| So I recently had to go back into the office three days a week. I actually don’t mind it at all, which surprised me. A lot of people in my department aren’t following the organization’s request. Many are doing 1 day a week, some people are still remote. But I realized I don’t mind at all going in three days a week. I’m not going be anti remote publicly because I like that management seems more flexible than they were before the pandemic. But if I’m willing to go in 3, maybe 4, days a week, does this open more lucrative job opportunities? I always assumed I would never get past a certain level because I want to work 40 to 45 hours a week. |
| I (c suite) would personally far prefer to promote a person who gets the job done than someone who is physically located somewhere but is not willing to be flexible with hours. To be clear I don’t expect insanity, but I would much prefer results to giving af where someone is achieving the results. But I’m a borderline millennial/ Gen. X and I feel like rto is mainly driven by old x and boomers so maybe? |
|
My firm, I got an in person job three levels above prior person who did it mostly remote.
That person did not get promoted in 9 years mainly due to being remote a lot. |
| Slick anti wfh troll. |
| No |
Zuckerberg is a millennial, and Meta just enforced hybrid. |
OP: I’m actually not anti wfh - I don’t care if co-workers show up less than I do. I would care if my boss came in less than me. On my hybrid days, I probably won’t go in when it’s snowing (not in DC). Just curious about if it will benefit me professionally since it seems like going into the office is such a big deal for folks (i.e. your comment) and I’ll have more in person time. And I’m saying I still only want to work 8, maybe 9, hours a day. So I’m definitely not an overachiever, just really like hybrid. |
| Freddie Mac just did three days back. Some spoiled brats quit. They have tons of 200k to 350k jobs doing basically nothing but push paper. |