The future of remote and full-time WFH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone will have a different perspective: managers, senior managers and regular employees. I personally do not think WFH is going well.

I think a better system would be certain "mandatory days in the office" for collaboration, team building, in person meetings, etc. We didn't need this in the beginning because we all knew each other, but now we're incredibly fragmented. There are now entire programs that I know nothing about because I've never had a meeting or have spoken to this person. Weekly I have a conversation that goes like "oh didn't you know that John is the lead on that? You should be talking to him." But the other person has no idea who John is or where he works.

Employees are lonely and because of this have checked out of work. (sure- some of you have wonderful social lives outside of work, but plenty of people had meaningful professional lives at work and work friends). I think a lot of it is people's unwillingness to turn their cameras on.

It's never been a policy, but on my team we all keep cameras on, and we also do team gatherings and retreats regularly (I realize not every company can afford this).

+1. The companies that are doing well and are attracting top talent will do these things - retreats that are meaningful throughout the year and people can connect for a bit, then go back to remote until the next one.

The ones that can't afford this will revert to something like hybrid or all in the office and will continue to not do well.

If a company is making a decision to bring people back because they can't get out of an office lease, that is not a rational, sound business decision. It's a sunk cost and it's not a way to build a business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will always be entry level data entry and call center work for work from home. These jobs can be easily tracked through key strokes and phone monitoring.

At a professional level you need to be in an office if you want to get promoted.

I make a bit over 200K and I'm fully remote, except for team and company retreats 4-5x a year. (I just posted, my company is one of those companies doing really well and attracting top talent and they can afford those get togethers).

I'm in my mid 40s. At this point, I'll never go back to working in an office regularly again. If the trend reverses in the coming years, I'm well set up with my network to do my own freelance consulting until I can retire.

I realize if you early 20s you might not have these choices, and some people like going in, so it all works out. But for me, I won't go back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once an office gives up the space, it is hard to go back. My office only has 20% of what we used to. I am not worried.

Me, neither…sorta.

Yes, it’s difficult but not impossible to force staff back into the office once you have reduced office space.

But I believe the OP is also wondering if the remote staff might be the first ones axed when cuts are needed. I think that’s something to consider. Rather than eliminating all WFH/remote staff, I do think it’s possible for decision makers to suggest that 1 highly reliable staffer (particularly one who comes into the office) is just as good/all you need and cut those remote staff who are perceived as slackers.

While we aren’t presently cutting, I routinely hear leadership commenting about certain remote staff/teams. The impression is that they are coasting.

FWIW, I make a point of being in the office. It’s how I get FaceTime with the executives as well as how I hear their impressions of others.

Also, they can reconfigure that 20% office space to hold 80% in a hoteling open floor plan, and have you come in 80% time.

Hoteling/open floor plans was crashing and burning right before the pandemic. Companies were just beginning to reckon with it. All kinds of data that it actually inhibits connections as people revert to IMing etc. because they can't get privacy. Productivity was bad too.

Then the pandemic hit.....I don't think we'll go back to the 5 day open floor plan. It just wasn't working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone will have a different perspective: managers, senior managers and regular employees. I personally do not think WFH is going well.

I think a better system would be certain "mandatory days in the office" for collaboration, team building, in person meetings, etc. We didn't need this in the beginning because we all knew each other, but now we're incredibly fragmented. There are now entire programs that I know nothing about because I've never had a meeting or have spoken to this person. Weekly I have a conversation that goes like "oh didn't you know that John is the lead on that? You should be talking to him." But the other person has no idea who John is or where he works.

Employees are lonely and because of this have checked out of work. (sure- some of you have wonderful social lives outside of work, but plenty of people had meaningful professional lives at work and work friends). I think a lot of it is people's unwillingness to turn their cameras on.

It's never been a policy, but on my team we all keep cameras on, and we also do team gatherings and retreats regularly (I realize not every company can afford this).

+1. The companies that are doing well and are attracting top talent will do these things - retreats that are meaningful throughout the year and people can connect for a bit, then go back to remote until the next one.

The ones that can't afford this will revert to something like hybrid or all in the office and will continue to not do well.

If a company is making a decision to bring people back because they can't get out of an office lease, that is not a rational, sound business decision. It's a sunk cost and it's not a way to build a business.

Yep, I am the pp and we work really hard at the leadership level to make our in person retreats useful. They aren’t just for bonding, we plan ahead for the agenda of specific strategy/collaboration sessions. It’s worked out well.

[Anonymous]

I wish we could do retreats or team building.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish we could do retreats or team building.

I'm the PP and I think your management has to be really committed to it beyond just "oh, let's have fun together" or delegating the planning to someone else. They need to be really deliberate about using that time for collaboration and strategy and making everyone on the team (not just the leadership) involved in those sessions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There will always be entry level data entry and call center work for work from home. These jobs can be easily tracked through key strokes and phone monitoring.

At a professional level you need to be in an office if you want to get promoted.

But I dont want to be promoted. I like my job, I do it well, there isnt room for growth in my company (and I am okay with that), people in my company stay there 20-40 years. My work is also very cyclical so I may have less stuff to do for a few months but then its overtime and lots of deadlines 2-4 times per year. Not every professional job should be cutthroat #bossbabe atmosphere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think that this trend won’t last, especially for high-paying professional jobs, perhaps minus programmers. With a recession looming and increased evidence that many WFH staff are working the system, companies, particularly high-performing ones, seem ready to prune their staff. What do you think?

Programmers were already WFH pre-Covid. Also, explain the bolded statement.

You already know. The endless posts on DCUM (and social media) about people using office hours to watch movies, pick up kids, go to the gym, do laundry, make dinner, etc, etc, etc. You’re not one of those “but…but…we proved WFH is sooooo much more productive” jokers, are you?

I do this things on my breaks- you know the 15 minute and 30 min lunches that are legally required? In our office, people watched movies on their phone while working. I can dinner prep (can of salsa and frozen chicken breasts in the crockpot) and be on a phone call.

Because of this, I am more amenable to calls or tasks outside the 8-5 work hours. I have seasonal calls with programs all over the country and sometimes they need calls in the afternoon. I would not do calls after 330pm if I was in the office because my childcare closes at 6pm. If I am WAH I can pick him up, and have a call late, as late as 6pm when PST is 3pm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think that this trend won’t last, especially for high-paying professional jobs, perhaps minus programmers. With a recession looming and increased evidence that many WFH staff are working the system, companies, particularly high-performing ones, seem ready to prune their staff. What do you think?

Working the system? What do you mean?

And I think the opposite. Companies have shown they are more profitable in the last 2 years. Not to mention, not wasting money on a building, KTLO, cleaning, hiring people for food services, etc. that save a ton of overhead costs.

Remote work is here to stay and is not going anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Interesting, for me it seems the low levels jobs are the problem. Currently we come in 2 days a week. Our admin person has things set up such that there are things she has to be in the office to do, like make purchases. She often goes to her vacation home on her WFH days, so if something needs to happen it has to wait until next the next week.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, for me it seems the low levels jobs are the problem. Currently we come in 2 days a week. Our admin person has things set up such that there are things she has to be in the office to do, like make purchases. She often goes to her vacation home on her WFH days, so if something needs to happen it has to wait until next the next week.

Why can’t she make purchases from home? That doesn’t make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think that this trend won’t last, especially for high-paying professional jobs, perhaps minus programmers. With a recession looming and increased evidence that many WFH staff are working the system, companies, particularly high-performing ones, seem ready to prune their staff. What do you think?

Programmers were already WFH pre-Covid. Also, explain the bolded statement.

You already know. The endless posts on DCUM (and social media) about people using office hours to watch movies, pick up kids, go to the gym, do laundry, make dinner, etc, etc, etc. You’re not one of those “but…but…we proved WFH is sooooo much more productive” jokers, are you?

I do this things on my breaks- you know the 15 minute and 30 min lunches that are legally required? In our office, people watched movies on their phone while working. I can dinner prep (can of salsa and frozen chicken breasts in the crockpot) and be on a phone call.

Because of this, I am more amenable to calls or tasks outside the 8-5 work hours. I have seasonal calls with programs all over the country and sometimes they need calls in the afternoon. I would not do calls after 330pm if I was in the office because my childcare closes at 6pm. If I am WAH I can pick him up, and have a call late, as late as 6pm when PST is 3pm.

+1 This is me too. I have no problem going into the office for a day or two a week, or when I'm needed for something in-person, but the reality is that I can get so much more done when working at home and the lack of commute makes me more willing to do extra outside of normal work hours. Working from home, if I hit a roadblock that I'm struggling to get past, I'll often pick it up after dinner and work through it. There's no way I'm doing that after leaving the physical office and driving home.

[Anonymous]

Serious question for the wfh people- Aren't you worried that your companies will realize they can make even bigger profits by sending your jobs to other countries. If you can do the work remotely then why not hire people in Romania, Nigeria or Mexico? They have educated populations and have lower costs of living.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once an office gives up the space, it is hard to go back. My office only has 20% of what we used to. I am not worried.

This. My organization doesn’t even have enough office space for all professional/administrative staff.

Also, our HR department loves WFH so there’s no pressure being put on the rest of us

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Serious question for the wfh people- Aren't you worried that your companies will realize they can make even bigger profits by sending your jobs to other countries. If you can do the work remotely then why not hire people in Romania, Nigeria or Mexico? They have educated populations and have lower costs of living.

Do you consider a hybrid work schedule WFH?

I'm a government employee (not a fed or in VA). I've had several different positions over 15 plus years. During those 15 years, I've regularly done the job of two or more people and accumulated more than 100 hours of comp. time per year that I can't use. I've also canceled family commitments and vacations from time to time to address pressing demands. I've done all of this because I believe in the work I do, the benefits are great, and on balance, the hours are manageable.

On the other hand, the salary is low, and raises are minimal. We are finding it increasingly difficult to fill open positions at all levels. I hope that the availability of hybrid work schedules will encourage more skilled professionals to consider government work. But I agree with others that managing lower-level remote workers is more difficult than having them in the office.