How do all of these administrative staff people do their jobs remotely? Seems like BS.

Anonymous wrote:I’m afraid to answer this question because the wfh crazies will attack me for being a loser, being selfish, ruining things for everyone, and on and on. Unfortunately the climate on this board won’t allow an open discussion on this topic.

Playing my little violin for you. I hope someday you find an environment that is more conducive to your attacks on others' personal autonomy.

The same reason many people “cared” about whether you wore a mask, whether you’re vaccinated l, etc — they’re sad, busy bodies who have no lives and only get meaning by virtue signaling and pretending to care what everyone else is doing.

Anonymous wrote:I have four adult kids. Three are now back to work (required) while one is 100 percent work from home. She has two jobs. Her “full time” employer doesn’t know about the second job. She works hard, is efficient, and doesn’t mess around. But she puts in 40 hours a week, tops. She absolutely could not do what she’s doing if she had to report to an office.

So my sample size is one. But I find it really hard to believe that she is the only remote worker in America who is working a second job behind her primary employer’s back. I’m betting it’s a widespread practice.

As long as she’s completing her work on time, does it matter?

I don’t mind people who WORK from home. At all. I work from home once or twice a week. That said, I could rattle off the names and roles of 20 people who do not work from home. They don’t seem to work at all anymore. It’s a problem. It’s a problem because they are unresponsive, their work is either not done or is late, and there seems to be no consequences or action from management to course-correct.

In one case we’re talking an HR staff member whose lack of responsiveness and failure to do her jobs has resulted in our loss of talented people because we couldn’t secure the offer fast enough. It’s extremely frustrating.

I don’t care where you work or what hours your keep: DO YOUR JOB.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, some people want to quiet quit with their lazy girl jobs from home and don’t ever want to see the inside of an office. Others have ambition, want to have real relationships with colleagues and are willing to make some effort to show up in person. We’ll see which group has progressed farther in their careers over the next few years, I know who I’m betting on.

Okay, I confess. I do NOT want to have real relationships with coworkers. I don't. Sorry if that makes me a bad person.

I understand this, I’m a mid 40s mom who doesn’t have any need for new relationships, but I also think of all of the people who trained or mentored me when I was new in my career and I understand it’s my turn to do that for the next generation. It’s much harder to do that from home.

+1. Having more competent junior staff who are progressing more quickly also compensates for the increased demands on my time from commuting. I don’t need to see them every day, or at the same time every day, but seeing them on a regular basis has made a difference.
I’ve been managing remote staff for many years and until the pandemic they were almost always mid-late career workers who were very well versed in their roles and subject matter. It’s been much more difficult with early career WFH employees.

Let’s be real here. If you’ve ever been a supervisor you know that dealing with people complaining about unfair treatment between colleagues is tough to manage. Putting the wfh / hybrid management decisions on individual supervisors is a thankless task for them, they will never be able to get it right to everyone’s satisfaction. Higher level consistent rules (not just “guidance”) is needed. Same for any organization, not just the government.

Being a supervisor you have to balance performance with employee satisfaction and retention - including avoiding resentment over perceived or real favoritism. Some on this thread seem to think that’s easy to do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get it, some people want to quiet quit with their lazy girl jobs from home and don’t ever want to see the inside of an office. Others have ambition, want to have real relationships with colleagues and are willing to make some effort to show up in person. We’ll see which group has progressed farther in their careers over the next few years, I know who I’m betting on.

Okay, I confess. I do NOT want to have real relationships with coworkers. I don't. Sorry if that makes me a bad person.

I understand this, I’m a mid 40s mom who doesn’t have any need for new relationships, but I also think of all of the people who trained or mentored me when I was new in my career and I understand it’s my turn to do that for the next generation. It’s much harder to do that from home.

I've only done my job remote and I've won several awards for the quality and quantity of my work. I get that other people may be slacking - but it seems unfair to me that I should WFH less because of them.

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.

This is spot on

+1 woof this is so accurate.

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.

This is spot on

Anonymous wrote:I've noticed an increased expectation since COVID that I/dh am available throughout the day for appts/school activities. Neither one of us works from home (medical careers). I wouldn't call it jealousy. More of a frustration with the assumption that it's a widespread norm.

This! The auto shop didn’t understand why I couldn’t just work from their couches on a Monday or be car-less for several days. Um, because I have to go to work? They work in person, too!

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.

You have it backwards. WFH get more done because we’re not walking around chatting.
Also, who gets paid based on what they spend? No one. You get paid based on your work. You don’t get paid more because you choose to spend more money. The RTO crowd just doesn’t get it

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we know you aren’t working all of the time and are taking advantage.

Who's "we"? How do you know exactly?

Just visit this message board during the workday.

I've noticed an increased expectation since COVID that I/dh am available throughout the day for appts/school activities. Neither one of us works from home (medical careers). I wouldn't call it jealousy. More of a frustration with the assumption that it's a widespread norm.