No more teleworking if you're in the US but if you're based in India or anywhere overseas that has cheaper labor, then it's totally fine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not about unproductive people, it about a culture change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/technology/yahoo-orders-home-workers-back-to-the-office.html?_r=0

A memo explaining the policy change, from the company’s human resources department, says face-to-face interaction among employees fosters a more collaborative culture — a hallmark of Google’s approach to its business.

this is called PR, pp.

PR professional here... this "leaked" memo was just to save face and justify the move. Make no mistake: it is about laying people off without actually having to lay them off for all of the obvious reasons.

this.

however, i think it is 60% what you said, and 40% what MM says regarding innovation.

There is a reason why google turned the googleplex into a corp campus that is part college campus part self contained town part amusement park. Free high quality food all times of the day, all kinds of services on campus like dry cleaning, laundry, gyms, pet-sitting, day care, video game pits, etc. etc.

Places like google and facebook offer these perks on campus so employees are there 'all the time' in contact and collaborating with each other, generating new ideas and innovation.

Now, older employees, will not be swayed by this because they want their family time, but in the valley you are ancient when you are above the age of 35.

I see this story as a symptom that Yahoo (and my company) look at the current market and see an opportunity to be tighter about benefits and flexibility.

We may lose some folks, but so what? We need to trim the workforce anyway.

Might this make us look like an unattractive place to work? Bah, most people are happy to have a job.

As for the top performers at the top of the organization? Eh, they will always get the pay, flexibility and in-office nurseries they want. This policy is about the bottom 90% of the pyramid.

Crazy move. They'll lose lots of strong IT people--if they had any left.

I don't know many IT folks who are in the office 5 days/week. I work from home 100% of the time and my husband works from home 2 days/week. His colleagues, in particular, are scattered all over the world, and it makes no sense for him to be in the office every day. I notice that on his work-from-home days, he works straight through from about 7:30 am - 6 pm, whereas on his office days he is probably there only 9-5 at best, and he goes out to lunch with anyone else who is in the office that day.

BTW, the IT telecommuting culture goes way beyond moms and/or parents. Men still predominate in the IT world, sadly ,and many of them are young and child-free, yet the ability to telecommute is almost assumed these days.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not about unproductive people, it about a culture change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/technology/yahoo-orders-home-workers-back-to-the-office.html?_r=0

A memo explaining the policy change, from the company’s human resources department, says face-to-face interaction among employees fosters a more collaborative culture — a hallmark of Google’s approach to its business.

this is called PR, pp.

PR professional here... this "leaked" memo was just to save face and justify the move. Make no mistake: it is about laying people off without actually having to lay them off for all of the obvious reasons.

that's what i think too

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not about unproductive people, it about a culture change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/technology/yahoo-orders-home-workers-back-to-the-office.html?_r=0

A memo explaining the policy change, from the company’s human resources department, says face-to-face interaction among employees fosters a more collaborative culture — a hallmark of Google’s approach to its business.

this is called PR, pp.

PR professional here... this "leaked" memo was just to save face and justify the move. Make no mistake: it is about laying people off without actually having to lay them off for all of the obvious reasons.

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a move to layoff remote employees without having to take the hit against their unemployment insurance. This greatly impacts people who do not work near a Yahoo office.

It's a coporate maneuver to screw the worker to try to salvage their sinking ship. Nothing new.

+1. Just shows how bad things are at Yahoo

Anonymous wrote:It is not about unproductive people, it about a culture change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/technology/yahoo-orders-home-workers-back-to-the-office.html?_r=0

A memo explaining the policy change, from the company’s human resources department, says face-to-face interaction among employees fosters a more collaborative culture — a hallmark of Google’s approach to its business.

this is called PR, pp.

It is not about unproductive people, it about a culture change.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/technology/yahoo-orders-home-workers-back-to-the-office.html?_r=0

A memo explaining the policy change, from the company’s human resources department, says face-to-face interaction among employees fosters a more collaborative culture — a hallmark of Google’s approach to its business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Apparently there are a lot of people who WFH there and are extremely unproductive. She is trying to make sure the productive people still have a company to pay them....

That is due to poor management, not because of telecommuting. It is possible to have productive employees who telecommute.

Sure. But a lot depends on the employee. Management can only do so much. A slacker office worker is going to be an even bigger slacker when telecommuting.

It still comes back to management: there's no one to blame if a manager chooses to keep an employee who is not producing. Why do you think you have performance goals?

This policy is really all wrong. It's like banning people who live more than 20 miles from the office. Yes, it's not ideal, yes, it's not how i'd want to work, but sometimes it has to happen.

Especially for a technology company, I think this is very behind the time.

I almost understand banning 100% remote jobs, but I have a coworker on my team who is 100% remote and she does a phenonmenal job, truly.


I just feel like this policy is really lacking nuance, and is completely draconian and will not attract the talent they need from places like Microsoft, Apple, Google, and start-ups.

Anonymous wrote:As a FT WOTH mom of 2 kids, I kind of hate her. I think that there are much more legitimate ways to get rid of unproductive employees that wouldn't affect those who telecommute and do a good job. I try to telecommute once a week and my office is pretty good about letting me do that. We maybe moving about 20 minutes farther away from my office in downtown DC than we live now (inside the beltway silver spring) and if that happens I plan to ask my boss if I can work remotely as the rule, and make my days in the office more the exception and if they say no I will look for work elsewhere. The idea of people all having to be in the office to be productive is so shorsighted and old fashioned, and for a new mom to come up with that policy just reeks of desperation.

I totally agree with this. I think between her two week "maternity leave" and this, she is no friend to women in the workplace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She "worked from home" to take a shorter maternity leave, no?

Her maternity leave was 2 weeks! That's pretty darn short.

She also built a nursery next to her office at Yahoo, an opportunity available to .01% of the work force.

Yes, there are perks to being a CEO of a huge company that the ran-and-file don't have. Shocking, I know.

I work from home 100%. There are lots of folks on our team not pulling their weight. I happen to live fairly close to our "designated meeting site" but because we are a remote team others live 60-90 miles away. If the WFH option was suddenly removed, I wouldn't have a problem with it. It is a nice perk and I absolutely work 60 hours/week but it is not a right, it's a privilege. I wish the people abusing the WFH privilege would get fired so we can get better skilled, more productive people on our team. Marissa Mayer was hired to turn around a company that is a complete mess. Tough decisions have to be made and I don't believe for a second that she hasn't thought through all of the consequences of her decision. I don't think I could work for her because she seems too driven for my taste and I'm not that kind of ambitious but you aren't a 37-yr old CEO of a Fortune 500 company without having some tiger lady qualities. Go Marissa!!!!!

As an attempt to lose the unproductive folks, I have found in my own company that the lazy ones, if they have it good, fully realize it, and frankly have nowhere else to go. ITA with PP who said that unfortunately, the "good ones" may instead jump ship. The lazy ones would not be able to collect unemployment if they quit, remember. They are the worst to get rid of, but it can and should be done in the interest of preventing a TOXIC environment. Lazy ones are the worst, as an employer. They drag everyone down and are often gossips, among other things.