RTO in many cases is the height of hubris.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GM CEO just told people get back to work.

Bottom line way back in 2007 my company started remote. Any employee with children was required to show proof of child care or a nanny, my facilities dept. would visit home to set up office and ensure they had an appropriate place to work at home and had to be online business hours and available.

Most women were looking for free child care or run errands or go bus stop.

My co worker did get approval. He had a home office identical to work, one kid in after school program and they rocked it 830 - 530 pm every day.

Most washed out .

This is incredibly sexist.

It is incredibly sexist to say that most women want to WFH due to childcare and errands or to go to bus stop.
It is ALSO incredibly sexist to say that most men in leadership want RTO so they can sexually harass women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know at my place a lot of the white males in management are unhappy the younger women aren't available to them with WFH and that is a major factor in the RTO decision. Obviously they are in leadership roles so there's no one to challenge their decision.

Yes, this was a perk for them being in upper management.

Although from my experience, the only people working in the office were the women. The men weren't in the office at all. They just want someone to fill the commercial real estate holdings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In oversimplified terms:

There are people who really thrive in the "everybody in the office meeting face-to-face and interacting constantly" environment. Let's call these people group 1. Since most white collar work was structured that way before 2020, it was those people who rose to leadership positions.

Then 2020 happened and the standard white-collar work environment changed. Those who thrived in a remote work environment began to rise (group 2), while group 1 struggled with both a work environment that they felt ill at ease in and the emergence of new competition from group 2.

It's no wonder that group 1 would really like to go back to pre-2020 office life. They are most comfortable in that environment and happier - and it can sometimes be very hard to understand that what works for you doesn't work for others. Additionally, though they may not even be aware of this, I believe that leaders who want a full RTO are often subconsciously motivated by a desire to reduce competition and protect their own positions within the organization.


[FWIW, I'm personally a fan of hybrid, with all hands meetings and 1-2 days per week in the office - that is an environment where we get the benefits of occasional face-to-face interaction while also giving people the opportunity to work in the environment that suits them best. Hybrid with 1 day a week in the office also expands your talent pool in terms of both geography and diversity (people with children, people with health challenges).]

No, no, no. Managers and executives who want RTO are not part of a Group 1 who didn’t thrive in the Group 2/WFH environment. That’s just silly and self-justifying for the WFH crowd.

The more fair argument is that people used to work almost exclusively from the office; during the pandemic, people were forced to WFH; post-pandemic, leaders are trying to capture the best of both work locations through hybrid.

Why can’t people understand this? Why must leaders be demonized as non-thriving WFH types hell-bent on misogyny and micro aggressions? Overwhelmingly, executives are not the crazies WFH types make them out to be, and so the WFH crowd loses credibility every time they make that argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, a recent report suggests that most employers will RTO in 2024 and a decent share will require 5 DOW in-office. Further, 85% are/will track badge swipes and other monitoring stats. The WFH shirk is on the shrink.

The reason you aren’t sourcing it is because all coverage of the report was around skepticism that it would happen or that it was in any way warranted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a sincere question about posts like these every time I see them.

The people making RTO decisions are also humans. They have families and commutes and also enjoyed the benefits of remote work. The vast majority of them are not uber-wealthy Bezos/Musks. Many of them are even staff level HR/budget/external affairs professionals. We see these people every day in the workplace and know them.

They are making these calls for a reason. They may be wrong, but they are not EVIL.

All of us would have better outcomes if we remembered that, and were willing to hear people out in good faith and maybe influence each other. Calling names on other sides is both wrong and also unhelpful.

Op - I am senior enough to know exactly why the decisions are being made and I said what I said. Sacrificing the lives and convenience for a multitude of other human beings because you prefer an in person ‘culture’ is pretty evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GM CEO just told people get back to work.

Bottom line way back in 2007 my company started remote. Any employee with children was required to show proof of child care or a nanny, my facilities dept. would visit home to set up office and ensure they had an appropriate place to work at home and had to be online business hours and available.

Most women were looking for free child care or run errands or go bus stop.

My co worker did get approval. He had a home office identical to work, one kid in after school program and they rocked it 830 - 530 pm every day.

Most washed out .

this post is unintelligible. what?

It's the Two Jobs Guy. Apparently he worked for Stratton Oakmont in a past fantasy life.

Which is ironic because he was juggling three remote jobs at one point per his posts on DCUM. It seems that he now has an in-person executive job and one of his responsibilities is to crack the whip on remote employees.

I am cracking whip hard. Off boarded another one last week. I set up they can only work at work no laptop. It is a 40 hour work week with a mandatory lunch break. I use the on line prem version of a time sheet tool tried to payroll and all hours have to be 40 each week.

Scanners started entering sick days, vacation days trying to hit 40. But they start nothing in the bank. I have a minimum of 45 hours in building each week.

I let up the hammer after 3-6 months after I broke them and I am sure and second job is washed out.

I also fish bowled them in cubes in center of room so If they are on personal call internet I know.

They can quit I don’t care and they can go back to spanking the monkey, sleeping in, working ten jobs, playing golf, getting drunk who cares.

Dude - get help

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a sincere question about posts like these every time I see them.

The people making RTO decisions are also humans. They have families and commutes and also enjoyed the benefits of remote work. The vast majority of them are not uber-wealthy Bezos/Musks. Many of them are even staff level HR/budget/external affairs professionals. We see these people every day in the workplace and know them.

They are making these calls for a reason. They may be wrong, but they are not EVIL.

All of us would have better outcomes if we remembered that, and were willing to hear people out in good faith and maybe influence each other. Calling names on other sides is both wrong and also unhelpful.

Op - I am senior enough to know exactly why the decisions are being made and I said what I said. Sacrificing the lives and convenience for a multitude of other human beings because you prefer an in person ‘culture’ is pretty evil.

Don’t be absurd. It’s not evil, it’s a choice. And then workers can vote with their feet. This is still a capitalist country and that’s how capitalism works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In oversimplified terms:

There are people who really thrive in the "everybody in the office meeting face-to-face and interacting constantly" environment. Let's call these people group 1. Since most white collar work was structured that way before 2020, it was those people who rose to leadership positions.

Then 2020 happened and the standard white-collar work environment changed. Those who thrived in a remote work environment began to rise (group 2), while group 1 struggled with both a work environment that they felt ill at ease in and the emergence of new competition from group 2.

It's no wonder that group 1 would really like to go back to pre-2020 office life. They are most comfortable in that environment and happier - and it can sometimes be very hard to understand that what works for you doesn't work for others. Additionally, though they may not even be aware of this, I believe that leaders who want a full RTO are often subconsciously motivated by a desire to reduce competition and protect their own positions within the organization.


[FWIW, I'm personally a fan of hybrid, with all hands meetings and 1-2 days per week in the office - that is an environment where we get the benefits of occasional face-to-face interaction while also giving people the opportunity to work in the environment that suits them best. Hybrid with 1 day a week in the office also expands your talent pool in terms of both geography and diversity (people with children, people with health challenges).]

No, no, no. Managers and executives who want RTO are not part of a Group 1 who didn’t thrive in the Group 2/WFH environment. That’s just silly and self-justifying for the WFH crowd.

The more fair argument is that people used to work almost exclusively from the office; during the pandemic, people were forced to WFH; post-pandemic, leaders are trying to capture the best of both work locations through hybrid.

Why can’t people understand this? Why must leaders be demonized as non-thriving WFH types hell-bent on misogyny and micro aggressions? Overwhelmingly, executives are not the crazies WFH types make them out to be, and so the WFH crowd loses credibility every time they make that argument.

Here’s exactly why people don’t understand it and it’s simple. Digital evolution in the past 10 years has reached a peak such that we are able to work remotely. People were starting to notice this and do it occasionally in the 2010s. Pandemic happened and clearly showed it is possible to work 100% remotely. An unplanned experiment. Now that the experiment has clearly showed it is possible and desirable, people don’t want to go back to how it was before the experiment showed we don’t need to be in the office. What life was like pre pandemic is totally irrelevant and a weak argument

[Anonymous]

It's going to come down to money, I'm looking to switch from my current WFH job to a RTO job in 2024 to get an increase in salary and benefits.

[Anonymous]

I love RTO. I’m a nanny and have been waiting for years for this moment. Finally the house is quiet during nap time, no more mess all over the kitchen, no more kids screaming whenever parents pop in and out to ‘help’. The kids are peaceful, no fighting for attention, we can do crafts and not get micromanaged, we can play games and sing and not be shushed because parents want to zoom right in the living room instead of going in their home office, and I don’t have to hide in the bathroom during nap time to have 10 minutes to myself. I miss being able to go home at 6pm, but I’ll take finishing at 7:30pm any day, to have an entire shift of peacefulness with the kids.

You had your time. It was 3 years of misery for nannies, with RTO. Now it’s our turn to enjoy our work environment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In oversimplified terms:

There are people who really thrive in the "everybody in the office meeting face-to-face and interacting constantly" environment. Let's call these people group 1. Since most white collar work was structured that way before 2020, it was those people who rose to leadership positions.

Then 2020 happened and the standard white-collar work environment changed. Those who thrived in a remote work environment began to rise (group 2), while group 1 struggled with both a work environment that they felt ill at ease in and the emergence of new competition from group 2.

It's no wonder that group 1 would really like to go back to pre-2020 office life. They are most comfortable in that environment and happier - and it can sometimes be very hard to understand that what works for you doesn't work for others. Additionally, though they may not even be aware of this, I believe that leaders who want a full RTO are often subconsciously motivated by a desire to reduce competition and protect their own positions within the organization.


[FWIW, I'm personally a fan of hybrid, with all hands meetings and 1-2 days per week in the office - that is an environment where we get the benefits of occasional face-to-face interaction while also giving people the opportunity to work in the environment that suits them best. Hybrid with 1 day a week in the office also expands your talent pool in terms of both geography and diversity (people with children, people with health challenges).]

No, no, no. Managers and executives who want RTO are not part of a Group 1 who didn’t thrive in the Group 2/WFH environment. That’s just silly and self-justifying for the WFH crowd.

The more fair argument is that people used to work almost exclusively from the office; during the pandemic, people were forced to WFH; post-pandemic, leaders are trying to capture the best of both work locations through hybrid.

Why can’t people understand this? Why must leaders be demonized as non-thriving WFH types hell-bent on misogyny and micro aggressions? Overwhelmingly, executives are not the crazies WFH types make them out to be, and so the WFH crowd loses credibility every time they make that argument.

Here’s exactly why people don’t understand it and it’s simple. Digital evolution in the past 10 years has reached a peak such that we are able to work remotely. People were starting to notice this and do it occasionally in the 2010s. Pandemic happened and clearly showed it is possible to work 100% remotely. An unplanned experiment. Now that the experiment has clearly showed it is possible and desirable, people don’t want to go back to how it was before the experiment showed we don’t need to be in the office. What life was like pre pandemic is totally irrelevant and a weak argument

Np. No. Just look at the threads where people refuse to turn in video cameras. How do you get teamwork and camaraderie when people won’t even turn on the camera? Remote isn’t working. I’d argue it doesn’t work when it goes above 10%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lesson from history: the dinosaurs never evolved.

That's not true. Chickens are from T-Rex. Do research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WFH is hard for the younger workers who miss out on some aspects of learning on the job and informal mentoring.

This. WFH is really great for me making school dropoff and pickup but terrible for my younger colleagues.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that supervising people based on WORK PRODUCT is hard in an office. We can't count how many widgets you made today, so we have to be on top of your accomplishments and managers don't have the time to notice what you actually do all day.

It's easier to just make you sit where they can see you.

[Anonymous]

I think talking in person with work colleagues is important, both for work and socialization.

I think respecting people's time and issues with commuting and childcare is important.

So maybe working in the office 2-3 days a week, with everyone there, is a good compromise.