Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s the opposite. It’s so much easier to get by not doing work by simply being in the office.

Not only do I waste so much time commuting but I chat and socialize, grab lunch with colleagues, a coffee here and there and even spend 10 minutes booting up and shutting down my computer. It’s stupid to require me to travel with my laptop to work in office B when I can stay at home and work in office A with 2 hours less commuting time. Because of this I mostly socialize when I go into the office. The rest of the time I attend meetings and add unnecessary comments like everyone else. I get brownie points because I go in often.

The worst part is when I’m commuting I leave at 5 and 5-6 is valuable time for working with our west coast office. Unfortunately my management prefers me to travel with my laptop to work instead of actually doing work. Now the 5 PM emails are responded to the following day. Working in an office is one of the more inefficient things I’ve seen. It’s like suggesting we use fax machines.

My guess is a lot of boomers were always doing this and it’s why they dislike WFH. If you have a good manager and actual deliverables, it’s easier to figure out during WFH who adds value.

You should log back on when you get home.

Omg I love the hypocrisy of this. You need to be in person because work is done better in person. Oh but also work from home in the evening because it’s more convenient to have you working while you’re at home.

This is literally the worst of all ends for the employee. Give up your personal time to commute in and work 9-5 and then also give up your personal time in the evening to do more work. Employers better be shelling out big law levels of salaries for that type of work commitment.

I make 160k to work fully remote with my own set hours, I’m always off by 4:30 at the latest. I’d need to *at least* double that to be commuting into an office and then log back in at night.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When comparing two similar jobs, people generally do get paid more for constant availability. There is a pay penalty for temporal flexibility, which contributes to the gender pay gap. Google it.

This is rarely true in a single company though - if some employees work from home, they general are paid the same as someone at their same "level" who works from the office. I can see an argument for paying more for in person (a "commuting stipend"?), provided a person is productive in both places.

I prefer going to the office because I have very a short commute and focus better there, but I understand those who don't. Wasting 2 hours commuting sounds painful. I don't care how many hours a person works as long as they get their stuff done and I can count on them.

I don't get how anyone can WFH with small children. Maybe from age 3-9 months or so it could work, but even that seems tough. I tried it during the pandemic with an 18 mo old, and it was not possible.

Yes but the reciprocal of that is many businesses no longer need to pay for office space, electricity, heating, air conditioning, plumbing, and office computers. At my job, I would be provided two monitors, a desk, a chair, a bookcase, and a VPC. As a WAH employee, I have to provide my own computer. My job is also 99% email or website based. I only have one conference call per week and then have quarterly calls, but they only total 8 hours per quarter.

My organization halved their office space post-pandemic.

What business has zero face to face interaction with its customers anywhere? Even those with some WFH staff, even whole departments, will still have a physical space for customers interaction.

Anonymous wrote:If you're a lazy worker, you're a lazy worker, WFH doesn't magically change you into a vantage taker...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When comparing two similar jobs, people generally do get paid more for constant availability. There is a pay penalty for temporal flexibility, which contributes to the gender pay gap. Google it.

This is rarely true in a single company though - if some employees work from home, they general are paid the same as someone at their same "level" who works from the office. I can see an argument for paying more for in person (a "commuting stipend"?), provided a person is productive in both places.

I prefer going to the office because I have very a short commute and focus better there, but I understand those who don't. Wasting 2 hours commuting sounds painful. I don't care how many hours a person works as long as they get their stuff done and I can count on them.

I don't get how anyone can WFH with small children. Maybe from age 3-9 months or so it could work, but even that seems tough. I tried it during the pandemic with an 18 mo old, and it was not possible.

Yes but the reciprocal of that is many businesses no longer need to pay for office space, electricity, heating, air conditioning, plumbing, and office computers. At my job, I would be provided two monitors, a desk, a chair, a bookcase, and a VPC. As a WAH employee, I have to provide my own computer. My job is also 99% email or website based. I only have one conference call per week and then have quarterly calls, but they only total 8 hours per quarter.

My organization halved their office space post-pandemic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My only problem with WFH and Remote is this:

remote is Tuesday and Friday At work
Some staff claim the work 9.5 hours on their two remote days and other days in office 7 a day. So in office 21 hours a week. Only at work 1/2 the time.

Other staff skip Xmas party, summer party as not getting paid.

I have no problem as long as work is done but these people keep asking promotions and raises. A job is a job, a career is a career you can’t have both at most places

How is that hard to believe? If you have an hour commute each way and wake up at the same time and then don't have to take the time getting ready for work, you can easily put in more time than with a commute.

You say staff skipping the parties. Parties are for management and those who want to be management. Staff have to give up a night they would likely rather be doing anything else

Anonymous wrote:When comparing two similar jobs, people generally do get paid more for constant availability. There is a pay penalty for temporal flexibility, which contributes to the gender pay gap. Google it.

This is rarely true in a single company though - if some employees work from home, they general are paid the same as someone at their same "level" who works from the office. I can see an argument for paying more for in person (a "commuting stipend"?), provided a person is productive in both places.

I prefer going to the office because I have very a short commute and focus better there, but I understand those who don't. Wasting 2 hours commuting sounds painful. I don't care how many hours a person works as long as they get their stuff done and I can count on them.

I don't get how anyone can WFH with small children. Maybe from age 3-9 months or so it could work, but even that seems tough. I tried it during the pandemic with an 18 mo old, and it was not possible.

Anonymous wrote:When comparing two similar jobs, people generally do get paid more for constant availability. There is a pay penalty for temporal flexibility, which contributes to the gender pay gap.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know any parents skipping daycare but know several who gave up afterschool care (and they can definitely afford it). They also take an hour each day (outside of lunch) to pick their kids up at school and walk them home (but still log off at 5-5:30).

It’s frustrating to see as someone with kids who does the right thing, but I don’t work for their employers. If these are your coworkers, complain if it’s impacting you. Otherwise just smile politely when they complain about not getting raises or watch as their career stall.

I gave up aftercare. I spent 30 minutes getting the kids from the bus and helping them get situated with a snack and the remote control while I finish up my work day. I start at 8:30, so even with that half hour distraction, of course I'm logging off at 5:00 or 5:30. Sometimes I have to log on for a bit in the evening to finish things up, though. I frequently see my colleagues who are also parents online at that time. I never see the Gen Z and Millennials who work 9-4 online though. I guess it's okay to take off early for happy hour, but not to watch your kids.

I love this. This can only be better for all workers and parents and children! All the threads where people pile on the parents about their kids' long days. I can't believe your kid wakes up at 6 and you pick them up from aftercare at 5:30. That's a long day! Kids need downtime! etc.etc.

Now parents are pausing work to grab kids and people think that's an ABUSE? This is all so ridiculous. Fortunately it just seems to be OP who thinks that. Everyone else seems to think it's great for companies and society.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know any parents skipping daycare but know several who gave up afterschool care (and they can definitely afford it). They also take an hour each day (outside of lunch) to pick their kids up at school and walk them home (but still log off at 5-5:30).

It’s frustrating to see as someone with kids who does the right thing, but I don’t work for their employers. If these are your coworkers, complain if it’s impacting you. Otherwise just smile politely when they complain about not getting raises or watch as their career stall.

I gave up aftercare. I spent 30 minutes getting the kids from the bus and helping them get situated with a snack and the remote control while I finish up my work day. I start at 8:30, so even with that half hour distraction, of course I'm logging off at 5:00 or 5:30. Sometimes I have to log on for a bit in the evening to finish things up, though. I frequently see my colleagues who are also parents online at that time. I never see the Gen Z and Millennials who work 9-4 online though. I guess it's okay to take off early for happy hour, but not to watch your kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but I have two co-workers who kept their infants at home for a full year while working full-time without any additional help (other than two WFH parents). One of them said she couldn't find childcare, the other one one said her mom was living with them (mom was definitely not living with them, we had mutual friends).

It’s like you are sad that two moms actually got to spend time with their infants!
No work is as important as this. And if they left work they would have a hard time going back because of policies that are hostile to mothers (and to everyone frankly with all the endless interviews).
I am glad infants are getting quality care instead of being in daycares

DP. If these women had the arrangement cleared with their employers, I would have zero complaints. But if they are taking advantage of the system, they are hurting all women in similar positions. We need longer parental leave, but the answer isn’t being paid for work while caring for a child.

Also infants get quality care in daycare. It would be amazing if we had longer parental leave, but don’t make parents feel like their child isn’t cared for in a quality daycare setting.

Let’s not fool ourselves
Policy changes won’t happen while our kids are little.
Maybe our grandkids? Who knows
And even a quality daycare is worse than 1:1 with a loving intelligent woman
It’s acceptable and doesn’t hurt the kids in the long run as there are so many factors at play but at least let’s be real

Is it though? When said loving, intelligent woman is also preoccupied with work? I would not be doing a good job at either my job or mothering if I was both working and taking care of my children at the same time. The only reason we do it now is because my kids are 8 and 10 and will just watch tv and read books for the hour between when they get home from school and when their dad and I are done working.

I think it’s a better setup than daycare, yes (for the infant).
The work will most likely suffer but it’s not very important in the grand scheme of things.
It may be a worse setup for the mom but then she will find childcare.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’s the opposite. It’s so much easier to get by not doing work by simply being in the office.

Not only do I waste so much time commuting but I chat and socialize, grab lunch with colleagues, a coffee here and there and even spend 10 minutes booting up and shutting down my computer. It’s stupid to require me to travel with my laptop to work in office B when I can stay at home and work in office A with 2 hours less commuting time. Because of this I mostly socialize when I go into the office. The rest of the time I attend meetings and add unnecessary comments like everyone else. I get brownie points because I go in often.

The worst part is when I’m commuting I leave at 5 and 5-6 is valuable time for working with our west coast office. Unfortunately my management prefers me to travel with my laptop to work instead of actually doing work. Now the 5 PM emails are responded to the following day. Working in an office is one of the more inefficient things I’ve seen. It’s like suggesting we use fax machines.

My guess is a lot of boomers were always doing this and it’s why they dislike WFH. If you have a good manager and actual deliverables, it’s easier to figure out during WFH who adds value.

You should log back on when you get home.

Anonymous wrote:My only problem with WFH and Remote is this:

remote is Tuesday and Friday At work
Some staff claim the work 9.5 hours on their two remote days and other days in office 7 a day. So in office 21 hours a week. Only at work 1/2 the time.

Other staff skip Xmas party, summer party as not getting paid.

I have no problem as long as work is done but these people keep asking promotions and raises. A job is a job, a career is a career you can’t have both at most places