Fidelity Ends Hybrid Work, Requires US Staff in Office Five Days a Week

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

Let me spell it out for you. Wages have stagnated. Costs have risen. People (mainly women) are dropping out of the workforce and seeing their quality of life, and life expectancy, decline. Telework is just one way to recoup some time, which equals money. 10-12 hours a week of my unpaid labor goes into commuting, not my household.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

And? It’s not sustainable for them either, unless their or their spouse’s pay or schedule supports the lifestyle.

\

I made 385K in person in a job pre-covid 5 days a week in office. It ended in early 2020. My next same exact job was 165K. Fully remote, could work anywhere. Total flex time, hardly any meetings No set work hours. I could just do my job easily in around 2-3 hours a day if I did it quickly. Heck I could do my job on Sunday if I wanted and take Monday and Tuesday off. Was great.

But reality was at 165K no one could pay their bills. It was not enough. Someone like me my spouse would have to go back to work full time, my kids take out student loans and I start pulling from 401ks, or sell my home and downsize, move to cheap low cost of living area or start spending down savings.

Or I could keep looking, find another in person job that paid a premium for in person. Choice was easy.

Those really flexible jobs pay less. Now if I was 64 when I got that job, heck yea I would keep it till I was 100.

A lot of people would be completely fine with that salary but it would take a different life setup, like you suggested. DH and I both make about $165k and we’re hitting all the other milestones just fine.

Of course you are because both of you are making $165. PP was the sole earner making $165. Learn to read.

I said it would take a different life setup. Which, in this case, is two incomes. Sole earners have a different set of needs. As a dual income household, I have more flexibility in what jobs I take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

Let me spell it out for you. Wages have stagnated. Costs have risen. People (mainly women) are dropping out of the workforce and seeing their quality of life, and life expectancy, decline. Telework is just one way to recoup some time, which equals money. 10-12 hours a week of my unpaid labor goes into commuting, not my household.

Parents have been dropping out for years, since day care is $2-3K. I dropped out as my salary barely covered day care post taxes and often I didn't get out of work till post day care hours. Spouse worked 90 minutes away so he couldn't make it in time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

And? It’s not sustainable for them either, unless their or their spouse’s pay or schedule supports the lifestyle.

\

I made 385K in person in a job pre-covid 5 days a week in office. It ended in early 2020. My next same exact job was 165K. Fully remote, could work anywhere. Total flex time, hardly any meetings No set work hours. I could just do my job easily in around 2-3 hours a day if I did it quickly. Heck I could do my job on Sunday if I wanted and take Monday and Tuesday off. Was great.

But reality was at 165K no one could pay their bills. It was not enough. Someone like me my spouse would have to go back to work full time, my kids take out student loans and I start pulling from 401ks, or sell my home and downsize, move to cheap low cost of living area or start spending down savings.

Or I could keep looking, find another in person job that paid a premium for in person. Choice was easy.

Those really flexible jobs pay less. Now if I was 64 when I got that job, heck yea I would keep it till I was 100.

A lot of people would be completely fine with that salary but it would take a different life setup, like you suggested. DH and I both make about $165k and we’re hitting all the other milestones just fine.

Of course you are because both of you are making $165. PP was the sole earner making $165. Learn to read.

I said it would take a different life setup. Which, in this case, is two incomes. Sole earners have a different set of needs. As a dual income household, I have more flexibility in what jobs I take.

Not true, we are a single earner family and my spouse has lots of flexibility. The last job returned in person so he got tired of the long commute and drama and took another job. He got a similar salary but no benefits and we were fine. If he made less we'd be fine too. We easily live off of less than $165K. Most of it is lifestyle choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Last two comments are Stockholm Syndrome.

Five days a week in the office sucks. Agree this is mostly to try to get people to quit so they don’t have to pay. Have no doubt that the big portfolio managers will have no problem being MIA on Fridays while everyone else miserably marches in.

100 percent. The posts are just confirmation of Dostoeyevsky's statement that a human being can get used to anything (prison, pain, tortured suffering)

+1. So much of modern employment feels like a humiliation ritual. How much are you willing to degrade yourself and grovel and for how small of a wage?

Being asked by your employer to go into the office is a humiliation ritual? It's called work for a reason and you're paid to do it. Please tell me that you're a troll.

Not PP but yes, it is when it is done for no other reason than to make your life worse, in the hope that some people will quit and help cut costs.

Work can happen at home too. I’m sure you’re one of those people for whom it is a foreign concept but in modern professional services jobs it is not necessary for the work to happen in the same physical location.

Of trust me there are a LOT of other reasons to require in office work attendance. I'll help you out with them..List all the reasons you want to work from home:
1. You can do laundry (this is NOT productive paid work)
2. You can watch your kids (this is not work and you are not being paid by your company to do this)
3. You can make dinner (you are not getting paid to do this)
4. You can get a workout in (not getting paid for this)

All the employers know whats been going on and they want it to stop and they want you to work the entire day.

So sick of these bitter takes. I was remote even before Covid and here's what my employers got out of me:

1. At least 10 hours/day where I was accessible via phone, email, Teams (even if I - the horror! - momentarily stepped away to throw in a load of laundry)
2. Seamless responsiveness to my West Coast staff during their working hours
3. Working through what otherwise would have been sick days (mine or my kids')

If the expectation is that I spend 8 hours in an office, then add in 1+ hours commuting, I am not going to turn around and make myself available at 7 PM for a call with the California team.

I know too many people in my industry (consulting) who are back at work 5 days a week only to sit in front of their computers all day for Teams meetings with people in other places. So pointless and punitive. In all my years of remote managing, I can count on one hand the number of employers who were truly taking advantage of the company - and they tended to be in roles that had been forced 100% remote during the pandemic but didn't actually make sense to be remote otherwise.

This 100%. My spouse's boss was West Coast so the expectation was many early-late evening meetings/calls at his convenience, and it was fine with wfh when he could flex but not in the office 8-10 hours a day plus a 90-minute commute. They'd expect them to check emails all day/night/weekends too. Fine with flexibility, not fine with office/long commute. He also had meetings with people in other countries so some of the calls would be 10-11 at night or 4-5 in the morning. Very hard to do if you are working in person and need to sleep for the commute. Simple solution was to find a better job 8 hours a day in the office no evening or weekend. You get one or the other. You want in office, fine, then you get 8-9 hours a day. Want flexibility, then you need to give it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Your laziness or fact you live far from office is not an excuse for less billable hours. I did 3,000 hours billable one year with a 2.5 hour round trip commute. 2,700 from home is barely working. That is only ten hour days. If you look at Manhattan the average secretary in an office commuting to Staten Island or New Jersey or Long Island for work most likely leaves house at 7 am and gets home at 6pm with commute. ThatsT

DP but lol you have no idea what a billable hour is. It is not the same as just the number of hours spent at work. And 2700 hours is a massive number, not “barely working”. You are clearly making stuff up.

I do, when I billed 3,000 hours I still did training, proposals, staff reviews, T&E sheets etc all on non charge. I usually did a lot of that on train ride home. So I leave work at 7 pm, hop on commuter train, pop a ICE cold Beer and Pretzel and spend time approving time sheets, drafting proposals, doing employee reviews. Oh the horror. And also catch up on train ride in and Sunday monrning. I would say I did 3,500 hours work, 3,000 billable. You do know there are 8,760 hours in a year. You should be be working a bit more. We used to have people who bill 24 hours a day and one guy once on a flight back and forth from Tokyo billed 25 hours in a single day due to time difference.

then there is double billing if you want to rack up. And there is bill in 15 minute increments. So do a bunch of five minute phone calls and bill 15.

You sound like a total loser. There’s more to life than churning those bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Your laziness or fact you live far from office is not an excuse for less billable hours. I did 3,000 hours billable one year with a 2.5 hour round trip commute. 2,700 from home is barely working. That is only ten hour days. If you look at Manhattan the average secretary in an office commuting to Staten Island or New Jersey or Long Island for work most likely leaves house at 7 am and gets home at 6pm with commute. ThatsT

DP but lol you have no idea what a billable hour is. It is not the same as just the number of hours spent at work. And 2700 hours is a massive number, not “barely working”. You are clearly making stuff up.

I do, when I billed 3,000 hours I still did training, proposals, staff reviews, T&E sheets etc all on non charge. I usually did a lot of that on train ride home. So I leave work at 7 pm, hop on commuter train, pop a ICE cold Beer and Pretzel and spend time approving time sheets, drafting proposals, doing employee reviews. Oh the horror. And also catch up on train ride in and Sunday monrning. I would say I did 3,500 hours work, 3,000 billable. You do know there are 8,760 hours in a year. You should be be working a bit more. We used to have people who bill 24 hours a day and one guy once on a flight back and forth from Tokyo billed 25 hours in a single day due to time difference.

then there is double billing if you want to rack up. And there is bill in 15 minute increments. So do a bunch of five minute phone calls and bill 15.

You sound like a total loser. There’s more to life than churning those bills.

the point of billing the hours to get promoted so another person can take over billing the hours. The year I hit those numbers i did not take a single vacation day off or personal day. I left house at 6am and go home 8-9 pm with just the ten holidays off. And this may shock lazy DCOM folks but Amazing how much productive work is done in the office and how much face time occurs after 7pm each day. All the key players are there late. I could meet with people like CEO, CFO, and of course my favorite of all time. Sorry to bother you but I have a decision that needs to be made tonight and my Boss and their boss already snuck out for night. Tokyo and London needs this so cant wait for them. And even better doing a video call on big screen with Tokyo at 8 pm showing empty office except for you and your team saying well at least we show up to make sure you get what you need.

But what scaried me I only did it two years. there were folks doing that for 30 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

Let me spell it out for you. Wages have stagnated. Costs have risen. People (mainly women) are dropping out of the workforce and seeing their quality of life, and life expectancy, decline. Telework is just one way to recoup some time, which equals money. 10-12 hours a week of my unpaid labor goes into commuting, not my household.

Parents have been dropping out for years, since day care is $2-3K. I dropped out as my salary barely covered day care post taxes and often I didn't get out of work till post day care hours. Spouse worked 90 minutes away so he couldn't make it in time.

Yes, and pandemic-era telework resulted in higher employment numbers across the board but especially among women and disabled people. Record numbers of women joined the workforce and/or sought promotions that they couldn't or would take on if they had to commute. Every productivity metric showed that people were working more, and getting more done at work.

Anecdotally, it was also good for job turnover because people were no longer stuck in the job where they'd earned or negotiated flexibility. It was much easier to go find a better job with flexibility. Junior people moved up behind those who left. Win-win.

So yes, parents drop out of the workforce because of commute but they join (and work hard) without a commute. Basically every public policy and economic policy goal is enhanced by telework.

[Anonymous]

I think the big issue is that millennials were sold a fake dream. We were told we could have everything we wanted and that women were just as smart/equal as men. It's been very humbling as an adult to realize that so much is still set up for SAHMs. School hours are so short, work hours are so long, and so much falls only on women. I married a perfect guy, so this isn't man bashing. We had it easier during covid when we all worked remotely, but every year life get progressively harder and harder. My female friends and I all want to go part time, but no part time jobs exist in our fields and I think we aren't ready to give up our entire careers. My best friend and I both tried at our respective companies to propose a part time schedule. We would forgo benefits too, but work said no.

I think it was easier for our moms and grandmas. They realized from the start that they either needed a pink collar job or to be a SAHM. They also prioritized men who provided instead of love matches like we did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

Let me spell it out for you. Wages have stagnated. Costs have risen. People (mainly women) are dropping out of the workforce and seeing their quality of life, and life expectancy, decline. Telework is just one way to recoup some time, which equals money. 10-12 hours a week of my unpaid labor goes into commuting, not my household.

Sigh. I don't dispute any of that. But again, that *all* was taking place in 2019, and 2018. Now, all of a sudden, it's "unsustainable?"

What I'm really taking issue with is the word choice. People have been going to work 5 days a week for decades, and centuries. Now that there is an alternative, that's becoming less desirable, and companies likely will pay a price for being rigid. But that's not unsustainable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

Let me spell it out for you. Wages have stagnated. Costs have risen. People (mainly women) are dropping out of the workforce and seeing their quality of life, and life expectancy, decline. Telework is just one way to recoup some time, which equals money. 10-12 hours a week of my unpaid labor goes into commuting, not my household.

Parents have been dropping out for years, since day care is $2-3K. I dropped out as my salary barely covered day care post taxes and often I didn't get out of work till post day care hours. Spouse worked 90 minutes away so he couldn't make it in time.

Yes, and pandemic-era telework resulted in higher employment numbers across the board but especially among women and disabled people. Record numbers of women joined the workforce and/or sought promotions that they couldn't or would take on if they had to commute. Every productivity metric showed that people were working more, and getting more done at work.

Anecdotally, it was also good for job turnover because people were no longer stuck in the job where they'd earned or negotiated flexibility. It was much easier to go find a better job with flexibility. Junior people moved up behind those who left. Win-win.

So yes, parents drop out of the workforce because of commute but they join (and work hard) without a commute. Basically every public policy and economic policy goal is enhanced by telework.

Disabled people can easily get RAs and can telework.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

Let me spell it out for you. Wages have stagnated. Costs have risen. People (mainly women) are dropping out of the workforce and seeing their quality of life, and life expectancy, decline. Telework is just one way to recoup some time, which equals money. 10-12 hours a week of my unpaid labor goes into commuting, not my household.

Parents have been dropping out for years, since day care is $2-3K. I dropped out as my salary barely covered day care post taxes and often I didn't get out of work till post day care hours. Spouse worked 90 minutes away so he couldn't make it in time.

Yes, and pandemic-era telework resulted in higher employment numbers across the board but especially among women and disabled people. Record numbers of women joined the workforce and/or sought promotions that they couldn't or would take on if they had to commute. Every productivity metric showed that people were working more, and getting more done at work.

Anecdotally, it was also good for job turnover because people were no longer stuck in the job where they'd earned or negotiated flexibility. It was much easier to go find a better job with flexibility. Junior people moved up behind those who left. Win-win.

So yes, parents drop out of the workforce because of commute but they join (and work hard) without a commute. Basically every public policy and economic policy goal is enhanced by telework.

This was going on long before Covid. Stop blaming Covid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

Let me spell it out for you. Wages have stagnated. Costs have risen. People (mainly women) are dropping out of the workforce and seeing their quality of life, and life expectancy, decline. Telework is just one way to recoup some time, which equals money. 10-12 hours a week of my unpaid labor goes into commuting, not my household.

Parents have been dropping out for years, since day care is $2-3K. I dropped out as my salary barely covered day care post taxes and often I didn't get out of work till post day care hours. Spouse worked 90 minutes away so he couldn't make it in time.

Yes, and pandemic-era telework resulted in higher employment numbers across the board but especially among women and disabled people. Record numbers of women joined the workforce and/or sought promotions that they couldn't or would take on if they had to commute. Every productivity metric showed that people were working more, and getting more done at work.

Anecdotally, it was also good for job turnover because people were no longer stuck in the job where they'd earned or negotiated flexibility. It was much easier to go find a better job with flexibility. Junior people moved up behind those who left. Win-win.

So yes, parents drop out of the workforce because of commute but they join (and work hard) without a commute. Basically every public policy and economic policy goal is enhanced by telework.

Disabled people can easily get RAs and can telework.

Are all primary caregivers disabled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the big issue is that millennials were sold a fake dream. We were told we could have everything we wanted and that women were just as smart/equal as men. It's been very humbling as an adult to realize that so much is still set up for SAHMs. School hours are so short, work hours are so long, and so much falls only on women. I married a perfect guy, so this isn't man bashing. We had it easier during covid when we all worked remotely, but every year life get progressively harder and harder. My female friends and I all want to go part time, but no part time jobs exist in our fields and I think we aren't ready to give up our entire careers. My best friend and I both tried at our respective companies to propose a part time schedule. We would forgo benefits too, but work said no.

I think it was easier for our moms and grandmas. They realized from the start that they either needed a pink collar job or to be a SAHM. They also prioritized men who provided instead of love matches like we did.

My mom worked as her income was enough for child care. I quit as day care for one child was equal to my take home with a professional job. They had it easier. My grandparents would also help. Mine live close and never help, even for an emergency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

I agree that it's shortsighted and not the best policy. That said, what makes full time in the office unsustainable in 2026 that wasn't a factor in 1999, or January 2020? What changed?

Competition with employers that offer hybrid or total remote work options.

Nice try, but the PP said it wasn't sustainable for *the employees/families,* not the employers.

It seems as though everyone's expectations have changed, which is understandable . . . but that doesn't make full time in the office unsustainable.

Let me spell it out for you. Wages have stagnated. Costs have risen. People (mainly women) are dropping out of the workforce and seeing their quality of life, and life expectancy, decline. Telework is just one way to recoup some time, which equals money. 10-12 hours a week of my unpaid labor goes into commuting, not my household.

Parents have been dropping out for years, since day care is $2-3K. I dropped out as my salary barely covered day care post taxes and often I didn't get out of work till post day care hours. Spouse worked 90 minutes away so he couldn't make it in time.

Yes, and pandemic-era telework resulted in higher employment numbers across the board but especially among women and disabled people. Record numbers of women joined the workforce and/or sought promotions that they couldn't or would take on if they had to commute. Every productivity metric showed that people were working more, and getting more done at work.

Anecdotally, it was also good for job turnover because people were no longer stuck in the job where they'd earned or negotiated flexibility. It was much easier to go find a better job with flexibility. Junior people moved up behind those who left. Win-win.

So yes, parents drop out of the workforce because of commute but they join (and work hard) without a commute. Basically every public policy and economic policy goal is enhanced by telework.

Disabled people can easily get RAs and can telework.

Did you know that prepandemic, courts almost universally found that remote work was not a reasonable accommodation? That is a major legal change resulting from the pandemic. Employers were no longer able to effectively argue that many jobs could not be done remotely.