Working From Home Megathread

How did that work with contracts for office leases?

Yep, same in my current and previous organisations.

Yep. I'd say that's the same for the vast majority of people. Certainly any KPIs I've seen are bearing that out - productivity either maintained or enhanced, in the vast majority of cases, even where organisations had to pivot to WFH and/or introduce new schemes to cater for COVID.

Wait, what? Why the sudden unwarranted attack on the public sector?! That's bollocks. Revenue, for example, are still WFH pretty much 100% (borders and public offices aside), still bringing in the money, and have introduced new COVID-related schemes. Social Welfare, likewise, having to introduce PUP payments. All of what you wrote above absolutely applies to the public sector, too!

Agreed on that.

So no examples at all of poor service from the civil service. Okies.

I think all tech firms would acknowledge that productivity has increased as a result of WFH.

why then are the largest and best tech firms eager to get staff back to the office?

Some development on WFH in my company. Large Multi national.

First they said everyone had to come back to the office. They were very adamant about it.

Now that people have been back in the office for a few months a good few left the company.

But the most telling thing is that they cant get new hires once they ask what is the policy on work from home and the company says no or not enough days for them.

So then the company said 1 day a week from home, then 2 days a week from home. Now its 4 days a week from home.

So now we have to go into the office one day a week. If they cant get new hires with that then they will probably go to twice a month.

They didnt seem too bothered when people started leaving because people never tell you the real reasons at an exit interview ... ever. Anyone who thinks they do is dreaming. They just tell you something polite so as not to burn any bridges.

Anyone going looking for a new job frame the work from home question like this. "What is the company WFH policy?". Because when people said "Can I work from home?" the interviewers in my company were told to say "yes, some people like to work from home and when we settle in we can talk about it and give you WFH". That is just to hide the fact that it was only 1 days or 2 days at the times of those interviews. Very sneaky. So always ask "What is the company policy on WFH?" at interview. I dont think anyone should be moving to a job where they cant WFH at least 4 days a week now if the job you do is able to be done from home.

Huge about turn from my company on it.

well google are actively putting new investment into their work spaces, billions.

Maybe you know better?

RTO - Return to office.

You seem tense. Are you back in the office? 🙂.

It's not about knowing better. It's whether Google lose talent as a result of mandating office work worldwide. Is that what they are demanding? If so, good luck to them but I view it as close minded.

There are plenty of jobs outside the FAANGs.

im not actually, but it speaks volumes that you go with that passive agressive you seem tense nonsense, will chill out be your next refrain?

you said "I think all tech firms would acknowledge that productivity has increased as a result of WFH."

that seems a bit off in the context of the two largest co's in that cohort looking to get people back in.

I just mirrored your post. So if I'm self aggrandising so are you :)

You implied Google knows best. Well it's obvious Google doesn't always know best. Googles so large it could make mistakes for a decade and still be largely unaffected.

The effect of not offering wfh won't be dramatic. As it will only effect a subset of people anyway. If it will be key people remains to be seen.

It's not like Tech companies generally have a good work/life balance anyway. Their perks and recruitment policies and bias reflect that.

Of course changing people has a cost: part of it is measurable (advertising, hiring bonus, time spent doing recruitment), reducted productivity for a period for the new hire. Part is intangible (loss of domain knowledge, instability in the team).

But it also has benefits. A measurable one is reduced redundancy liability (and that's something which companies have an eye on when they're expecting a recession). An intangible one is introducing fresh perspectives and wider industry exposure.

Changing people is a normal business activity. The reasons for job change vary. Right now, WFH policies are a reason for change. But if disliking the company WFH policy is the only reason for a job-change, then I'd think the job wasn't a great fit to begin with.

Being disposable works both ways.

Google at least seems to rely on a "cult" mentality to essentially get more out of it's workers.

Cults and WFH don't seem to gel together.

Perspective is important. Life is more than work. And this is from someone who has prioritised work over life for too long. I am glad those employers were shocked - as they should be.