RTO Rant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

I have seen only the opposite. Whose anecdote wins in this case?

Maybe give some details on the company and the situation…because you sound like you are just making up your response.

I think the person who gives a lot of superfluous details is the one more likely to be lying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

I have seen only the opposite. Whose anecdote wins in this case?

Maybe give some details on the company and the situation…because you sound like you are just making up your response.

I think the person who gives a lot of superfluous details is the one more likely to be lying

That’s stupid…it’s always comical when people have nothing, they somehow try to make their nothing argument more believable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

I have seen only the opposite. Whose anecdote wins in this case?

Maybe give some details on the company and the situation…because you sound like you are just making up your response.

I think the person who gives a lot of superfluous details is the one more likely to be lying

That’s stupid…it’s always comical when people have nothing, they somehow try to make their nothing argument more believable.

And I think you’re stupid! What a good argument! Very convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking at LInkedIn true fully remote job postings for high paying jobs at good companies usually get 1,000 to 2,000 applications.

My prior full remote company that is a so so company I recall got 500 applicants per job opening.

At my current role we have some jobs that must be in person no flexibility. Guess what we only get 3-7 applicants sometimes.

Lot easier to beat out 3-7 people for a job than 500-1000 people.

Good to know. My DS has one more year of college and would be very happy to work FT in whatever location he can find a job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

I have seen only the opposite. Whose anecdote wins in this case?

Maybe give some details on the company and the situation…because you sound like you are just making up your response.

I think the person who gives a lot of superfluous details is the one more likely to be lying

Lying about what?

[Anonymous]

I think the problem with the Remote Work For All movement is that it’s not practical across the board and doesn’t work for everyone or every company or every industry or every job.

During Covid, the majority of office and education workers did it because of being forced to by the US government. Business and education had to keep moving forward despite the shutdown. This led to a large number of American workers becoming used to a new normal of WFH, even though WFH is not the best solution for all companies going forward. It was a temporary fix to a temporary problem.

Now that problem has been resolved, but many workers understandably prefer to stay remote. Some companies can keep their workers remote and thrive, but others can’t. But many workers want to stay remote even if they work in a company/role/industry where remote work is not a viable option for ALL of the workers for the long term.

Corporate policy is not conducive to “pick and choose” scenarios, where you allow some teams or individuals to work remote and force others to be in office. It’s easier from a company policy perspective to give everyone the same guidelines (ie all remote, hybrid, or in office).

Everyone now has this expectation of remote work, but it’s not feasible for everyone. And that’s the problem we’re working through as a country right now.

[Anonymous]

We know a lot of people who moved further out during COVID. Or moved to places where they could no longer commute to their office, ie other parts of the country.

We were the "idiots" who stayed in our NW DC home with a difficult baby and refinanced twice during the pandemic. Well, guess what? We look like the geniuses now. With RTO 2-3x per week, its easy for us to drive 10 minutes to the office. We knew from the outset that people were going to get called back in; in fact, the only surprise is that it's taken this long.

Hint: having trouble finding a spot in daycare for your young kid? Look in downtown DC - lots of availability. Though I've heard that the waitlists are starting to return at some in-demand daycares and preschools (eg, bilingual or Montessori).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the problem with the Remote Work For All movement is that it’s not practical across the board and doesn’t work for everyone or every company or every industry or every job.

During Covid, the majority of office and education workers did it because of being forced to by the US government. Business and education had to keep moving forward despite the shutdown. This led to a large number of American workers becoming used to a new normal of WFH, even though WFH is not the best solution for all companies going forward. It was a temporary fix to a temporary problem.

Now that problem has been resolved, but many workers understandably prefer to stay remote. Some companies can keep their workers remote and thrive, but others can’t. But many workers want to stay remote even if they work in a company/role/industry where remote work is not a viable option for ALL of the workers for the long term.

Corporate policy is not conducive to “pick and choose” scenarios, where you allow some teams or individuals to work remote and force others to be in office. It’s easier from a company policy perspective to give everyone the same guidelines (ie all remote, hybrid, or in office).

Everyone now has this expectation of remote work, but it’s not feasible for everyone. And that’s the problem we’re working through as a country right now.

I agree with this assessment. My office is a microcosm of a company trying to split everything out by function, etc. On the one hand it is doable but it does engender a lot of complications and animosity. I’m in a four-day per pay period role and am completely fine with that but am surrounded by other, angry people including some who have even more telework days and then am surrounded by those who are angry at them. I feel like I’m surrounded by toxic, angry people with thankfully a good handful of us who are just focusing on the job at hand.

[Anonymous]

I just wish, if we have to be in person, it would be on the same darn day. If Tuesdays (or whatever) were dedicated to collaboration or whatever, I could stomach it. But If I'm here on Tues/Thurs, Larla is here M/W, Bob is here Wed/Fri ... why am I sitting here by myself?? We have no customers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We know a lot of people who moved further out during COVID. Or moved to places where they could no longer commute to their office, ie other parts of the country.

We were the "idiots" who stayed in our NW DC home with a difficult baby and refinanced twice during the pandemic. Well, guess what? We look like the geniuses now. With RTO 2-3x per week, its easy for us to drive 10 minutes to the office. We knew from the outset that people were going to get called back in; in fact, the only surprise is that it's taken this long.

Hint: having trouble finding a spot in daycare for your young kid? Look in downtown DC - lots of availability. Though I've heard that the waitlists are starting to return at some in-demand daycares and preschools (eg, bilingual or Montessori).

Seems well worth it to me! Large home, less crime, public schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We know a lot of people who moved further out during COVID. Or moved to places where they could no longer commute to their office, ie other parts of the country.

We were the "idiots" who stayed in our NW DC home with a difficult baby and refinanced twice during the pandemic. Well, guess what? We look like the geniuses now. With RTO 2-3x per week, its easy for us to drive 10 minutes to the office. We knew from the outset that people were going to get called back in; in fact, the only surprise is that it's taken this long.

Hint: having trouble finding a spot in daycare for your young kid? Look in downtown DC - lots of availability. Though I've heard that the waitlists are starting to return at some in-demand daycares and preschools (eg, bilingual or Montessori).

Seems well worth it to me! Large home, less crime, public schools, etc.

Agreed. I would happily commute much further if only 2-3 times a week in exchange for good public schools, good university options, and a nicer and bigger house. I’m 100% your further out neighbors feel they are a genius because they bought a desirable suburban home before the prices and rates crushed affordability. A NW DC home? With homelessness, crime, and already limited school options, urban homes have declined significantly. But, hooray, you have a good rate…

[Anonymous]

The hardest workers remote vs in person is fairly meaningless. They might prefer in person as less chasing people they need assistance from. They are chained to their computer 10-11 hours a day so at home or work not much difference.
de them go back.

True workaholics being home is not a big plus. They are not going out to pick kids up at bus stop, throwing a load of laundry in, going for a run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

True workaholics being home is not a big plus. They are not going out to pick kids up at bus stop, throwing a load of laundry in, going for a run.

Except it is - being at home means that the time spent commuting is instead productive time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

True workaholics being home is not a big plus. They are not going out to pick kids up at bus stop, throwing a load of laundry in, going for a run.

Except it is - being at home means that the time spent commuting is instead productive time.

That’s not a given. Depends on how you define “productive”. People that wfh and roll out of bed at 9:30am to login aren’t adding productivity. No productivity if you’re walking your dog, napping, Netflix chill, doing laundry, yard work, shuttling kids, doctor/dentist appts, yoga and pilates class, taking care of baby/toddler. That’s less productivity and focus during hours you’re expected to be working. All of the above are things that ppl have told me they do while wfh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We know a lot of people who moved further out during COVID. Or moved to places where they could no longer commute to their office, ie other parts of the country.

We were the "idiots" who stayed in our NW DC home with a difficult baby and refinanced twice during the pandemic. Well, guess what? We look like the geniuses now. With RTO 2-3x per week, its easy for us to drive 10 minutes to the office. We knew from the outset that people were going to get called back in; in fact, the only surprise is that it's taken this long.

Hint: having trouble finding a spot in daycare for your young kid? Look in downtown DC - lots of availability. Though I've heard that the waitlists are starting to return at some in-demand daycares and preschools (eg, bilingual or Montessori).

Congratulations! I am a fed who moved to this area in my 30s and has never made enough to live in NW DC. If I could live 10 minutes from the office I absolutely would.

Instead we live 10 minutes from my spouse's university teaching job, which has to be in person, and 2 hours from my job in DC. Yes, commuting sucks, but compared to you I've been picking from a much less appealing set of options this whole time. So I left my hybrid job for a remote one with a raise this year, and I'm just hoping it stays that way.