Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait till fully remote becomes an optional policy for all and everybody takes it

You’ll see me send spreadsheets from my mountain cabin in Colorado and will never again step foot in DC save if the president needs me

The could send you spread sheets in Colorado, but they could pay less to send spreadsheet to India or even the UK or EU. WFH is not great for people who expect HCOL salaries

The time differences, language and cultural are truly problematic.

If you require any discussion or interaction about the spreadsheets then you need someone on US soil.

You’re quite out of touch. All you need is one onshore associate to manage the team(s) of offshore workers. Offshore workers can be as skilled as you’re willing to pay for. The only inferior ones are the cheapest ones. But the more skilled ones are still cheaper and more productive than their US counterparts that they replaced.

Heck no. Have you BEEN the one onshore associate? It's frustrating. Nothing gets done. Maybe true that they can be skilled but companies are sure trying on the unskilled ones first.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait till fully remote becomes an optional policy for all and everybody takes it

You’ll see me send spreadsheets from my mountain cabin in Colorado and will never again step foot in DC save if the president needs me

The could send you spread sheets in Colorado, but they could pay less to send spreadsheet to India or even the UK or EU. WFH is not great for people who expect HCOL salaries

The time differences, language and cultural are truly problematic.

If you require any discussion or interaction about the spreadsheets then you need someone on US soil.

You’re quite out of touch. All you need is one onshore associate to manage the team(s) of offshore workers. Offshore workers can be as skilled as you’re willing to pay for. The only inferior ones are the cheapest ones. But the more skilled ones are still cheaper and more productive than their US counterparts that they replaced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

I have seen only the opposite. Whose anecdote wins in this case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait till fully remote becomes an optional policy for all and everybody takes it

You’ll see me send spreadsheets from my mountain cabin in Colorado and will never again step foot in DC save if the president needs me

The could send you spread sheets in Colorado, but they could pay less to send spreadsheet to India or even the UK or EU. WFH is not great for people who expect HCOL salaries

The time differences, language and cultural are truly problematic.

If you require any discussion or interaction about the spreadsheets then you need someone on US soil.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

I have seen only the opposite. Whose anecdote wins in this case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

I have seen only the opposite. Whose anecdote wins in this case?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

I have not seen this to be true. It is a myth that is wrong and incorrectly gets perpetuated. High performers don’t leave a job or company bc of having to RTO. That’s not what motivates them.

I work for a F50 company that has loads of high performers. We RTO 3 days per week two years ago, and they bumped us to 4 days in office last year. The top performers are still there. Every single one of them. Alot of slackers left the company though and no one misses them.

Top performers aren’t driven by whether they have to work in an office or not. That’s inconsequential. Top performers are driven by the pay and opportunities available to them. As long as an employer offers them those things, they will stay until they are presented with better options elsewhere. This is even more true in companies with a really positive corporate culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That happened at my spouse's job. We think they did it on purpose to get the numbers down.

This is, in fact, a deliberate strategy. It's a good way to encourage the loafers to go on their way.

Except the people who can find other jobs and therefore leave are the high performers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should find a new job yourself.

Someone else will be happy to have an office.

No they wouldn’t unless they are desperate and no one needs or wants a desperate employee who can’t find work elsewhere and thus is ridiculously grateful for any circumstance

Employers are tired of employees with options, demanding raises and leaving every two years. The work can get done by 2nd tier employees and still keep business running now with automated tools and AI etc.

If you say so but I’m not seeing this. Please provide an example of this IRL

Exactly. There is no AI and automated tools doing most of the real work. Receptionist, help desk - maybe. Real work - Oh Never.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope some prominent employers will try out various ideas, so we can level are. such as saying everyone is remote if they so choose but that employees who RTO will receive a nice end of year bonus. People who WFH will forego the bonus. Or offer stipends or other perks. Or make RTO mandatory to pursue internal promotions. It would be interesting to see the results.

As a government employee who is hybrid (2 days a pay period) I do think that there should be some sort of salary adjustment for those who have to come into the office the majority of the pay period.

And to be clear, this would be for those who are required to come in, not those who choose to come in.

I could see 3 tiers of salaries - one for fully remote, one for hybrid but less than 5 days per pay period, and one for 5 days or more per pay period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should find a new job yourself.

Someone else will be happy to have an office.

No they wouldn’t unless they are desperate and no one needs or wants a desperate employee who can’t find work elsewhere and thus is ridiculously grateful for any circumstance

Employers are tired of employees with options, demanding raises and leaving every two years. The work can get done by 2nd tier employees and still keep business running now with automated tools and AI etc.

If you say so but I’m not seeing this. Please provide an example of this IRL

Anonymous wrote:I think the people who are most rabid about how much they loath the idea of RTO are:
1) slackers who know they typically really work 20 hours of a 40 hour week, and
2) parents of young kids who understandably would rather spent time with their children than commute. But these folks also don't work what they're supposed to because now they can just "pop out" for every kid related errand.

For most industries, getting staff together is a good thing. And the newest generation of young adult workers really need the in-office time to learn and acclimate. RTO is inevitable. Gen Xers like me love WFH because we're getting older and already paid out in-office dues and know how to be professional. There is no modeling for the newest workers when everyone kid WFH.

We all have our own opinions. Mine is that RTO is the way to go in most cases. I hope most employers will recognize that allowing qualified employees the opportunity to WFH 1-2 days a week would be a good compromise. BTW my office is 10 is 100% remote and staying that way. I typically go into the office anyone because I prefer it. Having the whole place to myself is awesome.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hope some prominent employers will try out various ideas, so we can level are. such as saying everyone is remote if they so choose but that employees who RTO will receive a nice end of year bonus. People who WFH will forego the bonus. Or offer stipends or other perks. Or make RTO mandatory to pursue internal promotions. It would be interesting to see the results.

As a government employee who is hybrid (2 days a pay period) I do think that there should be some sort of salary adjustment for those who have to come into the office the majority of the pay period.

And to be clear, this would be for those who are required to come in, not those who choose to come in.

I could see 3 tiers of salaries - one for fully remote, one for hybrid but less than 5 days per pay period, and one for 5 days or more per pay period.

Anonymous wrote:I hope some prominent employers will try out various ideas, so we can level are. such as saying everyone is remote if they so choose but that employees who RTO will receive a nice end of year bonus. People who WFH will forego the bonus. Or offer stipends or other perks. Or make RTO mandatory to pursue internal promotions. It would be interesting to see the results.