For those who are anti wfh, curious why you care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - an obvious WFH diehard masquerading as someone who just wants to make work better for everyone - is a joke. She (yes, it’s a she) endlessly rolls out the WFH mantras (workers aren’t responsible for funding buildings or downtown; bad WFH folks aren’t an employee problem but a management problem) and isn’t genuinely interested in understanding why RTO is necessary; she just wants to punch a bag and seems to think that doing so will somehow defeat RTO. It won’t. If she was genuine, she’d recognize that there are lots of people who abuse WFH, that in-office work can have benefits, and that companies should pay less for WFH because wages have always reflected the cost of providing services (think COL adjustments), not just the value of the service itself. I can’t imagine OP as a teammate; she’d always have an excuse for every failure and it would always be someone else’s fault. OP just wants to argue, not solve a problem.

But why do you personally care?
Are you earning the same as those who are wfh and required to go in?
Are your team mates letting you down?
What is your dog in the fight? That was the question
I don’t think op is one person - there are a ton of people in America who are not feeling rto

If you pay for a Gucci bag and another steals one from the store and doesn’t get prosecuted, you are angered by the injustice. Apply that to WFH extremists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - an obvious WFH diehard masquerading as someone who just wants to make work better for everyone - is a joke. She (yes, it’s a she) endlessly rolls out the WFH mantras (workers aren’t responsible for funding buildings or downtown; bad WFH folks aren’t an employee problem but a management problem) and isn’t genuinely interested in understanding why RTO is necessary; she just wants to punch a bag and seems to think that doing so will somehow defeat RTO. It won’t. If she was genuine, she’d recognize that there are lots of people who abuse WFH, that in-office work can have benefits, and that companies should pay less for WFH because wages have always reflected the cost of providing services (think COL adjustments), not just the value of the service itself. I can’t imagine OP as a teammate; she’d always have an excuse for every failure and it would always be someone else’s fault. OP just wants to argue, not solve a problem.

But why do you personally care?
Are you earning the same as those who are wfh and required to go in?
Are your team mates letting you down?
What is your dog in the fight? That was the question
I don’t think op is one person - there are a ton of people in America who are not feeling rto

If you pay for a Gucci bag and another steals one from the store and doesn’t get prosecuted, you are angered by the injustice. Apply that to WFH extremists.

But you seem to prefer in office so how is someone else working remotely stealing from you? I think for desk jobs we should all have the option up to 5 day either way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mentioned this thread to DH who supervises a lot of people (lawyers and support staff), and he shrugged and told me he had an employee who was supposed to be WFH and found out that instead of actually doing any work during working hours, they were driving for Instacart.

Another person with no shame about admitting publicly what a terrible manager they are.

RTO is not a fix for bad managers, but clearly a lot of people seem think it is.

Well, he's only been managing that section for several months, and they think the Instacart shenanigans have been going on since the middle of the pandemic and he's the one that figured it out, so I'm not going to blame him. But sure, there's a management issue there. There's also a WFH issue there that RTO would cure -- that particular employee wouldn't be driving for Instacart all day instead of doing their work if they were in the office.

RTO fixes plenty of the productivity issues that wouldn't exist but for WFH.

Someone brazen enough to drive for Instacart during the middle of their workday isn’t going to suddenly shape up into some stellar, productive employee because they’re in the office. This type of person will be online gambling on their phone or dipping out for long lunches. While I was working in an office we had employees caught doing things like studying for a real estate license, selling MLM, and even watching porn.

Making people RTO instead of actually managing people with set expectations around responsiveness and deadlines is lazy and risks losing your good employees who will feel they’re being punished for someone else’s bad actions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s be real here. If you’ve ever been a supervisor you know that dealing with people complaining about unfair treatment between colleagues is tough to manage. Putting the wfh / hybrid management decisions on individual supervisors is a thankless task for them, they will never be able to get it right to everyone’s satisfaction. Higher level consistent rules (not just “guidance”) is needed. Same for any organization, not just the government.

Being a supervisor you have to balance performance with employee satisfaction and retention - including avoiding resentment over perceived or real favoritism. Some on this thread seem to think that’s easy to do.

Yes, supervisors get paid more because their job is hard. Don't take the job if you don't want to do it.

The main thing I take away from the countless complaints about "slacking" in any location is that supervisors are afraid to make direct statements about their expectations, let alone have an uncomfortable conversation with someone about performance. "Managing" is an actual job and skillset that requires thought: it isn't just the thing you automatically do when you've been working for 10 years and the old manager retires.

. I’m the poster you replied to. I agree, but l still think consistent rules (not just guidance) needs to come from the top, as supervisors need this to not be put in impossible situations regarding fairness - perceived and real.

I don't see what's impossible about it. When somebody says, "Boss, I'd like to WFH" and the boss has discretion to approve or deny, then the boss can (and should) be fair. Fairness could look like equality - everybody gets 2 days/week - or it could look like actual fairness, which might mean Jane can't WFH because her duties include giving tours of the building, while Jen can WFH because she works entirely with suppliers overseas, and John could WFH except that his last 3 projects have been late so he needs to prove he can work indepenently.

I agree a wise boss would set up some written parameters and then apply them consistently, instead of doing it ad hoc - but that's part of the management skills I mentioned. Demanding that it get done at the level above you is just passing the buck, and giving up control because you don't want the responsibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - an obvious WFH diehard masquerading as someone who just wants to make work better for everyone - is a joke. She (yes, it’s a she) endlessly rolls out the WFH mantras (workers aren’t responsible for funding buildings or downtown; bad WFH folks aren’t an employee problem but a management problem) and isn’t genuinely interested in understanding why RTO is necessary; she just wants to punch a bag and seems to think that doing so will somehow defeat RTO. It won’t. If she was genuine, she’d recognize that there are lots of people who abuse WFH, that in-office work can have benefits, and that companies should pay less for WFH because wages have always reflected the cost of providing services (think COL adjustments), not just the value of the service itself. I can’t imagine OP as a teammate; she’d always have an excuse for every failure and it would always be someone else’s fault. OP just wants to argue, not solve a problem.

But why do you personally care?
Are you earning the same as those who are wfh and required to go in?
Are your team mates letting you down?
What is your dog in the fight? That was the question
I don’t think op is one person - there are a ton of people in America who are not feeling rto

If you pay for a Gucci bag and another steals one from the store and doesn’t get prosecuted, you are angered by the injustice. Apply that to WFH extremists.

But you seem to prefer in office so how is someone else working remotely stealing from you? I think for desk jobs we should all have the option up to 5 day either way.

OP, quit playing stupid. This thread and many, many others and endless articles make clear that people are stealing from their company and teammates by half-a$$ing their jobs, blaming others, setting artificial boundaries, working two jobs, and more. They are stealing from their company because they are not working the hours paid and giving a complete effort. They are stealing from their peers because when others slack, others have to pickup the difference, can’t complete their work in a timely way, and productivity declines. Just as importantly, when people cheat their employer and coworkers and get away with it, it creates a morale issue. Before you know it, either everyone is shirking or everyone hates the WFH nuts. Yes, OP, we’re hoping you get fired, yet we know that you won’t because you work for a government agency. That makes you like the unprosecuted thief - you are a social injustice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say you go to a bar and is empty. Go to church and only one there, go to restaurant and you are only customer. It is weird.

Kinda same at work

Oh! Do gym do gym! I would love that.
Sometimes I fantasize that it’s just me and a few people I like in a post apocalyptic world

Spoiler. You RTO needies did not make it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I like how everyone writes off the RTO folks as a bunch of old white men who are behind the times.

We know why WFH folks like it better: it’s easier for them. They’ll insist they’re more efficient, more productive, cheaper for the employer, etc - and in some cases they may be right. But that’s not what’s driving them. What’s driving them is that’s it easier. Plain and simple.

You’re gonna have trouble convincing this old white dude that it’s good for business for employees to sit at home on their computers isolated from their colleagues and their employer.

Shouldn’t work get easier?

No lets make it harder! Dewey decimal systems and no internet! Everything typed out with no corrective tape. Every communication by pigeon by gosh!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how everyone writes off the RTO folks as a bunch of old white men who are behind the times.

We know why WFH folks like it better: it’s easier for them. They’ll insist they’re more efficient, more productive, cheaper for the employer, etc - and in some cases they may be right. But that’s not what’s driving them. What’s driving them is that’s it easier. Plain and simple.

You’re gonna have trouble convincing this old white dude that it’s good for business for employees to sit at home on their computers isolated from their colleagues and their employer.

Shouldn’t work get easier?

No lets make it harder! Dewey decimal systems and no internet! Everything typed out with no corrective tape. Every communication by pigeon by gosh!

DP. You’re confusing ease with productivity. If your job is easier because of tech, you should be more productive, holding effort constant. However, productivity studies show that people are not more productive when working from home and those who prefer to work from home are even less productive than the average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I like how everyone writes off the RTO folks as a bunch of old white men who are behind the times.

We know why WFH folks like it better: it’s easier for them. They’ll insist they’re more efficient, more productive, cheaper for the employer, etc - and in some cases they may be right. But that’s not what’s driving them. What’s driving them is that’s it easier. Plain and simple.

You’re gonna have trouble convincing this old white dude that it’s good for business for employees to sit at home on their computers isolated from their colleagues and their employer.

Shouldn’t work get easier?

No lets make it harder! Dewey decimal systems and no internet! Everything typed out with no corrective tape. Every communication by pigeon by gosh!

DP. You’re confusing ease with productivity. If your job is easier because of tech, you should be more productive, holding effort constant. However, productivity studies show that people are not more productive when working from home and those who prefer to work from home are even less productive than the average.

^^ PP. To be clear, WFH nuts are less productive because they’re not holding effort constant relative to in-office.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mentioned this thread to DH who supervises a lot of people (lawyers and support staff), and he shrugged and told me he had an employee who was supposed to be WFH and found out that instead of actually doing any work during working hours, they were driving for Instacart.

Another person with no shame about admitting publicly what a terrible manager they are.

RTO is not a fix for bad managers, but clearly a lot of people seem think it is.

This response is like blaming a woman who gets cat called for dressing provocatively instead of the guy for being a pig.

Dishonesty is the fault of the cheater. Not the one being cheated.

[Anonymous]

I only care about RTO when it comes to federal workers because they’re wasting my tax dollars. The private sector isn’t my concern because it’s not my money.

[Anonymous]

OP clearly thinks WFH can do no wrong, an obviously unbalanced view. Every problem is a you problem. OP shows no flexibility, no desire to be a team player. She sees her agency, her managers, and RTO teammates as the Man, something that must be opposed at every turn. OP is the type of person who tears teams apart because they are militantly narcissistic. It’s all about them. It’s amazing that people like OP have zero gratitude for having a good job.

[Anonymous]

These last four posters have got to be all the same person...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I only care about RTO when it comes to federal workers because they’re wasting my tax dollars. The private sector isn’t my concern because it’s not my money.

The feds who waste your money are wasting your money whether they are working from home or working from the office. They are usually the most extroverted, and talk to each other all day long instead of doing any work, so being in person definitely won't help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP - an obvious WFH diehard masquerading as someone who just wants to make work better for everyone - is a joke. She (yes, it’s a she) endlessly rolls out the WFH mantras (workers aren’t responsible for funding buildings or downtown; bad WFH folks aren’t an employee problem but a management problem) and isn’t genuinely interested in understanding why RTO is necessary; she just wants to punch a bag and seems to think that doing so will somehow defeat RTO. It won’t. If she was genuine, she’d recognize that there are lots of people who abuse WFH, that in-office work can have benefits, and that companies should pay less for WFH because wages have always reflected the cost of providing services (think COL adjustments), not just the value of the service itself. I can’t imagine OP as a teammate; she’d always have an excuse for every failure and it would always be someone else’s fault. OP just wants to argue, not solve a problem.

But why do you personally care?
Are you earning the same as those who are wfh and required to go in?
Are your team mates letting you down?
What is your dog in the fight? That was the question
I don’t think op is one person - there are a ton of people in America who are not feeling rto

If you pay for a Gucci bag and another steals one from the store and doesn’t get prosecuted, you are angered by the injustice. Apply that to WFH extremists.

But you seem to prefer in office so how is someone else working remotely stealing from you? I think for desk jobs we should all have the option up to 5 day either way.

OP, quit playing stupid. This thread and many, many others and endless articles make clear that people are stealing from their company and teammates by half-a$$ing their jobs, blaming others, setting artificial boundaries, working two jobs, and more. They are stealing from their company because they are not working the hours paid and giving a complete effort. They are stealing from their peers because when others slack, others have to pickup the difference, can’t complete their work in a timely way, and productivity declines. Just as importantly, when people cheat their employer and coworkers and get away with it, it creates a morale issue. Before you know it, either everyone is shirking or everyone hates the WFH nuts. Yes, OP, we’re hoping you get fired, yet we know that you won’t because you work for a government agency. That makes you like the unprosecuted thief - you are a social injustice.

Bingo!