RTO Rant

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I gather you are one of the shitty workers RTO is meant to rid the company.

[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).

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.

And if it doesn’t…you try to find a new one. That’s life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I gather you are one of the shitty workers RTO is meant to rid the company.

Ah, yes. More insults. Like I said, very convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I gather you are one of the shitty workers RTO is meant to rid the company.

Ah, yes. More insults. Like I said, very convincing.

Sure is…I notice you aren’t disputing it so it’s no longer an insult if it’s true.

Sorry you are such a shit worker you will be shown the door…via Zoom of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the people who are most rabid about how much they loath the idea of RTO are:
1) slackers who know they typically really work 20 hours of a 40 hour week, and
2) parents of young kids who understandably would rather spent time with their children than commute. But these folks also don't work what they're supposed to because now they can just "pop out" for every kid related errand.

For most industries, getting staff together is a good thing. And the newest generation of young adult workers really need the in-office time to learn and acclimate. RTO is inevitable. Gen Xers like me love WFH because we're getting older and already paid out in-office dues and know how to be professional. There is no modeling for the newest workers when everyone kid WFH.

We all have our own opinions. Mine is that RTO is the way to go in most cases. I hope most employers will recognize that allowing qualified employees the opportunity to WFH 1-2 days a week would be a good compromise. BTW my office is 10 is 100% remote and staying that way. I typically go into the office anyone because I prefer it. Having the whole place to myself is awesome.

Wow.

Yes there are collaboration opportunities in the office but your response is quite a narrow view.

To provide another perspective, at my current work place, colleagues are actually working harder and being more productive when they’re remote. They’re spending the time they would have normally spent commuting, doing work. They’re spending the time they normally get distracted by people going into the office just to socialize, doing work. They’re also happier because they’re able to quickly get back to family after work without needing to fight the traffic to get home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the people who are most rabid about how much they loath the idea of RTO are:
1) slackers who know they typically really work 20 hours of a 40 hour week, and
2) parents of young kids who understandably would rather spent time with their children than commute. But these folks also don't work what they're supposed to because now they can just "pop out" for every kid related errand.

For most industries, getting staff together is a good thing. And the newest generation of young adult workers really need the in-office time to learn and acclimate. RTO is inevitable. Gen Xers like me love WFH because we're getting older and already paid out in-office dues and know how to be professional. There is no modeling for the newest workers when everyone kid WFH.

We all have our own opinions. Mine is that RTO is the way to go in most cases. I hope most employers will recognize that allowing qualified employees the opportunity to WFH 1-2 days a week would be a good compromise. BTW my office is 10 is 100% remote and staying that way. I typically go into the office anyone because I prefer it. Having the whole place to myself is awesome.

Strongly disagree with this. Most people do not want to waste 2 hours a day commuting and getting ready for work. Having the extra 2 hours a day of personal time improved QOL so much. It’s very difficult to give that up. You don’t have to be a slacker or have young kids to have a life and not want to unnecessarily spend it in a car or on a train.

You’re simply biased. You mention parents popping out for kids, but I’m sure you’re absolutely fine with men in the office stepping out for coffees or spending 2 hours a day talking about stuff unrelated to work. Most people working from an office aren’t productive for 8 hours a day.

Exactly this!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the people who are most rabid about how much they loath the idea of RTO are:
1) slackers who know they typically really work 20 hours of a 40 hour week, and
2) parents of young kids who understandably would rather spent time with their children than commute. But these folks also don't work what they're supposed to because now they can just "pop out" for every kid related errand.

For most industries, getting staff together is a good thing. And the newest generation of young adult workers really need the in-office time to learn and acclimate. RTO is inevitable. Gen Xers like me love WFH because we're getting older and already paid out in-office dues and know how to be professional. There is no modeling for the newest workers when everyone kid WFH.

We all have our own opinions. Mine is that RTO is the way to go in most cases. I hope most employers will recognize that allowing qualified employees the opportunity to WFH 1-2 days a week would be a good compromise. BTW my office is 10 is 100% remote and staying that way. I typically go into the office anyone because I prefer it. Having the whole place to myself is awesome.

Strongly disagree with this. Most people do not want to waste 2 hours a day commuting and getting ready for work. Having the extra 2 hours a day of personal time improved QOL so much. It’s very difficult to give that up. You don’t have to be a slacker or have young kids to have a life and not want to unnecessarily spend it in a car or on a train.

You’re simply biased. You mention parents popping out for kids, but I’m sure you’re absolutely fine with men in the office stepping out for coffees or spending 2 hours a day talking about stuff unrelated to work. Most people working from an office aren’t productive for 8 hours a day.

Yeah, a massive amount of time is wasted in the office. It’s been true for so long many people don’t even realize it anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the people who are most rabid about how much they loath the idea of RTO are:
1) slackers who know they typically really work 20 hours of a 40 hour week, and
2) parents of young kids who understandably would rather spent time with their children than commute. But these folks also don't work what they're supposed to because now they can just "pop out" for every kid related errand.

For most industries, getting staff together is a good thing. And the newest generation of young adult workers really need the in-office time to learn and acclimate. RTO is inevitable. Gen Xers like me love WFH because we're getting older and already paid out in-office dues and know how to be professional. There is no modeling for the newest workers when everyone kid WFH.

We all have our own opinions. Mine is that RTO is the way to go in most cases. I hope most employers will recognize that allowing qualified employees the opportunity to WFH 1-2 days a week would be a good compromise. BTW my office is 10 is 100% remote and staying that way. I typically go into the office anyone because I prefer it. Having the whole place to myself is awesome.

Strongly disagree with this. Most people do not want to waste 2 hours a day commuting and getting ready for work. Having the extra 2 hours a day of personal time improved QOL so much. It’s very difficult to give that up. You don’t have to be a slacker or have young kids to have a life and not want to unnecessarily spend it in a car or on a train.

You’re simply biased. You mention parents popping out for kids, but I’m sure you’re absolutely fine with men in the office stepping out for coffees or spending 2 hours a day talking about stuff unrelated to work. Most people working from an office aren’t productive for 8 hours a day.

Yeah, a massive amount of time is wasted in the office. It’s been true for so long many people don’t even realize it anymore.

That’s the problem. It’s the status quo. If we’d all be WFH to begin with PP would be on here lamenting about the slackers going into the office and not working.