RTO in many cases is the height of hubris.

[Anonymous]

I hate commuting and love WFH but we track productive hours and they are done about 25-30% among our junior employees since adopting our hybrid schedule. One of them admitted to me that they do get a lot more done in the office. These twenty-somethings are totally ruining it for the rest of us—they are going to make us all come back in because these younger folks cannot actually work a full day from home. I’m comparing it across 25 years worth of data for similar junior employees and these young workers of today are just doing significantly less work (for a lot more money) across the board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate commuting and love WFH but we track productive hours and they are done about 25-30% among our junior employees since adopting our hybrid schedule. One of them admitted to me that they do get a lot more done in the office. These twenty-somethings are totally ruining it for the rest of us—they are going to make us all come back in because these younger folks cannot actually work a full day from home. I’m comparing it across 25 years worth of data for similar junior employees and these young workers of today are just doing significantly less work (for a lot more money) across the board.

we also track that and I find my junior levels are mostly at about 120% work effort. I'm not sure your experience is universal.

[Anonymous]

In the private sector studies have shown people are 18 percent more effective in office.

Let’s say I have 100,000 employees I force RTO hard. No exceptions. If 18 percent quit does it matter.

And I know it can save on rent. My particular company is rare we own our headquarters as well as our other back up facility. Both mortgage free. The other small sites are customer facing so no remote. Many companies are locked into physical space.

When I do remote which I am doing on Friday I am getting haircut, going dry cleaners. Picking up prescription, doing dentist appointment, etc. it frees up my weekend. Great for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hate commuting and love WFH but we track productive hours and they are done about 25-30% among our junior employees since adopting our hybrid schedule. One of them admitted to me that they do get a lot more done in the office. These twenty-somethings are totally ruining it for the rest of us—they are going to make us all come back in because these younger folks cannot actually work a full day from home. I’m comparing it across 25 years worth of data for similar junior employees and these young workers of today are just doing significantly less work (for a lot more money) across the board.

If only TW was some sort of privilege that you could revoke for your unproductive workers. Or if there was some sort of process that you could use to get rid of unproductive employees.

[Anonymous]

And why should you get workers care at all?

I take my daughter as an example. She busted her butt year 1 at work following graduation. She got a small raise and bonus.

She has no intention of staying past 3 years. She is 100 percent remote.

Most of her friends same boat. From 22-32 you job hop every 2-3 years.

And some firms have a “rest and vest” model. You get big sign on grant - then year one a big grant if you work like a dog, but with 3-4 year vesting and most leaving between year 1-3 the later grants are almost meaningless.

[Anonymous]

I think I've read similar threads on this issue for well over a year now, it's tiring.

Before the pandemic my office was 100% 5 days in the office. During we were all obviously 100% WFH. Now we're slowly moving up to 3 days a week in the office and I really don't understand the complaining and sense of injustice from my coworkers. You have 2 days at home you never had!

I'm a manager with kids in middle school and an hour long commute, it's obviously more convenient to be home more, but there are a lot of benefits at work to seeing colleagues in person.

If you really feel that strongly please go find yourself a fully remote job, in my industry I've heard of very few. Staying and constantly complaining is awful though, please learn to cope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I've read similar threads on this issue for well over a year now, it's tiring.

Before the pandemic my office was 100% 5 days in the office. During we were all obviously 100% WFH. Now we're slowly moving up to 3 days a week in the office and I really don't understand the complaining and sense of injustice from my coworkers. You have 2 days at home you never had!

I'm a manager with kids in middle school and an hour long commute, it's obviously more convenient to be home more, but there are a lot of benefits at work to seeing colleagues in person.

If you really feel that strongly please go find yourself a fully remote job, in my industry I've heard of very few. Staying and constantly complaining is awful though, please learn to cope.

I truly don’t understand why people find it so hard to understand the frustration.
It’s completely irrelevant what it was like before the pandemic. Before the pandemic we didn’t know it was possible for huge companies to in many cases work completely remotely freeing humans to live where they please, see their kids, sleep more, save money.
Wtf would we go back in time? It’s insanity!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In the private sector studies have shown people are 18 percent more effective in office.

Let’s say I have 100,000 employees I force RTO hard. No exceptions. If 18 percent quit does it matter.

And I know it can save on rent. My particular company is rare we own our headquarters as well as our other back up facility. Both mortgage free. The other small sites are customer facing so no remote. Many companies are locked into physical space.

When I do remote which I am doing on Friday I am getting haircut, going dry cleaners. Picking up prescription, doing dentist appointment, etc. it frees up my weekend. Great for me.

You sound like a lousy employee. Some people are responsible and put their hours in.

[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

I worked from home full time 2009-2016. I traveled to work (another state) every 8 weeks for 3 days. My employer wanted to retain me. People were remote long before Covid. I am shocked it took a pandemic for people to realize this.

[Anonymous]

If you can’t deal with going into an office 2-3 days a week, then look for a 100% remote job. Chances are you will find it. What is the point of constantly starting new threads on how rto is stupid. My guess is you and many remote people overestimate your productivity

[Anonymous]

My husband worked mostly from home for the first year, year and a half of COVID.

The business was great. They broke sales they never had before and people got the highest level of bonus they could achieve, which had never happened before

Then they forced everyone back. Except his manager would still Wfh when he felt like it. There was no need for everyone to be in office. One guy literally took 2-3 hour long naps at his desk.

He found a new job where he now goes in once a week and otherwise is at home. And he’s paid more

Companies are stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I've read similar threads on this issue for well over a year now, it's tiring.

Before the pandemic my office was 100% 5 days in the office. During we were all obviously 100% WFH. Now we're slowly moving up to 3 days a week in the office and I really don't understand the complaining and sense of injustice from my coworkers. You have 2 days at home you never had!

I'm a manager with kids in middle school and an hour long commute, it's obviously more convenient to be home more, but there are a lot of benefits at work to seeing colleagues in person.

If you really feel that strongly please go find yourself a fully remote job, in my industry I've heard of very few. Staying and constantly complaining is awful though, please learn to cope.

Because the point it is to keep up the pressure campaign. Eventually most people will be working from home again. It is inevitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I've read similar threads on this issue for well over a year now, it's tiring.

Before the pandemic my office was 100% 5 days in the office. During we were all obviously 100% WFH. Now we're slowly moving up to 3 days a week in the office and I really don't understand the complaining and sense of injustice from my coworkers. You have 2 days at home you never had!

I'm a manager with kids in middle school and an hour long commute, it's obviously more convenient to be home more, but there are a lot of benefits at work to seeing colleagues in person.

If you really feel that strongly please go find yourself a fully remote job, in my industry I've heard of very few. Staying and constantly complaining is awful though, please learn to cope.

Because the point it is to keep up the pressure campaign. Eventually most people will be working from home again. It is inevitable.

I think 100% WFH for everyone not in direct face to face service is crazy and most people will be working some sort of hybrid schedule for the forseeable future. The pressure campaign is exhausting and I'm starting to see some of the most annoying WFH advocates get let go at my firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They do it out of a sense of self preservation, and don't care about the costs to you.

If you are a CEO making big bucks, and there is even a chance, even a tiny one, that making everyone sit in the office could improcce something, somewhere, that may make a difference in your annual bonus, so it's back to the salt mines.
Also, what people have said about it being hard to monitor remote, and large expensive leases that must be justified.

The CEO doesn't care if you have to get up earlier, pay for gas, waste hours in traffic - all of the negatives don't impact him. Employee happiness isn't necessarily measurable on the balance sheet, and how many CEOs are really paying attention to reasons for turnover? How many CEOs do you think pick the health care plan based on what most EEs want as opposed to, "well my wife likes to visit the dermatologist" or whatever.

They are not EVIL, they are just self interested. To a degree that can be short sighted.

All of the costs and negative impacts to workers are also experienced by upper management. Also, even assuming that management is solely focused on increasing their annual bonus and doesn't care at all about people, attrition and turnover affects that bonus.

NP and LOL at this. As just one example among many:

"Meanwhile, Chief Financial Officer Brian West, who joined Boeing in August 2021, hasn’t relocated from his home in New Canaan, Conn. The company recently opened a small office about five minutes from his house."

"Managers eager to get employees back to the Arlington office over the past two years have turned to happy hours, guest speakers and even visiting alpacas, say people who have worked there. Calhoun and West are seldom spotted in the building, they say."

You don’t really even have to look for these egregious examples. I work at a big financial services company in NYC and the vast majority of senior managers (not just C suite but business head MDs) live in Manhattan. They make enough to have 2500 sq ft 15 minutes from the office and send their kids to private schools. So they can have breakfast with their kids and leave at 7:30 to get in for that 8 am meeting that I have to leave my house in the suburbs for at 6:15 while my kids are still asleep.

[Anonymous]

I am really tired of conversations where I have to agree with management that in office collaboration is best for everyone. Do these people ever think that introverts may perdorm better in a closed office or via zoom. And because I have anxiety and want to avoid conflict, I am just going to agree with RTO 3-4 times a week?