a lot of people don't want an executive level job. I'm perfectly happy in my middle management job and will gladly never make it to the C-suite to keep my WFH 3 or 4 days per week and my flexible hours.

Yup, me too. I am totally fine in my well
compensated senior attorney position and will gladly accept having hit my career ceiling if it means I can still WFH 3-4 days a week and have a flexible schedule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We live a 10 minute drive from our jobs in downtown DC. It makes going into the office pretty easy.

If you want an executive level job, you need to be a regular face in the office. I’ve gotten two huge boosts in my career over the last two years due to willingness to be in-person. I’m now the deputy to a C-suite level exec, my comp went up 50% since last September.

Leadership is in-person. If you’re in the office, people see you and you get included in the big decisions.

My friend works in Big Law in nyc and his firm is starting layoffs. They are letting go of people based on a combination of lack of revenue generation AND lack of in-person work. All else equal, the person who only comes in once per pay period is getting laid off first.

I don’t want an executive level job. Flexibility is more important to me. I don’t need to included in the “big decisions” and I’m good with my current comp.