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

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care at all, but I think one should take a paycut. Generally, I think anyone who has a job that requires one to work in person, should be paid considerably more. From the grocery restocker to yard work people to teachers to construction crew to janitors to nurses.

I spend ~$17 on the commute, so 4x a pay period is $68. I would give that up to WFH.

If you’re only going in 4 times every two weeks, you are not the person PP is talking about.

[Anonymous]

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.

There’s some element of truth to this but it need not be on a daily basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WFH has allowed me to take a second job. I love it. Maybe this is why they hate us?

This anti-WFH trolling is just so old. At least come up with something new.

[Anonymous]

Im a semi extrovert. Seeing people in person, chitchat, makes me happy. I dont put myself together if i work from home. I leave my camera off, my teeth unbrushed. It’s depressing. Why go anywhere? Just get things deliver by drones to your house. Life is starting to feel less worthwhile.

[Anonymous]

It’s not jealousy, but fairness. Everyone knows that WFH employees - on average - shirk more than their in-office peers, yet they are paid the same. In-office workers should not receive a raise to work there, but WFH folks should be paid less to WFH, at least 25% less based on their lack of commuting, dry cleaning, aftercare, etc. and lower productivity. I know some WFH loon will go crazy about these comments, but this is what’s on everyone’s mind.

[Anonymous]

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...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not jealousy, but fairness. Everyone knows that WFH employees - on average - shirk more than their in-office peers, yet they are paid the same. In-office workers should not receive a raise to work there, but WFH folks should be paid less to WFH, at least 25% less based on their lack of commuting, dry cleaning, aftercare, etc. and lower productivity. I know some WFH loon will go crazy about these comments, but this is what’s on everyone’s mind.

says who? OPM said that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not jealousy, but fairness. Everyone knows that WFH employees - on average - shirk more than their in-office peers, yet they are paid the same. In-office workers should not receive a raise to work there, but WFH folks should be paid less to WFH, at least 25% less based on their lack of commuting, dry cleaning, aftercare, etc. and lower productivity. I know some WFH loon will go crazy about these comments, but this is what’s on everyone’s mind.

This. x10000

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care at all, but I think one should take a paycut. Generally, I think anyone who has a job that requires one to work in person, should be paid considerably more. From the grocery restocker to yard work people to teachers to construction crew to janitors to nurses.

As a federal government employee who strongly prefers to work from home, I would have no issue with a salary differential based on how many days one is required to be in the office, with more mandatory days in the office resulting in higher pay. That seems equitable and fair to me.

Why? It doesn’t to me. It’s not like the in-office person inherently works more

NP but it costs a lot more to have in-person engagement: clothes, lunches, coffees, wear and tear on car/public transportation costs, and the time itself spent commuting.

Don’t be obtuse.

This is where someone screams "Not your employer's problem! Pack a lunch!" Not to mention that WFH employees pay rent and utilities that the employer would otherwise have to pay.

That said, there's nothing stopping an employer from offering a bonus to work in person: maybe they should put their money where their mouths are. Is bonding over the water cooler really that important, if the company has to pay cash for to happen? Would be interesting to find out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s not jealousy, but fairness. Everyone knows that WFH employees - on average - shirk more than their in-office peers, yet they are paid the same. In-office workers should not receive a raise to work there, but WFH folks should be paid less to WFH, at least 25% less based on their lack of commuting, dry cleaning, aftercare, etc. and lower productivity. I know some WFH loon will go crazy about these comments, but this is what’s on everyone’s mind.

Everyone does not know that at all. My agency has worked great during this period. In fact, now that o think about it the people that are running slow are the ones that are in the office more and are chatty extroverts.

[Anonymous]

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...

I don’t have a chip on my shoulder. I’ve been very successful in my career, partially by building a strong network. You won’t do that at home in your pajamas with your camera off.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t care what most people do but I don’t want to work with people who are 100% WFH. They quickly become out of touch and lack empathy because they never see anyone else in person. It’s not an issue with hybrid people, but pre-pandemic I worked with people who were fully remote for 5-10 years and they got WEIRD.

This happened to me (I got weird) years ago working in person, when I was the only person on my floor. So I do get what you're saying. But the vast majority of people are not "never seeing anyone in person." They have family, friends, neighbors, church, community events. We aren't sitting in our jammies with unbrushed teeth precisely because we do see lots of people during the day - plus all the people we see on camera.

PP above, who isn't getting dressed and turning on a camera, is in control of that situation. That isn't a typical or necessary part of WFH.

[Anonymous]

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...

Most managers don’t mentor or even supervise.