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

[Anonymous]

I am not anti wfh but my office has mandatory in-person days and when one person is home on one of those days we then have to spend the first five minutes of each meeting logging into the zoom so that one person can participate, which is annoying. I also find that less informal mentoring happens when people are remote. That not probably not a big deal for the people on DCUM, but I do worry it could impact the careers of people just starting out.

I agree with this. There are lots of pointers that older managers give to younger people in person that they aren't necessarily going to commit to writing---especially strategy and inside info on how to deal with other managerial personalities. And I do not necessarily believe that any work training events held on Zoom command the same engagement or attention that they do when held in a room where it quickly becomes very noticeable who is on their phone and not engaging with the matter at hand. I do like one day a week of WFH because it enables me to set aside that day to complete tasks that require intensive concentration for a longer period of time. But I wish we would get to an equilibrium of four days a week in the office.

[Anonymous]

Let’s be clear, diehard WFH folks aren’t e interested in good reasons to RTO. When they do RTO, they’ll be the biggest socializers because they want to sabotage the effort, get revenge on their company/agency and to *prove* that RTO doesn’t matter. At core, these are not trustworthy employees. Best to get rid of them and move on. Bad apples spoil the bunch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had a few conversations with people about the RTO push and who this benefits.

If you’ll notice, most people agitating for RTO are white guys in upper management. Why? In the office, they’re The Man. Without a staff to kiss their ass, who are they?

Furthermore, I think because presumably WFH evens the playing field for POC, as people truly are being evaluated by their output rather than intangibles like “fit,” the white guys are freaking out that the end to their long, nearly exclusive claim to power in corporate America may be fading.

Finally I think a lot of these guys want to cheat, and without “the office” as a place they go to everyday, it makes that a lot harder.

Ok, I am 100% pro WFA but this ^^^ is insane.

I think it's spot-on. Many, many women reported a sense or relief during covid because the workplace harassment stopped.

And a lot of POCs reported a feeling of relief because they were being judged on the quality of their work and not a bunch of other intangibles such as "fit" and whatnot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a manager in a federal office, it’s much easier to supervise people I’m person. All of the mentorship and relationship building happens in person, as well as most of the effective collaboration. New young people seem to be coming and going from our agency very quickly because they have no connection to what we do from home. I’m ok with a hybrid arrangement because I understand that everyone hates the commute, but I would prefer around 3 days a week together in person.

Nobody wants your mentorship, relationship... Your inability to supervise WFH folks is not my problem. Big chip on your shoulder...

Says someone who’s never tried to supervise WFH staff.

I'd say this is a you problem, as my whole staff is WFH since my org is remote-only, and I don't have a problem managing them at all. It's actually easier, to be honest, as I don't have people coming to me with a lot of petty in-person drama, everyone is more focused on the work product, deadlines, projects and so on. I don't care where they do the work from so long as it comes in on time and is of superior quality and they are available (on camera or off camera, makes no difference to me just be prepared to contribute) for meetings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get it, some people want to quiet quit with their lazy girl jobs from home and don’t ever want to see the inside of an office. Others have ambition, want to have real relationships with colleagues and are willing to make some effort to show up in person. We’ll see which group has progressed farther in their careers over the next few years, I know who I’m betting on.

Interesting but I was hired to run an organization all while working from my home office. In fact, I just got a spot bonus because I'm so great and was told by a boss who left that the upline bosses are worried I will leave. Seems like my career is going pretty darn well and I have been to the office three times in two years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jealousy. Simple as that. “If I can’t have it, I don’t want you to have it either” mindset.

+100 Also there are the super lonely people who's whole social life revolves going to work and going around to other people's offices and hanging around the kitchen telling long stories about ALL their cats and the crazy things their cats do all the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve had a few conversations with people about the RTO push and who this benefits.

If you’ll notice, most people agitating for RTO are white guys in upper management. Why? In the office, they’re The Man. Without a staff to kiss their ass, who are they?

Furthermore, I think because presumably WFH evens the playing field for POC, as people truly are being evaluated by their output rather than intangibles like “fit,” the white guys are freaking out that the end to their long, nearly exclusive claim to power in corporate America may be fading.

Finally I think a lot of these guys want to cheat, and without “the office” as a place they go to everyday, it makes that a lot harder.

Ok, I am 100% pro WFA but this ^^^ is insane.

I think it's spot-on. Many, many women reported a sense or relief during covid because the workplace harassment stopped.

And a lot of POCs reported a feeling of relief because they were being judged on the quality of their work and not a bunch of other intangibles such as "fit" and whatnot.

Please share links to the surveys that were conducted on these issues. Not that you can, since we know you’re making it up.

[Anonymous]

The “they’re just jealous” response is so tedious and cliche.

[Anonymous]

I am not anti WFH but I do find the entitlement to it annoying, specifically from people who work at a job that was previously in the office.

This is the case for my employer. We never allowed telework prior to COVID. Now, employees get 2-3 days a week. A few complain and lobby for full-time remote almost constantly. You were hired to work in office! We have more telework than I ever thought possible! If you don't like it, leave!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m a manager in a federal office, it’s much easier to supervise people I’m person. All of the mentorship and relationship building happens in person, as well as most of the effective collaboration. New young people seem to be coming and going from our agency very quickly because they have no connection to what we do from home. I’m ok with a hybrid arrangement because I understand that everyone hates the commute, but I would prefer around 3 days a week together in person.

Nobody wants your mentorship, relationship... Your inability to supervise WFH folks is not my problem. Big chip on your shoulder...

Says someone who’s never tried to supervise WFH staff.

I'd say this is a you problem, as my whole staff is WFH since my org is remote-only, and I don't have a problem managing them at all. It's actually easier, to be honest, as I don't have people coming to me with a lot of petty in-person drama, everyone is more focused on the work product, deadlines, projects and so on. I don't care where they do the work from so long as it comes in on time and is of superior quality and they are available (on camera or off camera, makes no difference to me just be prepared to contribute) for meetings.

+1

I agree that in my experience, WFH centers more around the work and less about the personalities. I was a supervisor in-office and there were constantly people coming to me to complain that so-and-so always has their office door closed; A and B are always talking and not working; Larla takes a full lunch hour but then picks up food and eats it at her desk; Larlo clocks in early and then disappears for hours; a male and female worker are always chatting and therefore having an affair/the female worker in the example is aggrieved that others are gossiping about her having an affair. This is part of why it makes me laugh when people think slacking only occurs when WFH.

[Anonymous]

Wfh are not working. I knew this from before covid from a friend whose Husband works for the federal gov’t. She complained that he only worked when he had to and had 2 monitors which he used one for watching movies while “working.”

[Anonymous]

Some people are just miserable jerks, OP. At a former job, I was working to convert some unused storage rooms into nursing/mother's rooms. An older female coworker scoffed at the entire project stating she had 3 kids while working FT and didn't she need a nursing room. I'm sure that same woman thinks working from home is unfair and for slackers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not anti wfh but my office has mandatory in-person days and when one person is home on one of those days we then have to spend the first five minutes of each meeting logging into the zoom so that one person can participate, which is annoying. I also find that less informal mentoring happens when people are remote. That not probably not a big deal for the people on DCUM, but I do worry it could impact the careers of people just starting out.

I agree with this. There are lots of pointers that older managers give to younger people in person that they aren't necessarily going to commit to writing---especially strategy and inside info on how to deal with other managerial personalities. And I do not necessarily believe that any work training events held on Zoom command the same engagement or attention that they do when held in a room where it quickly becomes very noticeable who is on their phone and not engaging with the matter at hand. I do like one day a week of WFH because it enables me to set aside that day to complete tasks that require intensive concentration for a longer period of time. But I wish we would get to an equilibrium of four days a week in the office.

+1. I've discouraged my college kid from working any internships that include a WFH component. He needs to be in the physical workplace getting training, mentoring, and experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

There is someone on here who keeps posting the same rant over and over about not being a team player if you work from home. I think a lot of the disgruntled posts are from them. And it’s so specific it sounds like it’s being written about one coworker in particular they can’t stand. So they want workplace policies to be governed by this grudge.

Utterly bizarre.

A lot of posts have shared anecdotes from their work or their spouse’s work that show frustration with some work from home employees. On the last page, there was a post that discussed the impact of bad wfhomies on the company and coworkers. That seemed accurate to me.

Not sure if it’s the original poster or someone else, but someone repeatedly posts comments like the one I’m now responding to. In particular, the posts never address the issue, but attack/demean the poster, mischaracterize the earlier comments, or just deflect in general. It’s like an incompetent attorney is responding.

I know there are multiple posters on here but you’re blind if you can’t see variations of the same language being repeated on here by one clearly disgruntled person who seems to have a very particular grudge about someone not being a team player.

[Anonymous]

The last two years I worked for a fully remote company.

If anything it was an “young boys club” the give you KPIs and that is strict measure judged one. Some had KPIs that required 10-13 hours of work a day to keep up.

If you were “hooked up” you get zero KPIs and boss would do override to get you bonus and raises.

All your manager had to do was assign you more work or assign you the crappy work. Being 100 percent remote you can’t see Bob doing nothing 7 hours a day while you work 12 hours a day.

We were a big Bros before Hos type place. We were 80 percent men in management. And over 35 well very rare. Remote hard to prove anything.