Companies are on the war path against remote work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It really blows my mind when people think that their own commute, expenses, and productivity are all that matter when companies set these policies.

To be clear, individuals should absolutely advocate and take action that is in their own best interest. Your job is a huge part of your life. If it isn't working for you, change your job or influence your employer to change their policies. Have at it! And if you organize and are effective at preserving permanent WFH flexibility in your particular organization, that is great!

But to argue that work location policies of employers should only depend on productivity, or your commute cost, or whether you will buy a sandwich at lunch is myopic naive view. It is exacerbated when you characterize the people making decisions as out of touch boomers who don't know what they are doing.

It isn't wholly unlike people saying they shouldn't pay taxes for services they don't use, or that changes to roadways that have a negative impact on their quality of life shouldn't happen. It is a public good to spread revenue around to ensure that cities (where the majority of our population, including the most vulnerable, live) remain viable.

Moreover, it is a financially prudent thing for corporations that get subsidies and incentives from municipalities to do what it takes to keep getting them. The less revenue your employer has, the more likely they are to need to cut staff or reduce comp and benefits.

We have seen the impacts of a reduction in corporate real estate values lead to negative effects on the financial system, and will eventually see it lead to decreased tax revenues that in turn lead to a lack of public welfare services.

THAT is why we are seeing these changes now. It is because all things are interconnected, and decisions are not being made based on whether or not you will buy a latte on the two days per week your employer's policy says you will come in.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting corporations / middle management are making coordinated decisions for the public good, to spread revenue around? LOL, get outta here.

There is not a coordinated effort, there is an assortment of differing incentives and priorities. If there were a coordinated effort for public policy reasons, then things like climate change, accessibility, and birthrate-boosting policy should factor in -- WFH is better for all three. But we're not having that conversation: instead we're continually having a conversation about commercial real estate and why allowing commercial landlords to lose money is Bad instead of the natural and arguably predictable outcome of decisions they made. Tiny violins etc.

I agree with you but feel you buried the lede here. WFH decreases carbon emissions, and our collapsing biosphere is infinitely more of an urgent and existential problem than collapsing commercial real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a fed manager, some of my staff work well from home. But half do not. They don’t actively make connections at work and instead rely on me as their manager to basically do their secretarial work for them. They don’t learn about the divisions that we work closely with. They think their entire job is just producing the tasks I assign them rather than running a program (which involves multiple tasks). I don’t want the level of babysitting that some of them need. They need for me to micromanage their work product thus that I assign each tiny task. And if I don’t assign a tiny task, they stop working and turn on Netflix. I even put in their performance appraisals “independently completes work and seeks out additional work needed on the project.”

I know lots of managers are putting more people on PIPs than ever before. Some people just cannot independent manage their time at home and it wasn’t a problem in the office. Private sector jobs have team building activities, happy hours together or they fly people to work conferences but fed jobs have none of that.

Some of you reading will think I don’t know how to manage, but no that’s not the case. I am unprepared however to micromanage every minute of my 40-60 years olds days. Hybrid does work but only if we’re all in on the same days

What would these employees be doing differently in the office?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s most disturbing about this conversation is the number of people who are deeply suspicious about what other people do, to the point where they are paranoid and fantasizing about their behavior.

It’s very similar to the attitude some conservatives have about welfare, being obsessed with the notion that someone else is getting some benefit.

It’s a peculiar/mental illness way of thinking. Remember the adage that you should only look in someone else’s bowl to be sure they have enough. Or, more simply, you worry about you.

Don’t post about how your personal Liberty is more important than the local business owners and how you don’t care if inner cities fall apart and then complain about conservatives.

Oh and buy more at Christmas, it's your duty as an American. Especially on Black Friday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is people want everything. They want the really high salaries DC affords but they also want the spacious yard with the backyard and schools in the suburbs. There you have your long commute. You could have purchased a smaller home/condo in DC or you could have pursued a job/career in Nowhereville, Maryland or Virginia, made less money and still probably have your house with the yard but with less discretionary income to do other things.

I am in the same boat so am not trying to be antagonistic. If I had to do it over, I probably would have stayed in or much closer to D.C. The first time I commuted from my new home in Maryland to my job in D.C., I cried.

I realize this is DCUM but many of us posting live in VA and MD. This is a large area with multiple urban/suburban areas. The fed is not centralized in any area, so two feds can be on completely different sides of the beltway, for example, one working at NIH and the other at MARC center. My DH and I are posted in Alexandria and Beltsville. There is no reasonable commute for either of us if we stay towards one job, and the middle is the suburbs. We also don't have very high salaries.

The high salaries/executive line is ridiculous. That's not even a significant percentage of the working population in this area. And by and large, those are the people actively voting against increasing public transit so that those of us without high salaries can commute effectively and at a lower cost.

Companies are in a pretzel because right now I save 500-600/month on commuting costs (gas and aftercare) as I will work 6-230, do school pickup for my elementary school kid, and then log in during the afternoon or early evening to f/u on anything from 230-5/6. If looking for another job, the salary would need to include an increase PLUS the 500/mo and if my company reduces WFH then I'll look for a higher salary.

Companies aren't upset about remote work, companies are upset that employees have more choice(s).

Yes. Exactly. Thank you. We're not all BigLaw people who can live on one salary 10 minutes from the office. Some of us actually earn statistically average incomes, so we need two parents working in this area, and we don't all have our pick of jobs in downtown DC or a specific suburb. We actually do have to make compromises - if one of you works in Frederick and the other's in Arlington, commuting is just going to be awful for one or both of you. Telework gives us hours of our lives back, plus costs of transportation and longer childcare hours. It doesn't have to be so bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"War path?"

Dramatic much, OP?

Put on pants, get to work.

Nah. Have brought in 5M in two years in pajama pants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m for the corporates here. Workers have become entitled. Look at the pay, benefits, and severance packages of employees recently dumped by FANG companies. These workers were waayyy overpaid and sometimes doing nothing, and then they complained about being let go. What gives! Corporations are not welfare. What I hear from the non-RTO crowd is an acknowledgment that their situation is too good to be true but they want to milk it for as long as they can. So, they protest wildly, oftentimes wrapping themselves in the flag of community, home, and the environment. Underneath though, they know that their argument, and even their self, is a sham.

I'm wrapping myself in the flag of results, with the metrics to prove it. Have fun shilling for "the corporates", I'm sure they love you back.

[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.

What are you paying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am back in office five days a week. You can’t run out the door at end of hours with in person. The CEO, CFO, CIO, Sr Mgr, controller, HR are in person and often there early or late.

So my new schedule is leave for work 745 am get home 6:30 pm five days a week.

The last people home are slowly realizing unless you are over 63 the game will end in 1-3 years and will get let go perhaps in next recession.

At my job it is moms with young kids, people goofing off, folks near retirement pushing Back

What's going on here is that your company and mgmt sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am back in office five days a week. You can’t run out the door at end of hours with in person. The CEO, CFO, CIO, Sr Mgr, controller, HR are in person and often there early or late.

So my new schedule is leave for work 745 am get home 6:30 pm five days a week.

The last people home are slowly realizing unless you are over 63 the game will end in 1-3 years and will get let go perhaps in next recession.

At my job it is moms with young kids, people goofing off, folks near retirement pushing Back

What's going on here is that your company and mgmt sucks.

My mgt is great. I love it. My kids now have a dad with a real job as opposed to an unshaved guy in a hoodie walking around in socks all day looking like a homeless man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am back in office five days a week. You can’t run out the door at end of hours with in person. The CEO, CFO, CIO, Sr Mgr, controller, HR are in person and often there early or late.

So my new schedule is leave for work 745 am get home 6:30 pm five days a week.

The last people home are slowly realizing unless you are over 63 the game will end in 1-3 years and will get let go perhaps in next recession.

At my job it is moms with young kids, people goofing off, folks near retirement pushing Back

What's going on here is that your company and mgmt sucks.

My mgt is great. I love it. My kids now have a dad with a real job as opposed to an unshaved guy in a hoodie walking around in socks all day looking like a homeless man.

That sounds like a you problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am back in office five days a week. You can’t run out the door at end of hours with in person. The CEO, CFO, CIO, Sr Mgr, controller, HR are in person and often there early or late.

So my new schedule is leave for work 745 am get home 6:30 pm five days a week.

The last people home are slowly realizing unless you are over 63 the game will end in 1-3 years and will get let go perhaps in next recession.

At my job it is moms with young kids, people goofing off, folks near retirement pushing Back

What's going on here is that your company and mgmt sucks.

My mgt is great. I love it. My kids now have a dad with a real job as opposed to an unshaved guy in a hoodie walking around in socks all day looking like a homeless man.

Aha. So you're a guy. I'm guessing someone else helps drop off and pick up your kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am back in office five days a week. You can’t run out the door at end of hours with in person. The CEO, CFO, CIO, Sr Mgr, controller, HR are in person and often there early or late.

So my new schedule is leave for work 745 am get home 6:30 pm five days a week.

The last people home are slowly realizing unless you are over 63 the game will end in 1-3 years and will get let go perhaps in next recession.

At my job it is moms with young kids, people goofing off, folks near retirement pushing Back

What's going on here is that your company and mgmt sucks.

My mgt is great. I love it. My kids now have a dad with a real job as opposed to an unshaved guy in a hoodie walking around in socks all day looking like a homeless man.

ill have you know this is more realistic

[Anonymous]

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.

Public transit is doomed. After 3 years of hygiene obsession and isolation, cramming onto subway trains is just too traumatic for most people. If they are RTO for 3 days a week, they can drive the super commute for those 3 days and recover before the weekend. Still better than before times and train transit.

People are full on murdering each other on trains. Traffic is going to get really really bad, but more people will invest in AI cruise control and watch movies as their car creeps along following the car in front of it.

Uh have you not been on Metro recently? Lots of people are riding

[Anonymous]

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.

How about those of us who have large commute costs. And time. I can either work the two extra hours or commute with them.

+1. And I’m sorry if small businesses in YOUR particular downtown area are doing poorly. Guess what? My suburb’s mom & pop restaurants have been revitalized because of the increase in WFH/TW.

Both businesses contribute to their respective tax jurisdictions—so why is one more important than the other? (It’s not.)

And PS, if my employer were to force full time RTO, I would bring my lunch AND coffee from home. Not spending one thin dime in that area if that’s the case.

Well, it's important to your employer, because they may lose tax breaks and other incentives if they don't RTO.

Does this really need to be explained?

Also, downtown DC *is* more important that some tiny suburb 90 minutes away.

[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.

How about those of us who have large commute costs. And time. I can either work the two extra hours or commute with them.

+1. And I’m sorry if small businesses in YOUR particular downtown area are doing poorly. Guess what? My suburb’s mom & pop restaurants have been revitalized because of the increase in WFH/TW.

Both businesses contribute to their respective tax jurisdictions—so why is one more important than the other? (It’s not.)

And PS, if my employer were to force full time RTO, I would bring my lunch AND coffee from home. Not spending one thin dime in that area if that’s the case.

Well, it's important to your employer, because they may lose tax breaks and other incentives if they don't RTO.

Does this really need to be explained?

Also, downtown DC *is* more important that some tiny suburb 90 minutes away.

Important to whom?