Meta notes problems with WFH productivity in firings memo

[Anonymous]

All those folks that were talking about finding another job if the current employer states RTO...good luck now!

The market is flooded and soon severances will start run out. Go into the office or stay unemployed.

Worse is those that took a pay cut to WFH and have been laid off. You just reset your salary to a lower pay grade and will be RTO as well.

[Anonymous]

So we would all be living in virtual reality if not for WFH? Wouldn't more people be in a virtual world if they are at home? Meta makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

I am starting a new job 5 days a week in the office. Why it pays more, soon we will all be RTO and competition was less do to five weeks in office.

I have been home three years. My wife is sick of me. My neighbors think I am unemployed. Time to get to a real job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am starting a new job 5 days a week in the office. Why it pays more, soon we will all be RTO and competition was less do to five weeks in office.

I have been home three years. My wife is sick of me. My neighbors think I am unemployed. Time to get to a real job.

Imagine thinking that the physical location you do your work has any effect whatsoever on whether a job is "real," or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NOPE! Techs dying!

lol sure. What are you using to post on here?

[Anonymous]

Zuck will use any excuse to not say outloud that the metaverse was a terrible idea and investment. EVERYONE mocked it when he first released it. It was something that was done back on an Nintendo 20 years ago and the man acted like he did something revolutionary 😂.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All those folks that were talking about finding another job if the current employer states RTO...good luck now!

The market is flooded and soon severances will start run out. Go into the office or stay unemployed.

Worse is those that took a pay cut to WFH and have been laid off. You just reset your salary to a lower pay grade and will be RTO as well.

Or work for a company like mine that doesn’t care where you work at. Not every company is the same. Stop with this nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Lol, or FB hired a stupid ass number of people in the first place and didn't have enough work for them.

FB is such a stupidly run company..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol, or FB hired a stupid ass number of people in the first place and didn't have enough work for them.

FB is such a stupidly run company..

There have been reports that Facebook hired people to do "fake work" and that people had to fight to find any work to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s a complete joke to argue that working from home is more productive than working in the office and everybody being honest with themselves knows it. Sure, it’s easier but it isn’t more productive. Be serious.

People in this thread have provided clear, specific examples of how they are more productive working from home. I think that people who think people must need to be in a certain location to work are just really lazy. I work hard because I like my job and I’m really good at it. The location makes zero difference. I guess for people who need to be trained or are lazy, maybe being in the office is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a complete joke to argue that working from home is more productive than working in the office and everybody being honest with themselves knows it. Sure, it’s easier but it isn’t more productive. Be serious.

People in this thread have provided clear, specific examples of how they are more productive working from home. I think that people who think people must need to be in a certain location to work are just really lazy. I work hard because I like my job and I’m really good at it. The location makes zero difference. I guess for people who need to be trained or are lazy, maybe being in the office is better.

But were you able to worship Zuckerberg enough to satisfy his ego from home? Apparently not. You all need to be in the office to tell him he's right and everyone really does want to wear a VR set to a bar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much more productive?

Satisfaction with work-life balance is directly correlated with people staying longer at companies, developing greater institutional knowledge and deepening their expertise in their area. It's short-sighted to argue to change a policy that might result in 2% more productivity but 10-15% more attrition. Sure, Meta is looking to shed headcount now because of executive-level mistakes in investment and vision (sorry, but Mega's financial issues have zero to do with engineer productivity due to WFH -- zero). But in the future economic winds will shift and they will be back in the market for talent and, in the tech industry, rigid in-office requirements will be a major liability for attracting the best talent at all levels.

Anecdotally, most people I know want to be in the office at least a couple days a week (unless they totally hate their employer, which is in itself a massive red flag). But they want to feel trusted by their employer to decided when in-office makes sense according to their work flow. I work in a slightly different field but my work is similar to a programmer -- there are definitely collaborative elements to my work, especially when initiating a project and when getting it ready for the client. But in between there are long stretches when I just have to sit at my computer and focus. I do that a million times better at home, with minimal distractions and with the ability maximize my work day without needing to commute. I can start my workday at 7 or 7:30, take shorter breaks for food or coffee since I'm just grabbing something from my kitchen, even my bathroom breaks are more efficient. When I'm mid-project, home is absolutely the most productive option and my employer often gets 10+ hour work days out of me because I'm "in the zone" with minimal distraction. It's basically impossible for me to get that in the office.

So a policy that required 3 days in office each week, with limited leeway for me to determine when that makes sense for my work, is a total no-go for me. I am a 20 yr veteran in my field, my work is in demand, and I know how I work best. I'm not some 23 yr old recent hire who just hates wearing clothes or getting off my couch.

Zuckerberg needs to remember what it is to be a high performer and look for ways to attract them. This ain't it.

I agree. But letting go of control is VERY hard. For parents, for managers, for governments... for everyone who has to supervise anyone. Even if intellectually, they know what you just explained.

Umm, it's actually the 23 year olds who WANT to come in. It's the 40 somethings and 50 somethings who have gotten lazy and want to "walk little Ker and Fuffle from the bus stop everyday and start dinner early" that want to WFH or whatever it is they claim to be doing.

[Anonymous]

How was productivity defined and measured?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much more productive?

Satisfaction with work-life balance is directly correlated with people staying longer at companies, developing greater institutional knowledge and deepening their expertise in their area. It's short-sighted to argue to change a policy that might result in 2% more productivity but 10-15% more attrition. Sure, Meta is looking to shed headcount now because of executive-level mistakes in investment and vision (sorry, but Mega's financial issues have zero to do with engineer productivity due to WFH -- zero). But in the future economic winds will shift and they will be back in the market for talent and, in the tech industry, rigid in-office requirements will be a major liability for attracting the best talent at all levels.

Anecdotally, most people I know want to be in the office at least a couple days a week (unless they totally hate their employer, which is in itself a massive red flag). But they want to feel trusted by their employer to decided when in-office makes sense according to their work flow. I work in a slightly different field but my work is similar to a programmer -- there are definitely collaborative elements to my work, especially when initiating a project and when getting it ready for the client. But in between there are long stretches when I just have to sit at my computer and focus. I do that a million times better at home, with minimal distractions and with the ability maximize my work day without needing to commute. I can start my workday at 7 or 7:30, take shorter breaks for food or coffee since I'm just grabbing something from my kitchen, even my bathroom breaks are more efficient. When I'm mid-project, home is absolutely the most productive option and my employer often gets 10+ hour work days out of me because I'm "in the zone" with minimal distraction. It's basically impossible for me to get that in the office.

So a policy that required 3 days in office each week, with limited leeway for me to determine when that makes sense for my work, is a total no-go for me. I am a 20 yr veteran in my field, my work is in demand, and I know how I work best. I'm not some 23 yr old recent hire who just hates wearing clothes or getting off my couch.

Zuckerberg needs to remember what it is to be a high performer and look for ways to attract them. This ain't it.

I agree. But letting go of control is VERY hard. For parents, for managers, for governments... for everyone who has to supervise anyone. Even if intellectually, they know what you just explained.

Umm, it's actually the 23 year olds who WANT to come in. It's the 40 somethings and 50 somethings who have gotten lazy and want to "walk little Ker and Fuffle from the bus stop everyday and start dinner early" that want to WFH or whatever it is they claim to be doing.

The younger generation needs to be babysat. The 40-50 year olds don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, or FB hired a stupid ass number of people in the first place and didn't have enough work for them.

FB is such a stupidly run company..

There have been reports that Facebook hired people to do "fake work" and that people had to fight to find any work to do.

Doesn't make any sense unless their plan was to hire broadly, then put out the rubbish