Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've talked to a lot of working mothers who've shared that they will be really stretched if they have to RTO full time. It's not the cost of child care for most of them - it's about missing hours a day with their families, about work life balance. They want to get the work done, even after the kids are bed. They aren't the ones abusing telework and watching a toddler while claiming they're working. A 9-year-old can get herself a snack and play independently until mom is off at 5pm - but they can't be home alone. And this seems especially impactful for single parents.

Sure, there are tons of dads who do tons of childcare. And full-time RTO may suck for them, too. But it seems like the evidence is that it's the women who quit.

For employers looking to hire top talent, you're going to lose a lot of quality employees by requiring butts in seats. A lot of jobs work just fine with hybrid or even full-time telework. For employers looking to reduce their rolls, it's an interesting strategy and not one that leads to top talent staying, it seems. I'm hoping we see a lot more data about RTO mandates.

Plenty of working mothers make it work: nurses, doctors, teachers, dentists, etc. If they can manage the in-person work and the commutes, then so can you.

Those are great examples of people who typically don't work a 9-5 in the city. Please note I am not suggesting those are easy jobs - they aren't. But they are typically jobs where you work a non-standard day and have more days off, and they are not all clustered in DC like so many office jobs. My mom was a nurse who worked PMs so she was off in the morning until after lunch. My SIL has her own practice and just doesn't take patients when her kids are out of school. Teachers can do their planning and grading at home. Etc.

My point is, very few doctors, nurses, or teachers are commuting for an hour during rush, working 8.5 hours, and commuting home during rush, 5 days a week. Bad example if you are trying to make a "but other people do it" argument.

Really the only jobs that have to be regularly on-site like that are SCIF work, and high turnover service jobs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've talked to a lot of working mothers who've shared that they will be really stretched if they have to RTO full time. It's not the cost of child care for most of them - it's about missing hours a day with their families, about work life balance. They want to get the work done, even after the kids are bed. They aren't the ones abusing telework and watching a toddler while claiming they're working. A 9-year-old can get herself a snack and play independently until mom is off at 5pm - but they can't be home alone. And this seems especially impactful for single parents.

Sure, there are tons of dads who do tons of childcare. And full-time RTO may suck for them, too. But it seems like the evidence is that it's the women who quit.

For employers looking to hire top talent, you're going to lose a lot of quality employees by requiring butts in seats. A lot of jobs work just fine with hybrid or even full-time telework. For employers looking to reduce their rolls, it's an interesting strategy and not one that leads to top talent staying, it seems. I'm hoping we see a lot more data about RTO mandates.

Plenty of working mothers make it work: nurses, doctors, teachers, dentists, etc. If they can manage the in-person work and the commutes, then so can you.

Because a dr can not work from home means that I need to commute in to talk to coworkers on Teams because they work in other parts of the country? Spend extra taxpayer dollars to accomplish less!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've talked to a lot of working mothers who've shared that they will be really stretched if they have to RTO full time. It's not the cost of child care for most of them - it's about missing hours a day with their families, about work life balance. They want to get the work done, even after the kids are bed. They aren't the ones abusing telework and watching a toddler while claiming they're working. A 9-year-old can get herself a snack and play independently until mom is off at 5pm - but they can't be home alone. And this seems especially impactful for single parents.

Sure, there are tons of dads who do tons of childcare. And full-time RTO may suck for them, too. But it seems like the evidence is that it's the women who quit.

For employers looking to hire top talent, you're going to lose a lot of quality employees by requiring butts in seats. A lot of jobs work just fine with hybrid or even full-time telework. For employers looking to reduce their rolls, it's an interesting strategy and not one that leads to top talent staying, it seems. I'm hoping we see a lot more data about RTO mandates.

Plenty of working mothers make it work: nurses, doctors, teachers, dentists, etc. If they can manage the in-person work and the commutes, then so can you.

You're missing the point. It's not "can you make it work" - yes, my daycare is open 11 hrs/day. Am I actually going to leave my child in daycare all their waking hours so I can work a long day plus commute? No I will quit.

Anonymous wrote:I've talked to a lot of working mothers who've shared that they will be really stretched if they have to RTO full time. It's not the cost of child care for most of them - it's about missing hours a day with their families, about work life balance. They want to get the work done, even after the kids are bed. They aren't the ones abusing telework and watching a toddler while claiming they're working. A 9-year-old can get herself a snack and play independently until mom is off at 5pm - but they can't be home alone. And this seems especially impactful for single parents.

Sure, there are tons of dads who do tons of childcare. And full-time RTO may suck for them, too. But it seems like the evidence is that it's the women who quit.

For employers looking to hire top talent, you're going to lose a lot of quality employees by requiring butts in seats. A lot of jobs work just fine with hybrid or even full-time telework. For employers looking to reduce their rolls, it's an interesting strategy and not one that leads to top talent staying, it seems. I'm hoping we see a lot more data about RTO mandates.

Plenty of working mothers make it work: nurses, doctors, teachers, dentists, etc. If they can manage the in-person work and the commutes, then so can you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've talked to a lot of working mothers who've shared that they will be really stretched if they have to RTO full time. It's not the cost of child care for most of them - it's about missing hours a day with their families, about work life balance. They want to get the work done, even after the kids are bed. They aren't the ones abusing telework and watching a toddler while claiming they're working. A 9-year-old can get herself a snack and play independently until mom is off at 5pm - but they can't be home alone. And this seems especially impactful for single parents.

Sure, there are tons of dads who do tons of childcare. And full-time RTO may suck for them, too. But it seems like the evidence is that it's the women who quit.

For employers looking to hire top talent, you're going to lose a lot of quality employees by requiring butts in seats. A lot of jobs work just fine with hybrid or even full-time telework. For employers looking to reduce their rolls, it's an interesting strategy and not one that leads to top talent staying, it seems. I'm hoping we see a lot more data about RTO mandates.

Wrong that's illegal you need to have a nanny at home

It might violate a specific employer’s rules, but PP didn’t say where the person in the hypothetical worked. Can you tell me which law makes this illegal for everyone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've talked to a lot of working mothers who've shared that they will be really stretched if they have to RTO full time. It's not the cost of child care for most of them - it's about missing hours a day with their families, about work life balance. They want to get the work done, even after the kids are bed. They aren't the ones abusing telework and watching a toddler while claiming they're working. A 9-year-old can get herself a snack and play independently until mom is off at 5pm - but they can't be home alone. And this seems especially impactful for single parents.

Sure, there are tons of dads who do tons of childcare. And full-time RTO may suck for them, too. But it seems like the evidence is that it's the women who quit.

For employers looking to hire top talent, you're going to lose a lot of quality employees by requiring butts in seats. A lot of jobs work just fine with hybrid or even full-time telework. For employers looking to reduce their rolls, it's an interesting strategy and not one that leads to top talent staying, it seems. I'm hoping we see a lot more data about RTO mandates.

Wrong that's illegal you need to have a nanny at home

Why is it illegal to work remotely without a nanny to make a sandwich for a 9 year old?

Anonymous wrote:I've talked to a lot of working mothers who've shared that they will be really stretched if they have to RTO full time. It's not the cost of child care for most of them - it's about missing hours a day with their families, about work life balance. They want to get the work done, even after the kids are bed. They aren't the ones abusing telework and watching a toddler while claiming they're working. A 9-year-old can get herself a snack and play independently until mom is off at 5pm - but they can't be home alone. And this seems especially impactful for single parents.

Sure, there are tons of dads who do tons of childcare. And full-time RTO may suck for them, too. But it seems like the evidence is that it's the women who quit.

For employers looking to hire top talent, you're going to lose a lot of quality employees by requiring butts in seats. A lot of jobs work just fine with hybrid or even full-time telework. For employers looking to reduce their rolls, it's an interesting strategy and not one that leads to top talent staying, it seems. I'm hoping we see a lot more data about RTO mandates.

Wrong that's illegal you need to have a nanny at home

Anonymous wrote:No one is losing employees!

Not the research paper posted earlier in the thread says. Do you have a link to a research paper that says something different? Please share it.

No one is losing employees!

Anonymous wrote:WFH was a gift sent from the heavens during the pandemic. We should keep it

Otherwise, I hope the Chinese or Fauci or whoever release another super contagious virus for another pandemic. I’d love to WFH indefinitely

Be careful what you wish for. Something is brewing in the Congo right now

Its an easy way to layoff a lot of people without severance (or less severance) tbh.

In the era of generative AI, they will need fewer and fewer "do-ers" and more "big-thinkers" and leaders and visionaries. Idea generation vs. execution (because of AI). Seeing this everywhere right now - from investment banks, asset management firms, consulting firms, accounting firms and law firms.

Anonymous wrote:The largest companies are losing talent and money. Seems like a good shorting opportunity for those companies enforcing strictest RTO mandates. RTO is also anti-woman.

All this data is public.

Abstract:

By tracking over 3 million tech and finance workers' employment histories reported on LinkedIn, we analyze the effect of S&P 500 firms' return-to-office (RTO) mandates on employee turnover and hiring. We find that these firms experience abnormally high employee turnover following RTO mandates. The increase in turnover rates is more pronounced for female employees, more senior employees, and more skilled employees. Further, it takes significantly longer time for these firms to fill their job vacancies after the mandates. Their hire rates also significantly decrease. These results are consistent with firms losing their best talent and female employees and facing greater difficulties with talent attraction after RTO mandates. Our study highlights brain drain as a significant cost of RTO mandates even for the largest firms in the world.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5031481

I read some of this paper and it’s very interesting. A challenge may be that they looked at RTO mandates through June 2023 (forget when they started). If the majority of those mandates were in 2021 or 2022 when schools were still closing and COVID was pretty bad that may have messed with the data. 2022 was also the period known as the great resignation when many people were changing jobs, so I don’t know if that’s accounted for. Dealmaking was also down in 2022-2023 and that impacted financial services from a monetary standpoint - silent layoffs happened by, for example, making bonuses lower to get people out the door. Did those people leave because the were frustrated with comp or did they leave because of RTO? It was not a good time to be at Goldman Sachs. And some real layoffs also happened during that period because most companies paused layoffs and negative reviews during the pandemic (not sure if that was factored in). I think they said something like many roles weren’t hired for, which would indicate bloat. And positions that were harder to fill roles may have been open longer because they were looking for a very specific skill set and people also knew that the company had just gone through layoffs and bonuses were down (again, don’t think that was controlled for). I also didn’t love some of the citations about women being less attached to the workforce from 1988 and 1992. Kernel of truth, but with pseudo-sciencey assertions like that find more recent citations to back up the claims.

In 2025 the world looks different from 2022 and 2023. People have much more realistic expectations about the hybrid and remote options available to them now than they did in 2022 and 2023.