Anonymous wrote:Serious question for the wfh people- Aren't you worried that your companies will realize they can make even bigger profits by sending your jobs to other countries. If you can do the work remotely then why not hire people in Romania, Nigeria or Mexico? They have educated populations and have lower costs of living.

Anonymous wrote:Once an office gives up the space, it is hard to go back. My office only has 20% of what we used to. I am not worried.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think that this trend won’t last, especially for high-paying professional jobs, perhaps minus programmers. With a recession looming and increased evidence that many WFH staff are working the system, companies, particularly high-performing ones, seem ready to prune their staff. What do you think?

Programmers were already WFH pre-Covid. Also, explain the bolded statement.

You already know. The endless posts on DCUM (and social media) about people using office hours to watch movies, pick up kids, go to the gym, do laundry, make dinner, etc, etc, etc. You’re not one of those “but…but…we proved WFH is sooooo much more productive” jokers, are you?

I do this things on my breaks- you know the 15 minute and 30 min lunches that are legally required? In our office, people watched movies on their phone while working. I can dinner prep (can of salsa and frozen chicken breasts in the crockpot) and be on a phone call.

Because of this, I am more amenable to calls or tasks outside the 8-5 work hours. I have seasonal calls with programs all over the country and sometimes they need calls in the afternoon. I would not do calls after 330pm if I was in the office because my childcare closes at 6pm. If I am WAH I can pick him up, and have a call late, as late as 6pm when PST is 3pm.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting, for me it seems the low levels jobs are the problem. Currently we come in 2 days a week. Our admin person has things set up such that there are things she has to be in the office to do, like make purchases. She often goes to her vacation home on her WFH days, so if something needs to happen it has to wait until next the next week.

Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think that this trend won’t last, especially for high-paying professional jobs, perhaps minus programmers. With a recession looming and increased evidence that many WFH staff are working the system, companies, particularly high-performing ones, seem ready to prune their staff. What do you think?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m beginning to think that this trend won’t last, especially for high-paying professional jobs, perhaps minus programmers. With a recession looming and increased evidence that many WFH staff are working the system, companies, particularly high-performing ones, seem ready to prune their staff. What do you think?

Programmers were already WFH pre-Covid. Also, explain the bolded statement.

You already know. The endless posts on DCUM (and social media) about people using office hours to watch movies, pick up kids, go to the gym, do laundry, make dinner, etc, etc, etc. You’re not one of those “but…but…we proved WFH is sooooo much more productive” jokers, are you?

Anonymous wrote:There will always be entry level data entry and call center work for work from home. These jobs can be easily tracked through key strokes and phone monitoring.

At a professional level you need to be in an office if you want to get promoted.

Anonymous wrote:I wish we could do retreats or team building.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone will have a different perspective: managers, senior managers and regular employees. I personally do not think WFH is going well.

I think a better system would be certain "mandatory days in the office" for collaboration, team building, in person meetings, etc. We didn't need this in the beginning because we all knew each other, but now we're incredibly fragmented. There are now entire programs that I know nothing about because I've never had a meeting or have spoken to this person. Weekly I have a conversation that goes like "oh didn't you know that John is the lead on that? You should be talking to him." But the other person has no idea who John is or where he works.

Employees are lonely and because of this have checked out of work. (sure- some of you have wonderful social lives outside of work, but plenty of people had meaningful professional lives at work and work friends). I think a lot of it is people's unwillingness to turn their cameras on.

It's never been a policy, but on my team we all keep cameras on, and we also do team gatherings and retreats regularly (I realize not every company can afford this).

+1. The companies that are doing well and are attracting top talent will do these things - retreats that are meaningful throughout the year and people can connect for a bit, then go back to remote until the next one.

The ones that can't afford this will revert to something like hybrid or all in the office and will continue to not do well.

If a company is making a decision to bring people back because they can't get out of an office lease, that is not a rational, sound business decision. It's a sunk cost and it's not a way to build a business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once an office gives up the space, it is hard to go back. My office only has 20% of what we used to. I am not worried.

Me, neither…sorta.

Yes, it’s difficult but not impossible to force staff back into the office once you have reduced office space.

But I believe the OP is also wondering if the remote staff might be the first ones axed when cuts are needed. I think that’s something to consider. Rather than eliminating all WFH/remote staff, I do think it’s possible for decision makers to suggest that 1 highly reliable staffer (particularly one who comes into the office) is just as good/all you need and cut those remote staff who are perceived as slackers.

While we aren’t presently cutting, I routinely hear leadership commenting about certain remote staff/teams. The impression is that they are coasting.

FWIW, I make a point of being in the office. It’s how I get FaceTime with the executives as well as how I hear their impressions of others.

Also, they can reconfigure that 20% office space to hold 80% in a hoteling open floor plan, and have you come in 80% time.

Anonymous wrote:There will always be entry level data entry and call center work for work from home. These jobs can be easily tracked through key strokes and phone monitoring.

At a professional level you need to be in an office if you want to get promoted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone will have a different perspective: managers, senior managers and regular employees. I personally do not think WFH is going well.

I think a better system would be certain "mandatory days in the office" for collaboration, team building, in person meetings, etc. We didn't need this in the beginning because we all knew each other, but now we're incredibly fragmented. There are now entire programs that I know nothing about because I've never had a meeting or have spoken to this person. Weekly I have a conversation that goes like "oh didn't you know that John is the lead on that? You should be talking to him." But the other person has no idea who John is or where he works.

Employees are lonely and because of this have checked out of work. (sure- some of you have wonderful social lives outside of work, but plenty of people had meaningful professional lives at work and work friends). I think a lot of it is people's unwillingness to turn their cameras on.

It's never been a policy, but on my team we all keep cameras on, and we also do team gatherings and retreats regularly (I realize not every company can afford this).