In oversimplified terms:

There are people who really thrive in the "everybody in the office meeting face-to-face and interacting constantly" environment. Let's call these people group 1. Since most white collar work was structured that way before 2020, it was those people who rose to leadership positions.

Then 2020 happened and the standard white-collar work environment changed. Those who thrived in a remote work environment began to rise (group 2), while group 1 struggled with both a work environment that they felt ill at ease in and the emergence of new competition from group 2.

It's no wonder that group 1 would really like to go back to pre-2020 office life. They are most comfortable in that environment and happier - and it can sometimes be very hard to understand that what works for you doesn't work for others. Additionally, though they may not even be aware of this, I believe that leaders who want a full RTO are often subconsciously motivated by a desire to reduce competition and protect their own positions within the organization.


[FWIW, I'm personally a fan of hybrid, with all hands meetings and 1-2 days per week in the office - that is an environment where we get the benefits of occasional face-to-face interaction while also giving people the opportunity to work in the environment that suits them best. Hybrid with 1 day a week in the office also expands your talent pool in terms of both geography and diversity (people with children, people with health challenges).]

Anonymous wrote:I have a sincere question about posts like these every time I see them.

The people making RTO decisions are also humans. They have families and commutes and also enjoyed the benefits of remote work. The vast majority of them are not uber-wealthy Bezos/Musks. Many of them are even staff level HR/budget/external affairs professionals. We see these people every day in the workplace and know them.

They are making these calls for a reason. They may be wrong, but they are not EVIL.

All of us would have better outcomes if we remembered that, and were willing to hear people out in good faith and maybe influence each other. Calling names on other sides is both wrong and also unhelpful.

Thanks for the sanity. I’ll add that RTO is not a male decision based on a need to sexually harass women. Not sure where that notion got started, but you see it a lot on DCUM threads.

Anonymous wrote:I agree with your general point that for many jobs there's no reason to go in, but 10-20 hours/week is a crazy overestimate of most people's commutes. 20 hours is 2 hours each way/5 days per week. Very few people are doing that.

I work in NYC. Lots of people have a commute that’s 90 mins if all goes as planned and easily stretches to 2 hrs if there are snags along the way. That’s basically your commute from Stamford, CT if the office is not right next to Grand Central. Or a commute from South Brooklyn or Eastern Queens if you are in former 2 fare zones.

Anonymous wrote:GM CEO just told people get back to work.

Bottom line way back in 2007 my company started remote. Any employee with children was required to show proof of child care or a nanny, my facilities dept. would visit home to set up office and ensure they had an appropriate place to work at home and had to be online business hours and available.

Most women were looking for free child care or run errands or go bus stop.

My co worker did get approval. He had a home office identical to work, one kid in after school program and they rocked it 830 - 530 pm every day.

Most washed out .

This is incredibly sexist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:WFH is hard for the younger workers who miss out on some aspects of learning on the job and informal mentoring.

Definitely. But for most white collar workers who spend their day in front of a screen, 1-2 days in office is the sweet spot.

3+ days per week in the office has no real tangible value-add and I would argue has diminishing returns.

It will be interesting to see what happens when office leases turn over in the 2025-2028 period when the current attractive lease renewals inked in 2021-2022 start to expire and the commercial real estate owners need to refinance. Office rents will spike to pay for the interest expense and most companies will just decide to consolidate their square footage.

Interesting analysis of office lease length: https://urbanland.uli.org/inside-uli/sponsored-posts/the-big-short-for-office-leases-what-do-shorter-terms-really-mean-and-will-they-last/

My long term prediction is that graph starts ticking upward again as current CRE leases mature and companies have to pay rents that reflect the new interest rate environment. Womp womp.

Agreed. The younger workers in my office actually don't want to be in more than the minimum because they all live with their parents and have pretty long commutes from suburbs or other cities (and are banking their entire salaries!). There's a balance to be had.

Anonymous wrote:WFH is hard for the younger workers who miss out on some aspects of learning on the job and informal mentoring.

Definitely. But for most white collar workers who spend their day in front of a screen, 1-2 days in office is the sweet spot.

3+ days per week in the office has no real tangible value-add and I would argue has diminishing returns.

It will be interesting to see what happens when office leases turn over in the 2025-2028 period when the current attractive lease renewals inked in 2021-2022 start to expire and the commercial real estate owners need to refinance. Office rents will spike to pay for the interest expense and most companies will just decide to consolidate their square footage.

Interesting analysis of office lease length: https://urbanland.uli.org/inside-uli/sponsored-posts/the-big-short-for-office-leases-what-do-shorter-terms-really-mean-and-will-they-last/

My long term prediction is that graph starts ticking upward again as current CRE leases mature and companies have to pay rents that reflect the new interest rate environment. Womp womp.

Anonymous wrote:I know at my place a lot of the white males in management are unhappy the younger women aren't available to them with WFH and that is a major factor in the RTO decision. Obviously they are in leadership roles so there's no one to challenge their decision.

Exactly. The opportunity to sexually harass is seriously diminished, and people are also being judged by work product and not nepotism etc - makes sense when you think who’s pushing the movement the most strongly.

WFH is hard for the younger workers who miss out on some aspects of learning on the job and informal mentoring.

Anonymous wrote:I know at my place a lot of the white males in management are unhappy the younger women aren't available to them with WFH and that is a major factor in the RTO decision. Obviously they are in leadership roles so there's no one to challenge their decision.

That makes more sense than anything else, sadly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So find another job. According to DCUM there are tons of high-paying remote jobs where you can work in your pajamas and never interact with another human. So go get one. (And then complain to your therapist about how anxious and isolated you feel.)

I did! I am pretty excited to end my 1.5 hour commute in January. I actually like my workspace and seeing people on days in the office, and will miss them, but the 3 hours a day I'm losing aren't worth it.

Good for you! Enjoy. Everyone arranges their lives differently and it’s the whining that is obnoxious. Either fix it as you have, or deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a sincere question about posts like these every time I see them.

The people making RTO decisions are also humans. They have families and commutes and also enjoyed the benefits of remote work. The vast majority of them are not uber-wealthy Bezos/Musks. Many of them are even staff level HR/budget/external affairs professionals. We see these people every day in the workplace and know them.

They are making these calls for a reason. They may be wrong, but they are not EVIL.

All of us would have better outcomes if we remembered that, and were willing to hear people out in good faith and maybe influence each other. Calling names on other sides is both wrong and also unhelpful.

They are humans but most of them are executive level people that are wealthy.
Also, they're not the people that would deign to speak with the Hoi polloi.

They are generally either old enough or young and rich enough to have really easy commutes from places the hoi polloi like me couldn't possibly afford to live. Like downtown DC or north Arlington, whereas we whiners are coming in from the far exurbs of MD and VA.

Anonymous wrote:So find another job. According to DCUM there are tons of high-paying remote jobs where you can work in your pajamas and never interact with another human. So go get one. (And then complain to your therapist about how anxious and isolated you feel.)

I did! I am pretty excited to end my 1.5 hour commute in January. I actually like my workspace and seeing people on days in the office, and will miss them, but the 3 hours a day I'm losing aren't worth it.

Anonymous wrote:I have a sincere question about posts like these every time I see them.

The people making RTO decisions are also humans. They have families and commutes and also enjoyed the benefits of remote work. The vast majority of them are not uber-wealthy Bezos/Musks. Many of them are even staff level HR/budget/external affairs professionals. We see these people every day in the workplace and know them.

They are making these calls for a reason. They may be wrong, but they are not EVIL.

All of us would have better outcomes if we remembered that, and were willing to hear people out in good faith and maybe influence each other. Calling names on other sides is both wrong and also unhelpful.

They are humans but most of them are executive level people that are wealthy.
Also, they're not the people that would deign to speak with the Hoi polloi.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sorry you received notice that you have to return to work.

It’s not return to work. It’s a notice that instead of using your laptop and holding Teams meetings in office A, you must spend hours a week driving/taking a train so that you can use your laptop and home Teams meetings in office B.

It’s RTO, which was always the plan after the pandemic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GM CEO just told people get back to work.

Bottom line way back in 2007 my company started remote. Any employee with children was required to show proof of child care or a nanny, my facilities dept. would visit home to set up office and ensure they had an appropriate place to work at home and had to be online business hours and available.

Most women were looking for free child care or run errands or go bus stop.

My co worker did get approval. He had a home office identical to work, one kid in after school program and they rocked it 830 - 530 pm every day.

Most washed out .

this post is unintelligible. what?

It's the Two Jobs Guy. Apparently he worked for Stratton Oakmont in a past fantasy life.

Which is ironic because he was juggling three remote jobs at one point per his posts on DCUM. It seems that he now has an in-person executive job and one of his responsibilities is to crack the whip on remote employees.

I am cracking whip hard. Off boarded another one last week. I set up they can only work at work no laptop. It is a 40 hour work week with a mandatory lunch break. I use the on line prem version of a time sheet tool tried to payroll and all hours have to be 40 each week.

Scanners started entering sick days, vacation days trying to hit 40. But they start nothing in the bank. I have a minimum of 45 hours in building each week.

I let up the hammer after 3-6 months after I broke them and I am sure and second job is washed out.

I also fish bowled them in cubes in center of room so If they are on personal call internet I know.

They can quit I don’t care and they can go back to spanking the monkey, sleeping in, working ten jobs, playing golf, getting drunk who cares.