I truly do not understand the anti WFH sentiment

[Anonymous]

[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As the VP of operations at a very large company I don’t understand the problem either. Since I’m the decider of all things operations, long before Covid I put in software and metrics that measure productivity, work load and utilization. Since I can actually see productivity, I couldn’t give a single Fu&k where you get your work done. Everyone can also see their own personal metrics and they can absolutely avoid having their manager snooping in their business if they just keep their numbers within the acceptable range. Numbers are averaged over the untie month so it you need to screw around that’s fine, just work harder the next few days or the days leading up to screwing around and your numbers will remain good. They can also earn bonuses by figuring out ways to increase their productivity over the acceptable range.

Except you don’t know who is doing work.

Please do explain. Metrics are on individuals that then roll up to company metrics. If I wanted to (which I never do because it’s really intrusive) I could look at anyone current screen and could back trace exactly what they did all day today. I could see their gmail, their Facebook , and every single word typed on DCUM along with their actual work. I can see who is visiting what websites and for how long. However I don’t need to because I can see each individuals productivity.

You are so funny Fred Flintstone. When I was working my multiple jobs I had three laptops open, a few monitors, my iPhone out, headphones plugged into various laptops at all time. I knew how to disable Zscaler etc and I had contractor help I hire freelancer websites. I was online 14 -16 hours a day. One job I disabled auto log out and was on line 24/7 six months. I also slowly parcel out data.

I am at one job now but for instance doing RFP at this place on major IT implementation involving RFP 3 vendors. I actually have contracts and RFPs and pricing all three vendors shared under NDA already from job just left. Ever piece of documentation on roll out like 4,000 hours work. But I will share bits and pieces.

I don’t really think bosses care. JP Morgan Chase, NASDAQ, Goldman, Fannie Mae etc all got variations of work I did. Even when I do good work on my own it reappears. A good deck always comes back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WFH has nuked productivity at my company, in two specific ways. First, it has multiplied time in meetings by two- or threefold. This means that there is far less time for actual work. We now have many managers who don't do anything other than receive requests are reroute them to others via email, PowerPoint, and Teams. This is literally like the guy in Office Space who takes requirements from customers to engineers because he's a a people person, damnit. Secondly, it has essentially made it impossible to train new people. It turns out that entry level employees need lots of in-person time--instructional and unstructured--to become productive. We've now gotten to the point where the senior leaders who moved away or refuse to come in are on their way out, and we're only hiring new employees locally. WFH, for us, was a failed experiment.

I agree a lot with this response. For instance, right now I need to find out which person does X program. So I'll send out an email, it will bounce around, won't receive a response for a few days (because the amount of emails everyone receives are in the hundreds) and I am delayed. Previously I could just ask around or pop into someone's office briefly. Or previously I likely would have just known who did X project because I spoke to people at lunch or at the coffee station. I'm getting really frustrated every day.

Meetings and emails are just out of control and they haven't given us the collaboration that we used to have.

There's a new invention I heard about that can help with this. It's called the telephone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we are human and need social interaction, facial expressions, and time to communicate outside of discrete work tasks to feel good about ourselves and be productive. People need to see and hear each other to informally learn from each other. We know that being together in person reduces cortisol and stress levels. Being isolated associated with higher levels of disease.

Omg. You sound so needy. Yuck!

And exactly the reason why some people are more productive at home, not having to deal with the needy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because we are human and need social interaction, facial expressions, and time to communicate outside of discrete work tasks to feel good about ourselves and be productive. People need to see and hear each other to informally learn from each other. We know that being together in person reduces cortisol and stress levels. Being isolated associated with higher levels of disease.

Lol there’s zero chance my employer wants me back in the office to reduce my cortisol levels

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we are human and need social interaction, facial expressions, and time to communicate outside of discrete work tasks to feel good about ourselves and be productive. People need to see and hear each other to informally learn from each other. We know that being together in person reduces cortisol and stress levels. Being isolated associated with higher levels of disease.

Except that I get all those things from outside of work. I come together with FRIENDS who I get to choose and enjoy way more frequently now that I am not spendingt so much time on a soul sucking commute.

If I could have an easy 10-15 minute commute, and come and go from an office as I pleased, sure. But spending 45 minutes in hellish DC traffic that could flex up to 90 minutes with the slightest of issues (rain, accident) is WAY worse for my health than the work place "isolation". Btw, I live 7 miles from my office.

These types of posts and comments acting like whomever wants to come into the office has no friends or no life are straight up bullying.

I bet 80% of the people commenting on here that everyone should do what they want and makes them happy think that they’re liberals.

You don't know the definition of bullying.

This is attempting to coerce using personal attacks. When a coworker says “well I like being in the office a day or two a week so I can get out of my house and see people” and someone else says “I do that with my FRIENDS” and they all laugh. That’s bullying. That’s what happens at my work and the place I previously worked. When someone states “you want me to be in so I can see your ugly face and smell your ugly breath”, which is written on this thread, that’s also bullying.

The WFH people are losing now and they can’t handle it. They get progressively more aggressive and they’ll screw up hybrid for everyone else if they don’t stop saying a couple days in the office is useless so they might as well stay home. You know, there’s another side to that.

[Anonymous]

So interesting that so many pro WFH advocates were so against school closings. The common denominator? What’s convenient for THEM trumps everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that so many pro WFH advocates were so against school closings. The common denominator? What’s convenient for THEM trumps everything else.

That’s true for everyone. Called human nature silly.

[Anonymous]

Your job is to do what your boss tells you as long as it is not illegal, immoral or against company policy.

My firm our policy is you “can” work two days a week from home. I have an annoying staff member who somehow thinks “can” is guaranteed.

My boss is 100 percent in office, I am 100 percent in office. His empty chair sticks out like a sore thumb, optically he needs to be at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Your job is to do what your boss tells you as long as it is not illegal, immoral or against company policy.

My firm our policy is you “can” work two days a week from home. I have an annoying staff member who somehow thinks “can” is guaranteed.

My boss is 100 percent in office, I am 100 percent in office. His empty chair sticks out like a sore thumb, optically he needs to be at work.

That’s dumb. Staff performance is rated by optics? This is so 60s-70s management style (i.e., I have to “see you” to know you are working). Are you and your boss dinosaurs?

[Anonymous]

I am a big proponent of both WFH and flexible schedules, and have actually prioritized WFH has an option for the last 15 years, so was doing it regularly well before the pandemic.

That said, I've noticed that since the pandemic that many people who shifted to WFH during the pandemic are bad at it. Working from home requires self-discipline. A lot of people don't have it, and they don't "go hard" for 9 hours. I think it has also made people who have social anxiety issues worse because they can avoid face to face interaction so much. I am a consultant and I've had client contacts who are incredibly flaky and unreliable in the last few years (far more common than it was pre-pandemic) and with many of my clients, it's typical for no one to be on camera during even important calls that were set up specifically to help people get to know each other.

I'm not anti-WFH at all, but the last few years have taught me that for many people, being in an office is a critical component to them being able to perform their jobs.

And the annoying thing to me is that people who slack off and become avoidant when working from home give the entire concept of WFH a bad name, so I have client now who are adamant about bringing everyone back into the office.

I think it's a training and hiring issue -- you need to set proper expectations for WFH and you need to hire people who can handle it. Also you need managers who know how to manage people remotely -- many don't and have no idea how to motivate and facilitate without in person. You can't just send everyone home and hope for the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a big proponent of both WFH and flexible schedules, and have actually prioritized WFH has an option for the last 15 years, so was doing it regularly well before the pandemic.

That said, I've noticed that since the pandemic that many people who shifted to WFH during the pandemic are bad at it. Working from home requires self-discipline. A lot of people don't have it, and they don't "go hard" for 9 hours. I think it has also made people who have social anxiety issues worse because they can avoid face to face interaction so much. I am a consultant and I've had client contacts who are incredibly flaky and unreliable in the last few years (far more common than it was pre-pandemic) and with many of my clients, it's typical for no one to be on camera during even important calls that were set up specifically to help people get to know each other.

I'm not anti-WFH at all, but the last few years have taught me that for many people, being in an office is a critical component to them being able to perform their jobs.

And the annoying thing to me is that people who slack off and become avoidant when working from home give the entire concept of WFH a bad name, so I have client now who are adamant about bringing everyone back into the office.

I think it's a training and hiring issue -- you need to set proper expectations for WFH and you need to hire people who can handle it. Also you need managers who know how to manage people remotely -- many don't and have no idea how to motivate and facilitate without in person. You can't just send everyone home and hope for the best.

How do you know they are bad at it? It’s not like you are in their living rooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So interesting that so many pro WFH advocates were so against school closings. The common denominator? What’s convenient for THEM trumps everything else.

Yes, of course. People like WFH because they save time on commutes and save money on work clothes, transportation, and food. Plus many workplaces are unpleasant environments with limited privacy. WFH advocates are very transparent about the fact that they like it because it benefits them. Their argument, though, is that it benefits workers without harming productivity, and can even be a boon to productivity because workers are happier and not spending as much of their day simply getting to and from work.

No one has ever argued "Well gosh, I really hate working from home but I'll do it because it's best for my employer." That would be dumb. The argument has always been "this helps me and doesn't hurt you."

Well before the pandemic, I was in a job for a time where my entire team was in another office in another part of the country, plus a smattering of people who were WFH. I petitioned to WFH since I was going into an office every day where I didn't work with anyone there, and then spending my day communicating with my actual team via phone and email. It was dumb. But it was denied because they wanted a member of my team in that particular office. So my company was happy to force me to spend an hour a day commuting to an office where I essentially worked remotely anyway, for an arbitrary reason that had zero to do with my productivity or company revenues. But you want to get mad at WFH advocates for transparently saying "this works better for me"? Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a big proponent of both WFH and flexible schedules, and have actually prioritized WFH has an option for the last 15 years, so was doing it regularly well before the pandemic.

That said, I've noticed that since the pandemic that many people who shifted to WFH during the pandemic are bad at it. Working from home requires self-discipline. A lot of people don't have it, and they don't "go hard" for 9 hours. I think it has also made people who have social anxiety issues worse because they can avoid face to face interaction so much. I am a consultant and I've had client contacts who are incredibly flaky and unreliable in the last few years (far more common than it was pre-pandemic) and with many of my clients, it's typical for no one to be on camera during even important calls that were set up specifically to help people get to know each other.

I'm not anti-WFH at all, but the last few years have taught me that for many people, being in an office is a critical component to them being able to perform their jobs.

And the annoying thing to me is that people who slack off and become avoidant when working from home give the entire concept of WFH a bad name, so I have client now who are adamant about bringing everyone back into the office.

I think it's a training and hiring issue -- you need to set proper expectations for WFH and you need to hire people who can handle it. Also you need managers who know how to manage people remotely -- many don't and have no idea how to motivate and facilitate without in person. You can't just send everyone home and hope for the best.

How do you know they are bad at it? It’s not like you are in their living rooms.

If you can tell when a person you communicate with a lot for work is at home versus in the office, and their WFH days are marked by slow responses to emails and calls, slipped deadlines, and other unprofessional behavior, it's easy to figure out they are bad at WFH.

I once worked with a guy who, on his WFH days, was simply MIA until 10 or 10:30. This is in contrast to many people who thrive with WFH, who often log on early to get a bit of work done before maybe getting in a workout or taking their kids to school, so that they benefit from a jump on morning emails or setting up their day.

WFH really is not for everyone and a lot of people have just never developed the skill set needed to manage themselves without external motivators (like knowing that if they aren't working, their colleagues and bosses will be able to see it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a big proponent of both WFH and flexible schedules, and have actually prioritized WFH has an option for the last 15 years, so was doing it regularly well before the pandemic.

That said, I've noticed that since the pandemic that many people who shifted to WFH during the pandemic are bad at it. Working from home requires self-discipline. A lot of people don't have it, and they don't "go hard" for 9 hours. I think it has also made people who have social anxiety issues worse because they can avoid face to face interaction so much. I am a consultant and I've had client contacts who are incredibly flaky and unreliable in the last few years (far more common than it was pre-pandemic) and with many of my clients, it's typical for no one to be on camera during even important calls that were set up specifically to help people get to know each other.

I'm not anti-WFH at all, but the last few years have taught me that for many people, being in an office is a critical component to them being able to perform their jobs.

And the annoying thing to me is that people who slack off and become avoidant when working from home give the entire concept of WFH a bad name, so I have client now who are adamant about bringing everyone back into the office.

I think it's a training and hiring issue -- you need to set proper expectations for WFH and you need to hire people who can handle it. Also you need managers who know how to manage people remotely -- many don't and have no idea how to motivate and facilitate without in person. You can't just send everyone home and hope for the best.

How do you know they are bad at it? It’s not like you are in their living rooms.

If you can tell when a person you communicate with a lot for work is at home versus in the office, and their WFH days are marked by slow responses to emails and calls, slipped deadlines, and other unprofessional behavior, it's easy to figure out they are bad at WFH.

I once worked with a guy who, on his WFH days, was simply MIA until 10 or 10:30. This is in contrast to many people who thrive with WFH, who often log on early to get a bit of work done before maybe getting in a workout or taking their kids to school, so that they benefit from a jump on morning emails or setting up their day.

WFH really is not for everyone and a lot of people have just never developed the skill set needed to manage themselves without external motivators (like knowing that if they aren't working, their colleagues and bosses will be able to see it).

Poor performance has nothing to do WFH vs in office though. Are you saying these folks were too performers in person before Covid? I doubt that. I think WFH magnifies these little things that you didn’t used to think about in the office. More of misperception than anything

[Anonymous]

A “dirty secret” of WFH at my 6,000 person old firm that is fully remote is “job abandonment” was number one termination reason in 2022.

Also we pay out vacation days. So people literally rarely put in vacation days to build them up.

People have figured out let’s say I make 120k a year. And I have RSUs vest at 2k a month and accrue vacation days at 2 per month why quit. Just start new job and ghost or just pretend or pretend to work it can take weeks, months etc. to get terminated. It becomes headache for managers.

I ghosted my old job four months once and new job boss was a pest. I ended up ghosting new job, catching up old job and eventually new job terminated me.

I say 70 percent of employees my old firm did it. So funny. This is why WFH is dying there is never a reason ever to quit. We had retirees, people move back to hone country, people start new business. There is never a reason to quit. Companies are catching on. Which is what RTO is about.

Heck I did a five month consulting gig at $20k a month flat fee. All WFH. Of course I kept my day job. What was downside?

80 percent of Remote people have a second gig. That’s a fact. Other 20 percent 10-15 percent goofing off or SAHMs.

Yes you can goof off in office. But I literally did 3-5 hours a week work for five months. That’s impossible in person to pull off.