Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having everyone back turned into really great thing. People know one another and feel a stronger loyalty now. The meetings are face to face. The productivity has gone up. It has become a really great thing, even though people cried at first.

Not true. Our meetings are always via Teams. I literally don’t have to see anyone at work unless I seek them out. All doors are closed and others have reasonable accommodations so they aren’t in the office. It will only be great for me when I get another job and can actually see my child without having to use leave

In person, no one uses the conference rooms and they still do meetings online even in the same office.

Yep, because someone is always out on leave or has an RA and hybrid meetings are terrible. We do socialize and have more one-on-one meetings in person which is great —but 3 days a week of that is plenty, I need two days away from people actually.

I hate to say it, but I agree, the RA people are killing our in person meetings. It sounds petty, but it's true. Hybrid meetings are so hard. In person meetings get more accomplished and people open up more about issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

And? It’s not sustainable for them either, unless their or their spouse’s pay or schedule supports the lifestyle.

\

I made 385K in person in a job pre-covid 5 days a week in office. It ended in early 2020. My next same exact job was 165K. Fully remote, could work anywhere. Total flex time, hardly any meetings No set work hours. I could just do my job easily in around 2-3 hours a day if I did it quickly. Heck I could do my job on Sunday if I wanted and take Monday and Tuesday off. Was great.

But reality was at 165K no one could pay their bills. It was not enough. Someone like me my spouse would have to go back to work full time, my kids take out student loans and I start pulling from 401ks, or sell my home and downsize, move to cheap low cost of living area or start spending down savings.

Or I could keep looking, find another in person job that paid a premium for in person. Choice was easy.

Those really flexible jobs pay less. Now if I was 64 when I got that job, heck yea I would keep it till I was 100.

A lot of people would be completely fine with that salary but it would take a different life setup, like you suggested. DH and I both make about $165k and we’re hitting all the other milestones just fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having everyone back turned into really great thing. People know one another and feel a stronger loyalty now. The meetings are face to face. The productivity has gone up. It has become a really great thing, even though people cried at first.

Not true. Our meetings are always via Teams. I literally don’t have to see anyone at work unless I seek them out. All doors are closed and others have reasonable accommodations so they aren’t in the office. It will only be great for me when I get another job and can actually see my child without having to use leave

In person, no one uses the conference rooms and they still do meetings online even in the same office.

Yep, because someone is always out on leave or has an RA and hybrid meetings are terrible. We do socialize and have more one-on-one meetings in person which is great —but 3 days a week of that is plenty, I need two days away from people actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

And? It’s not sustainable for them either, unless their or their spouse’s pay or schedule supports the lifestyle.

\

I made 385K in person in a job pre-covid 5 days a week in office. It ended in early 2020. My next same exact job was 165K. Fully remote, could work anywhere. Total flex time, hardly any meetings No set work hours. I could just do my job easily in around 2-3 hours a day if I did it quickly. Heck I could do my job on Sunday if I wanted and take Monday and Tuesday off. Was great.

But reality was at 165K no one could pay their bills. It was not enough. Someone like me my spouse would have to go back to work full time, my kids take out student loans and I start pulling from 401ks, or sell my home and downsize, move to cheap low cost of living area or start spending down savings.

Or I could keep looking, find another in person job that paid a premium for in person. Choice was easy.

Those really flexible jobs pay less. Now if I was 64 when I got that job, heck yea I would keep it till I was 100.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Your laziness or fact you live far from office is not an excuse for less billable hours. I did 3,000 hours billable one year with a 2.5 hour round trip commute. 2,700 from home is barely working. That is only ten hour days. If you look at Manhattan the average secretary in an office commuting to Staten Island or New Jersey or Long Island for work most likely leaves house at 7 am and gets home at 6pm with commute. ThatsT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Your laziness or fact you live far from office is not an excuse for less billable hours. I did 3,000 hours billable one year with a 2.5 hour round trip commute. 2,700 from home is barely working. That is only ten hour days. If you look at Manhattan the average secretary in an office commuting to Staten Island or New Jersey or Long Island for work most likely leaves house at 7 am and gets home at 6pm with commute. ThatsT

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

How? They’re welcome to fire me. But I make them more money working from home, so it seems highly unlikely that will happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

You sound like a cry baby.

Anonymous wrote:I'm "required" to be in office three days a week in big law. I am able to bill so much less in the office. Between the commute and the random chit chat, leaving my house at 8 and leaving work at 7 results in only about 7 billable hours. Working from home, I can bill 9 in that same time period. It feels even stupider to waste that time coming into the office when I mostly work for people in a different office, and 100% of my meetings are still on Microsoft Teams.

I am on track to bill 2,700 hours, meaning I work an enormous amount. A pace I couldn't keep up with the in-office requirement. I've simply stopped coming in and explained how hard it is to bill in the office. I figure they can fire me if it's so upsetting to them. So far, no one has said a word.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

And? It’s not sustainable for them either, unless their or their spouse’s pay or schedule supports the lifestyle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a Fed who has been back 5 days for past 14 months, I have no sympathy. Remote and hybrid work are being phased out.

This is the problem with society. It's filled with people like you that are jealous and vindictive of others. No empathy with the flight or experiences that others might be going through. Instead of using it as an opportunity to share concerns that progressive changes in the work place being undone systematically by the capitalist system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having everyone back turned into really great thing. People know one another and feel a stronger loyalty now. The meetings are face to face. The productivity has gone up. It has become a really great thing, even though people cried at first.

Not true. Our meetings are always via Teams. I literally don’t have to see anyone at work unless I seek them out. All doors are closed and others have reasonable accommodations so they aren’t in the office. It will only be great for me when I get another job and can actually see my child without having to use leave

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having everyone back turned into really great thing. People know one another and feel a stronger loyalty now. The meetings are face to face. The productivity has gone up. It has become a really great thing, even though people cried at first.

Not true. Our meetings are always via Teams. I literally don’t have to see anyone at work unless I seek them out. All doors are closed and others have reasonable accommodations so they aren’t in the office. It will only be great for me when I get another job and can actually see my child without having to use leave

In person, no one uses the conference rooms and they still do meetings online even in the same office.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ll soon realize it’s a mistake. 5 days a week isn’t sustainable for most families today, unless you’re making gobs of money and can outsource everything your family needs. People will just call out and be less available. I’ve seen it in real time. As a manager who is short staffed, I prefer a hybrid (3 days in office) approach.

This is incredibly tone deaf. There are many people who have to find a way to make 5 days a week in person work, based on the type of job that they have. Education, healthcare, and other service jobs come to mind, and most of them aren't making gobs of money to outsource their family's needs. You might have little sympathy and argue that they knew what they were getting when they signed up for the job, but those are also jobs that society needs done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having everyone back turned into really great thing. People know one another and feel a stronger loyalty now. The meetings are face to face. The productivity has gone up. It has become a really great thing, even though people cried at first.

Not true. Our meetings are always via Teams. I literally don’t have to see anyone at work unless I seek them out. All doors are closed and others have reasonable accommodations so they aren’t in the office. It will only be great for me when I get another job and can actually see my child without having to use leave