Get Your Butt Back To The Office (1 Viewer)

[Scoresman]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

Require is a strong term. For really large meetings, not so much. For meetings w/ less than 20 or if presenting/supporting, definitely encouraged to be on camera. Also, we expect basically office level attire when on camera. I keep a dress shirt near my desk for impromptu calls.

This is how you know these policies are simply old executives clinging to their familiar office lifestyles and pushing it on everyone else without any basis in increased productivity. There is absolutely zero reason to have to dress up for a zoom call.

Putting on a dress shirt for camera is not a big ask. We're completely hybrid, and routinely have folks from home and office on calls.

To me looking decent on a video call is just common courtesy. It also sets the tone that WFH is still working.

To each their own.

Seriously. You want people on zoom calls in their pajamas? At least put a little effort in. Same people wondering why they’re being asked to come back to the office,

I didnt suggest not putting a little effort in. I wouldn't go on any video call work or private having just got out of bed in my pajamas. I do work in pajamas all the time, but never go on any call that might require video.

 

[Poke_4_Life]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

Require is a strong term. For really large meetings, not so much. For meetings w/ less than 20 or if presenting/supporting, definitely encouraged to be on camera. Also, we expect basically office level attire when on camera. I keep a dress shirt near my desk for impromptu calls.

This is how you know these policies are simply old executives clinging to their familiar office lifestyles and pushing it on everyone else without any basis in increased productivity. There is absolutely zero reason to have to dress up for a zoom call.

Putting on a dress shirt for camera is not a big ask. We're completely hybrid, and routinely have folks from home and office on calls.

To me looking decent on a video call is just common courtesy. It also sets the tone that WFH is still working.

To each their own.

What if you don't wear dress shirts to the office?....

I should clarify, we are polos (minimum) in the office. So I mean dress shirt generically. Polos are fine. We are a large and stodgy entity. I still have a dress shirt, tie and blazer in my office in case they are needed. Folks in the office routinely wear suits. Company culture is a real thing.

 

[belljr]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

Require is a strong term. For really large meetings, not so much. For meetings w/ less than 20 or if presenting/supporting, definitely encouraged to be on camera. Also, we expect basically office level attire when on camera. I keep a dress shirt near my desk for impromptu calls.

This is how you know these policies are simply old executives clinging to their familiar office lifestyles and pushing it on everyone else without any basis in increased productivity. There is absolutely zero reason to have to dress up for a zoom call.

Putting on a dress shirt for camera is not a big ask. We're completely hybrid, and routinely have folks from home and office on calls.

To me looking decent on a video call is just common courtesy. It also sets the tone that WFH is still working.

To each their own.

What if you don't wear dress shirts to the office?....

I should clarify, we are polos (minimum) in the office. So I mean dress shirt generically. Polos are fine. We are a large and stodgy entity. I still have a dress shirt, tie and blazer in my office in case they are needed. Folks in the office routinely wear suits. Company culture is a real thing.

I wear tshirts and hoodies to the office was more my point

 

[AAABatteries]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

Require is a strong term. For really large meetings, not so much. For meetings w/ less than 20 or if presenting/supporting, definitely encouraged to be on camera. Also, we expect basically office level attire when on camera. I keep a dress shirt near my desk for impromptu calls.

This is how you know these policies are simply old executives clinging to their familiar office lifestyles and pushing it on everyone else without any basis in increased productivity. There is absolutely zero reason to have to dress up for a zoom call.

Putting on a dress shirt for camera is not a big ask. We're completely hybrid, and routinely have folks from home and office on calls.

To me looking decent on a video call is just common courtesy. It also sets the tone that WFH is still working.

To each their own.

I find this bizarre.

 

[AAABatteries]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

Require is a strong term. For really large meetings, not so much. For meetings w/ less than 20 or if presenting/supporting, definitely encouraged to be on camera. Also, we expect basically office level attire when on camera. I keep a dress shirt near my desk for impromptu calls.

This is how you know these policies are simply old executives clinging to their familiar office lifestyles and pushing it on everyone else without any basis in increased productivity. There is absolutely zero reason to have to dress up for a zoom call.

Putting on a dress shirt for camera is not a big ask. We're completely hybrid, and routinely have folks from home and office on calls.

To me looking decent on a video call is just common courtesy. It also sets the tone that WFH is still working.

To each their own.

Seriously. You want people on zoom calls in their pajamas? At least put a little effort in. Same people wondering why they’re being asked to come back to the office,

There’s a big gap between dress shirt and pajamas. We are all adults here - the clown showing up in pajamas would be gone soon enough.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

,,,when you can't beat 'em then join 'em

-Lots happened since I checked in and took a howitzer to everyone...
-As unbelievable as this sounds, they actually took away physical offices from basically anyone who is not "Chief-Something" and are being encouraged to stay home IMO. They also are not leasing additional office space anywhere so the likelihood they order everyone back in 6 months, 12 months, seems unlikely.

-We live in Jupiter/Hobe Sound and we are actively looking for a 2nd Home in the area North of Tampa up to Ocala, horse country as it's sometimes called
-The Brightline runs out of O-Town 4:30-4:40 AM, 3.5 hours one way to Miami. Roundtrip ticket is rather pricey IMHO and so I started looking at flights from Tampa and Orlando to Miami where we might have to visit twice a month now, maybe less. 1 hour and multiple airlines, they start going by 5-6am, we can be in Miami by 7 and so maybe we skip the train experience.

(Edited out all the dirty rotten money reasons for possibly doing this)

-The main reason is my wife's mom lives up that way and she turns 70, we both turn 50 next year, last weekend Grandma turned 90. now is the time while there's still time. My son in St Pete, would be easy to jump down the Suncoast and meet up with him. Mostly family driving this urge to spread out for now.

Cheers!

 

[SWC]

,,,when you can't beat 'em then join 'em

-Lots happened since I checked in and took a howitzer to everyone...
-As unbelievable as this sounds, they actually took away physical offices from basically anyone who is not "Chief-Something" and are being encouraged to stay home IMO. They also are not leasing additional office space anywhere so the likelihood they order everyone back in 6 months, 12 months, seems unlikely.

-We live in Jupiter/Hobe Sound and we are actively looking for a 2nd Home in the area North of Tampa up to Ocala, horse country as it's sometimes called
-The Brightline runs out of O-Town 4:30-4:40 AM, 3.5 hours one way to Miami. Roundtrip ticket is rather pricey IMHO and so I started looking at flights from Tampa and Orlando to Miami where we might have to visit twice a month now, maybe less. 1 hour and multiple airlines, they start going by 5-6am, we can be in Miami by 7 and so maybe we skip the train experience.

(Edited out all the dirty rotten money reasons for possibly doing this)

-The main reason is my wife's mom lives up that way and she turns 70, we both turn 50 next year, last weekend Grandma turned 90. now is the time while there's still time. My son in St Pete, would be easy to jump down the Suncoast and meet up with him. Mostly family driving this urge to spread out for now.

Cheers!

and that brohans is your ministrone minute take that to the bank

 

[massraider]

-As unbelievable as this sounds, they actually took away physical offices from basically anyone who is not "Chief-Something" and are being encouraged to stay home IMO.

The tech exists to not have to be in a physical office for many people. As a business owner, trimming the fat is part of your responsibilities. If a job can be done from home, and you don't have to pay for commercial space, that's good business. Like using the phone instead of going to an office for a sales call.

If I own a company, and some workers cannot do their job as well from home as an office, I can do one of two things:

1. Lease commercial real estate so these workers have the office they need to succeed.

2. Find workers who can perform when they work from home.


#2 is much less expensive.

 

[Runkle]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

I wouldn't say it's required, but, if a meeting has so few participants that everyone is visible on "page 1" of the grid, having a camera on seems to be the common courtesy. If a meeting has 25+ people, those who are listening only and aren't speaking tend to fall to page 2 of the zoom grid and can be cameras off no problem.

 

[Nugget]

Depends on the call. I default to camera on and use it for 90% of calls. I will turn it off for bandwidth concerns. If I am presenting, I’ll usually wear a polo or a quarter zip. Small team meetings and calls with my boss are usually hoodie/ t-shirt and possibly a baseball hat.

 

[IrishTwinkie]

IF am working from home and not going to be seen by anyone, its makes zero difference what I am wearing. If you hired me for my sartorial sense over my engineering talents, that’s on you. In front of the customer, sure. Frankly anyone else, well, to take it to the extreme, they are lucky I am even dressed during the phone call. What I am wearing just doesn’t improve my engineering skillz in any way. Cameras off.

 

[Grahamburn]

Rumors are my company is going to start "counting swipes", so, guess it's time to dust off the resume and update my linkedin in hopes of transitioning to something fully remote or at least casually flexible. If this place is going to micromanage my location hours in a job that is nearly entirely zoom calls and emailing an excel spreadsheet around, they can F right off.

This is how you feel about a company that pays you a salary plus benefits to get on zoom calls and e-mail a spreadsheet?

Honestly, I imagine a lot of these companies are looking forward to trimming some of the fat off their bloated payrolls and requiring people to come back to the office to keep their jobs is a great way to do it.

 

[Scoresman]

Rumors are my company is going to start "counting swipes", so, guess it's time to dust off the resume and update my linkedin in hopes of transitioning to something fully remote or at least casually flexible. If this place is going to micromanage my location hours in a job that is nearly entirely zoom calls and emailing an excel spreadsheet around, they can F right off.

This is how you feel about a company that pays you a salary plus benefits to get on zoom calls and e-mail a spreadsheet?

Honestly, I imagine a lot of these companies are looking forward to trimming some of the fat off their bloated payrolls and requiring people to come back to the office to keep their jobs is a great way to do it.

Actually it’s not. It would be wasted money. A better way to trim fat is to get rid of office space leases and use that budget to better monitor employees who are not productive/not contributing regardless of work location.

Do you think if someone who joins zooms and emails a spreadsheet is forced to go to the office, he’s going to suddenly do more than join zooms and email spreadsheets?

 

[snogger]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

Require? No

Some do ask, and will say something general about how we are a collaboration team, supporting the Microsoft platform so should use all of tech when in meetings.

In meetings with management I'll turn my on.. A few times I've been the only one for a bit, then management turns theirs on.
I actually enjoy having it on, it keeps me actively listening.

 

[snogger]

Also, turning on the camera helps me to wear clothes that I've had since I went to the office.
When I worked for companies that never used cameras my clothes collected dust as I wore t-shirts in the summer, and sweatshirts in the winter.

 

[GenX fan]

When your Zoom meeting ends, do you wave goodbye???

 

[Runkle]

Rumors are my company is going to start "counting swipes", so, guess it's time to dust off the resume and update my linkedin in hopes of transitioning to something fully remote or at least casually flexible. If this place is going to micromanage my location hours in a job that is nearly entirely zoom calls and emailing an excel spreadsheet around, they can F right off.

This is how you feel about a company that pays you a salary plus benefits to get on zoom calls and e-mail a spreadsheet?

Honestly, I imagine a lot of these companies are looking forward to trimming some of the fat off their bloated payrolls and requiring people to come back to the office to keep their jobs is a great way to do it.

I manage about 40 work teams on different job sites all over the world. Not a single person I manage in my job is face-to-face. Most of the time, it's across an ocean.

Requiring me to do this from one specified location, just because other people in other jobs in other departments in other buildings are needed on-site while I am not, is idiotic. It's an obvious example of "one size does not fit all". Having a single, company-wide policy that must be applied to everyone without exception is moronic.

Pre-covid, doing this job 5 days a week from the corporate location, left me burned out and over stressed. Now that I see that there is a way in which I can do the job better, both for the company and from my end, just leaves me feeling frustrated that I'm not being allowed to do the work in the way I know is best. There are clear examples of how it's win-win for both of us, just last month I had a cold that prevented me from coming in, and it coincidentally was unexpectedly the busiest day of the year due to a particular surprise outside emergency event that happened with no notice... and I handled it from home so well, so fast, I was getting accolades from superiors well up the corporate ladder amazed at how I took care of all of it and kept the company on track through a major shift without missing a beat. My boss, my boss's boss, my boss's boss's boss... all took the time to personally commend me for how I got through it in a way that put us ahead of all of our competitors, and they didn't even know I was home sick. They were overwhelmed by a workload that they could barely handle when they were well, and I crushed it while ill. Then a week later, my boss's boss's boss's boss sends out a company-wide policy email that basically says "next time, if you can't be here in person to do the work, the work isn't worth doing--work here or don't work." Had the policy been in place when the emergency happened, my company would have been set back a couple of weeks, lost a ton of ground, and potentially tens- or hundreds- of millions of dollars.

It's like being a ditchdigger, slinging that shovel every day. Then you hurt your shoulder, so the company buys a backhoe so you can continue to dig the ditches they need while you heal up. But once you're back to 100%, the company hands you back your shovel and tells you it's back to the old way. Then they park the backhoe next to your parking spot and let it collect dust, never to be used again, but forcing you to see it every morning to remind you of how it could be. Nevermind that you could dig more ditches, faster, to the company's benefit if they let you keep using it, the CEO used a shovel in his day, so he's decided you have to too.

Doesn't take long before you start thinking about slamming shut the car door on your wrist every month, just to get the backhoe back.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

I wouldn't say it's required, but, if a meeting has so few participants that everyone is visible on "page 1" of the grid, having a camera on seems to be the common courtesy. If a meeting has 25+ people, those who are listening only and aren't speaking tend to fall to page 2 of the zoom grid and can be cameras off no problem.

My experience is that in small meetings, the guy who refuses to turn on his camera comes across as anti-social. It's vaguely like hiding behind a table-screen at an in-person meeting. Just weird. (I'm highly introverted and would prefer not to be on camera, but even I can pick up on a social cue this obvious).

 

[IvanKaramazov]

When your Zoom meeting ends, do you wave goodbye???

It would be good schtick to start waving goodbye to everyone at the end of F2F meetings.

 

[belljr]

For those who work remotely or have a lot of online meetings (Zoom, Teams, etc.), does your organization require cameras to be on?

I wouldn't say it's required, but, if a meeting has so few participants that everyone is visible on "page 1" of the grid, having a camera on seems to be the common courtesy. If a meeting has 25+ people, those who are listening only and aren't speaking tend to fall to page 2 of the zoom grid and can be cameras off no problem.

My experience is that in small meetings, the guy who refuses to turn on his camera comes across as anti-social. It's vaguely like hiding behind a table-screen at an in-person meeting. Just weird. (I'm highly introverted and would prefer not to be on camera, but even I can pick up on a social cue this obvious).

I agree/disagree .... it was never an issue when we literally had dial in only meetings before this internet thing happened lol

 

[belljr]

I'm seriously considering pursuing another job in my agency that has a better WFH policy than ours ......

 

[Grahamburn]

Rumors are my company is going to start "counting swipes", so, guess it's time to dust off the resume and update my linkedin in hopes of transitioning to something fully remote or at least casually flexible. If this place is going to micromanage my location hours in a job that is nearly entirely zoom calls and emailing an excel spreadsheet around, they can F right off.

This is how you feel about a company that pays you a salary plus benefits to get on zoom calls and e-mail a spreadsheet?

Honestly, I imagine a lot of these companies are looking forward to trimming some of the fat off their bloated payrolls and requiring people to come back to the office to keep their jobs is a great way to do it.

Actually it’s not. It would be wasted money. A better way to trim fat is to get rid of office space leases and use that budget to better monitor employees who are not productive/not contributing regardless of work location.

Do you think if someone who joins zooms and emails a spreadsheet is forced to go to the office, he’s going to suddenly do more than join zooms and email spreadsheets?

I’m sure it depends greatly on industry and employee/person.

There’s also significant costs associated with setting people up at home and continuing to keep them connected.

And I’m sure companies are also considering all the sunk costs of the setups they already have in their offices.

There are plenty of reasons why companies are “forcing” employees back to the office. The biggest being their profitability. It’s certainly not because they’re stupid.

 

[Grahamburn]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

 

[belljr]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

You lost me how - how is working from home showing people can get done stuff in half the time? Isn't work load work load? I'm still working 40 hours regardless of where it is

 

[Andy Dufresne]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

I think this is super old fashioned thinking.

We're predominantly a knowledge economy now. We're not in some early/mid stage industrial, Demming Time & Motion Study, put widgets on a doohickey, assembly line workforce.

An employer pays for what an employee knows. And if that is applied for 40 or 100 or sometimes 20 hours a week, that knowledge is still valuable. Letting it walk out the door simply because it sits idle (or doesn't adhere to some arbitrary, if previously universally accepted, 40 hour amount) from time to time is bad business.

 

[Grahamburn]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

I think this is super old fashioned thinking.

We're predominantly a knowledge economy now. We're not in some early/mid stage industrial, Demming Time & Motion Study, put widgets on a doohickey, assembly line workforce.

An employer pays for what an employee knows. And if that is applied for 40 or 100 or sometimes 20 hours a week, that knowledge is still valuable. Letting it walk out the door simply because it sits idle (or doesn't adhere to some arbitrary, if previously universally accepted, 40 hour amount) from time to time is bad business.

Do you know more than the other guy with the same education and experience? I doubt there are too many of us here who are the only ones who can do what we do. If I'm paying you $100k for your 40 hours and I'm paying him $100K for his 40 hours, but it really only takes each of you 20 hours of real "work" when you're wfh doesn't it make sense to eliminate one of your salaries and just pile the workload on the other guy and give him a bump in pay?

I didn't go back and cherry pick them, but there are plenty of posts in here with people saying they're so much more productive now with wfh and they really only "work" a fraction of the time they did when they were glued to the office. It's a huge reason why so many are adamant about keeping it.

And, yes. I'm probably old fashioned.

 

[Grahamburn]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

You lost me how - how is working from home showing people can get done stuff in half the time? Isn't work load work load? I'm still working 40 hours regardless of where it is

You're being paid for it. Are you really working that much? Not the same. Way too many of us posting on FBGs all day long to say we're actually "working."

 

[belljr]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

You lost me how - how is working from home showing people can get done stuff in half the time? Isn't work load work load? I'm still working 40 hours regardless of where it is

You're being paid for it. Are you really working that much? Not the same. Way too many of us posting on FBGs all day long to say we're actually "working."

To this and your point above.....

This will vary from job to job obviously.

I don't have a job where I get done in "20 hours" I'm done for the week. I don't have a finish all my tasks and work is done. I have an ebb and flow workflow ..... some weeks are lighter than others (pending on projects and support) .... some weeks are 3 alarm fires......

When I say I more productive at home..... it means I can bang out more tasks there and "catchup", help out more whatever...... but that doesn't change either being home or at the office.

I have to slog my 40 hours even if I get done in 20 this week but have to do more than 40 next.

 

[gianmarco]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

You lost me how - how is working from home showing people can get done stuff in half the time? Isn't work load work load? I'm still working 40 hours regardless of where it is

You're being paid for it. Are you really working that much? Not the same. Way too many of us posting on FBGs all day long to say we're actually "working."

To this and your point above.....

This will vary from job to job obviously.

I don't have a job where I get done in "20 hours" I'm done for the week. I don't have a finish all my tasks and work is done. I have an ebb and flow workflow ..... some weeks are lighter than others (pending on projects and support) .... some weeks are 3 alarm fires......

When I say I more productive at home..... it means I can bang out more tasks there and "catchup", help out more whatever...... but that doesn't change either being home or at the office.

I have to slog my 40 hours even if I get done in 20 this week but have to do more than 40 next.

Plus the uncompensated time for commute that isn't unsubstantial for some. Wasting 1-2 hours/day commuting that goes unpaid adds up. That, alone, is enough for people to advocate for WFH even if their actual productivity remains unchanged from home or from the office.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

When your Zoom meeting ends, do you wave goodbye???

It would be good schtick to start waving goodbye to everyone at the end of F2F meetings.

Do you shake hands at the end of a face to face meeting?

 

[Andy Dufresne]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

I think this is super old fashioned thinking.

We're predominantly a knowledge economy now. We're not in some early/mid stage industrial, Demming Time & Motion Study, put widgets on a doohickey, assembly line workforce.

An employer pays for what an employee knows. And if that is applied for 40 or 100 or sometimes 20 hours a week, that knowledge is still valuable. Letting it walk out the door simply because it sits idle (or doesn't adhere to some arbitrary, if previously universally accepted, 40 hour amount) from time to time is bad business.

Do you know more than the other guy with the same education and experience? I doubt there are too many of us here who are the only ones who can do what we do. If I'm paying you $100k for your 40 hours and I'm paying him $100K for his 40 hours, but it really only takes each of you 20 hours of real "work" when you're wfh doesn't it make sense to eliminate one of your salaries and just pile the workload on the other guy and give him a bump in pay?

I didn't go back and cherry pick them, but there are plenty of posts in here with people saying they're so much more productive now with wfh and they really only "work" a fraction of the time they did when they were glued to the office. It's a huge reason why so many are adamant about keeping it.

And, yes. I'm probably old fashioned.

There's two things about this that aren't right.

First - You're stuck on 40 hours. Why? I'm paid for the work I do, period. Whether that takes 40 or 20 hours is irrelevant. You're paying "him" and "me" to do $100k each of work. If that work isn't worth it, it makes sense not to pay it regardless of how long it takes.

It's the old joke about the guy who calls a plumber who takes 5 minutes to assess the situation, taps twice in the same spot, and tightens a nut way down the line - and charges $200. The guy gets mad and says, "$200!? You were here for 5 minutes and all you did was tap a pipe and tighten a nut!" The plumber replies, "You're paying for knowing WHERE to tap and tighten."

Second, if you want to double my work you're going to have to approximately double my pay. Otherwise I'll go work somewhere else.

When people say they're more productive at home, I'm not sure that's true. I think when you're in an office you're required to be there the full 40 hours (plus the commute time). But there's a TON of wasted time in an office setting as people often try to LOOK busy for the full 8 hours. WFH allows people to get their work done and then do productive things around the house rather than shoot the breeze at the office watering hole.

 

[Grahamburn]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

You lost me how - how is working from home showing people can get done stuff in half the time? Isn't work load work load? I'm still working 40 hours regardless of where it is

You're being paid for it. Are you really working that much? Not the same. Way too many of us posting on FBGs all day long to say we're actually "working."

To this and your point above.....

This will vary from job to job obviously.

I don't have a job where I get done in "20 hours" I'm done for the week. I don't have a finish all my tasks and work is done. I have an ebb and flow workflow ..... some weeks are lighter than others (pending on projects and support) .... some weeks are 3 alarm fires......

When I say I more productive at home..... it means I can bang out more tasks there and "catchup", help out more whatever...... but that doesn't change either being home or at the office.

I have to slog my 40 hours even if I get done in 20 this week but have to do more than 40 next.

Plus the uncompensated time for commute that isn't unsubstantial for some. Wasting 1-2 hours/day commuting that goes unpaid adds up. That, alone, is enough for people to advocate for WFH even if their actual productivity remains unchanged from home or from the office.

100%. In essence wfh is almost exclusively beneficial to the employee. We should see salaries and benefits for these positions decreasing in comparison to previous in office positions as the demand and competition for them increases with likely higher workloads and responsibilities on remote workers. Everyone polishing up their resume to leave their current job if they're asking you to come back is likely in for a rude awakening as they're now competing against an entire nation for that fully remote job.

 

[Grahamburn]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

I think this is super old fashioned thinking.

We're predominantly a knowledge economy now. We're not in some early/mid stage industrial, Demming Time & Motion Study, put widgets on a doohickey, assembly line workforce.

An employer pays for what an employee knows. And if that is applied for 40 or 100 or sometimes 20 hours a week, that knowledge is still valuable. Letting it walk out the door simply because it sits idle (or doesn't adhere to some arbitrary, if previously universally accepted, 40 hour amount) from time to time is bad business.

Do you know more than the other guy with the same education and experience? I doubt there are too many of us here who are the only ones who can do what we do. If I'm paying you $100k for your 40 hours and I'm paying him $100K for his 40 hours, but it really only takes each of you 20 hours of real "work" when you're wfh doesn't it make sense to eliminate one of your salaries and just pile the workload on the other guy and give him a bump in pay?

I didn't go back and cherry pick them, but there are plenty of posts in here with people saying they're so much more productive now with wfh and they really only "work" a fraction of the time they did when they were glued to the office. It's a huge reason why so many are adamant about keeping it.

And, yes. I'm probably old fashioned.

There's two things about this that aren't right.

First - You're stuck on 40 hours. Why? I'm paid for the work I do, period. Whether that takes 40 or 20 hours is irrelevant. You're paying "him" and "me" to do $100k each of work. If that work isn't worth it, it makes sense not to pay it regardless of how long it takes.

It's the old joke about the guy who calls a plumber who takes 5 minutes to assess the situation, taps twice in the same spot, and tightens a nut way down the line - and charges $200. The guy gets mad and says, "$200!? You were here for 5 minutes and all you did was tap a pipe and tighten a nut!" The plumber replies, "You're paying for knowing WHERE to tap and tighten."

Second, if you want to double my work you're going to have to approximately double my pay. Otherwise I'll go work somewhere else.

When people say they're more productive at home, I'm not sure that's true. I think when you're in an office you're required to be there the full 40 hours (plus the commute time). But there's a TON of wasted time in an office setting as people often try to LOOK busy for the full 8 hours. WFH allows people to get their work done and then do productive things around the house rather than shoot the breeze at the office watering hole.

40 hours = typical in office American work week.

See previous post. I don't think "I'll just go work somewhere else" will be as easy as some think it will be. Maybe it is and remote jobs are cake to get? I honestly don't know. From posts in here I would think the competition for elite talent and high end positions will be fierce.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

I think this is super old fashioned thinking.

We're predominantly a knowledge economy now. We're not in some early/mid stage industrial, Demming Time & Motion Study, put widgets on a doohickey, assembly line workforce.

An employer pays for what an employee knows. And if that is applied for 40 or 100 or sometimes 20 hours a week, that knowledge is still valuable. Letting it walk out the door simply because it sits idle (or doesn't adhere to some arbitrary, if previously universally accepted, 40 hour amount) from time to time is bad business.

Do you know more than the other guy with the same education and experience? I doubt there are too many of us here who are the only ones who can do what we do. If I'm paying you $100k for your 40 hours and I'm paying him $100K for his 40 hours, but it really only takes each of you 20 hours of real "work" when you're wfh doesn't it make sense to eliminate one of your salaries and just pile the workload on the other guy and give him a bump in pay?

I didn't go back and cherry pick them, but there are plenty of posts in here with people saying they're so much more productive now with wfh and they really only "work" a fraction of the time they did when they were glued to the office. It's a huge reason why so many are adamant about keeping it.

And, yes. I'm probably old fashioned.

There's two things about this that aren't right.

First - You're stuck on 40 hours. Why? I'm paid for the work I do, period. Whether that takes 40 or 20 hours is irrelevant. You're paying "him" and "me" to do $100k each of work. If that work isn't worth it, it makes sense not to pay it regardless of how long it takes.

It's the old joke about the guy who calls a plumber who takes 5 minutes to assess the situation, taps twice in the same spot, and tightens a nut way down the line - and charges $200. The guy gets mad and says, "$200!? You were here for 5 minutes and all you did was tap a pipe and tighten a nut!" The plumber replies, "You're paying for knowing WHERE to tap and tighten."

Second, if you want to double my work you're going to have to approximately double my pay. Otherwise I'll go work somewhere else.

When people say they're more productive at home, I'm not sure that's true. I think when you're in an office you're required to be there the full 40 hours (plus the commute time). But there's a TON of wasted time in an office setting as people often try to LOOK busy for the full 8 hours. WFH allows people to get their work done and then do productive things around the house rather than shoot the breeze at the office watering hole.

40 hours = typical in office American work week.

See previous post. I don't think "I'll just go work somewhere else" will be as easy as some think it will be. Maybe it is and remote jobs are cake to get? I honestly don't know. From posts in here I would think the competition for elite talent and high end positions will be fierce.

I'm also saying that that thinking needs to be re-tooled.

WFH might favor the employee but productivity gains favor the employer. So it is a bit of a trade off.

If, however, it's shown that an employee is not doing the work required of the position while working at home vs the office then, of course, that situation needs rectifying.

 

[Grahamburn]

I think that's basically the point I'm maneuvering toward. Your pre-covid in office production is the same as your post-covid wfh home production. I don't think anyone is going to argue they're actually doing MORE at home than they were in the office. They're doing the same amount of real actual work, but they're doing it in much less real time, and then utilizing that extra time in their day at home for personal exploits.

Company is figuring that out. If Company doesn't care then great for you. But, they might start to care and in some cases they clearly already do.

 

[gianmarco]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

You lost me how - how is working from home showing people can get done stuff in half the time? Isn't work load work load? I'm still working 40 hours regardless of where it is

You're being paid for it. Are you really working that much? Not the same. Way too many of us posting on FBGs all day long to say we're actually "working."

To this and your point above.....

This will vary from job to job obviously.

I don't have a job where I get done in "20 hours" I'm done for the week. I don't have a finish all my tasks and work is done. I have an ebb and flow workflow ..... some weeks are lighter than others (pending on projects and support) .... some weeks are 3 alarm fires......

When I say I more productive at home..... it means I can bang out more tasks there and "catchup", help out more whatever...... but that doesn't change either being home or at the office.

I have to slog my 40 hours even if I get done in 20 this week but have to do more than 40 next.

Plus the uncompensated time for commute that isn't unsubstantial for some. Wasting 1-2 hours/day commuting that goes unpaid adds up. That, alone, is enough for people to advocate for WFH even if their actual productivity remains unchanged from home or from the office.

100%. In essence wfh is almost exclusively beneficial to the employee. We should see salaries and benefits for these positions decreasing in comparison to previous in office positions as the demand and competition for them increases with likely higher workloads and responsibilities on remote workers. Everyone polishing up their resume to leave their current job if they're asking you to come back is likely in for a rude awakening as they're now competing against an entire nation for that fully remote job.

Sure, but without being detrimental to the employer. You seem incredibly anti-employee.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think that's basically the point I'm maneuvering toward. Your pre-covid in office production is the same as your post-covid wfh home production. I don't think anyone is going to argue they're actually doing MORE at home than they were in the office. They're doing the same amount of real actual work, but they're doing it in much less real time, and then utilizing that extra time in their day at home for personal exploits.

Company is figuring that out. If Company doesn't care then great for you. But, they might start to care and in some cases they clearly already do.

I see what you're saying, but this thinking isn't going to work out for employers:

"So you were doing 20 hours of work in the office before but you're doing 25-30 at home now? Well now that I know that, when I get you back in the office I'll make sure I get 40 out of you when you're here."

Uh, no.

 

[Grahamburn]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

You lost me how - how is working from home showing people can get done stuff in half the time? Isn't work load work load? I'm still working 40 hours regardless of where it is

You're being paid for it. Are you really working that much? Not the same. Way too many of us posting on FBGs all day long to say we're actually "working."

To this and your point above.....

This will vary from job to job obviously.

I don't have a job where I get done in "20 hours" I'm done for the week. I don't have a finish all my tasks and work is done. I have an ebb and flow workflow ..... some weeks are lighter than others (pending on projects and support) .... some weeks are 3 alarm fires......

When I say I more productive at home..... it means I can bang out more tasks there and "catchup", help out more whatever...... but that doesn't change either being home or at the office.

I have to slog my 40 hours even if I get done in 20 this week but have to do more than 40 next.

Plus the uncompensated time for commute that isn't unsubstantial for some. Wasting 1-2 hours/day commuting that goes unpaid adds up. That, alone, is enough for people to advocate for WFH even if their actual productivity remains unchanged from home or from the office.

100%. In essence wfh is almost exclusively beneficial to the employee. We should see salaries and benefits for these positions decreasing in comparison to previous in office positions as the demand and competition for them increases with likely higher workloads and responsibilities on remote workers. Everyone polishing up their resume to leave their current job if they're asking you to come back is likely in for a rude awakening as they're now competing against an entire nation for that fully remote job.

Sure, but without being detrimental to the employer. You seem incredibly anti-employee.

Just offering a different perspective. I'm currently "working" from home.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Plus the uncompensated time for commute that isn't unsubstantial for some. Wasting 1-2 hours/day commuting that goes unpaid adds up. That, alone, is enough for people to advocate for WFH even if their actual productivity remains unchanged from home or from the office.

You're also saving money on gas, lunches, dress clothes/dry cleaning, dog walkers, etc. by not commuting each day.

So, I lose money on the days I go to the office versus working at home (not net obviously but compared to days I'm home).

 

[Grahamburn]

I think that's basically the point I'm maneuvering toward. Your pre-covid in office production is the same as your post-covid wfh home production. I don't think anyone is going to argue they're actually doing MORE at home than they were in the office. They're doing the same amount of real actual work, but they're doing it in much less real time, and then utilizing that extra time in their day at home for personal exploits.

Company is figuring that out. If Company doesn't care then great for you. But, they might start to care and in some cases they clearly already do.

I see what you're saying, but this thinking isn't going to work out for employers:

"So you were doing 20 hours of work in the office before but you're doing 25-30 at home now? Well now that I know that, when I get you back in the office I'll make sure I get 40 out of you when you're here."

Uh, no.

If they're forcing employees back to the office I'm not sure they want it to work out. I'd say they're looking forward to the decrease in payroll while dumping the remaining workload on whoever is left.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I think that's basically the point I'm maneuvering toward. Your pre-covid in office production is the same as your post-covid wfh home production. I don't think anyone is going to argue they're actually doing MORE at home than they were in the office. They're doing the same amount of real actual work, but they're doing it in much less real time, and then utilizing that extra time in their day at home for personal exploits.

Company is figuring that out. If Company doesn't care then great for you. But, they might start to care and in some cases they clearly already do.

I see what you're saying, but this thinking isn't going to work out for employers:

"So you were doing 20 hours of work in the office before but you're doing 25-30 at home now? Well now that I know that, when I get you back in the office I'll make sure I get 40 out of you when you're here."

Uh, no.

If they're forcing employees back to the office I'm not sure they want it to work out. I'd say they're looking forward to the decrease in payroll while dumping the remaining workload on whoever is left.

And those people stick around why...?

I think you're underestimating the cost of finding and retaining talent.

 

[Grahamburn]

I think that's basically the point I'm maneuvering toward. Your pre-covid in office production is the same as your post-covid wfh home production. I don't think anyone is going to argue they're actually doing MORE at home than they were in the office. They're doing the same amount of real actual work, but they're doing it in much less real time, and then utilizing that extra time in their day at home for personal exploits.

Company is figuring that out. If Company doesn't care then great for you. But, they might start to care and in some cases they clearly already do.

I see what you're saying, but this thinking isn't going to work out for employers:

"So you were doing 20 hours of work in the office before but you're doing 25-30 at home now? Well now that I know that, when I get you back in the office I'll make sure I get 40 out of you when you're here."

Uh, no.

If they're forcing employees back to the office I'm not sure they want it to work out. I'd say they're looking forward to the decrease in payroll while dumping the remaining workload on whoever is left.

And those people stick around why...?

I think you're underestimating the cost of finding and retaining talent.

I could be way off base.

 

[AAABatteries]

Plus the uncompensated time for commute that isn't unsubstantial for some. Wasting 1-2 hours/day commuting that goes unpaid adds up. That, alone, is enough for people to advocate for WFH even if their actual productivity remains unchanged from home or from the office.

I work in a role where I could essentially work nonstop if I wanted to. The work is never “done”. I absolutely am less productive going in to the office - again due to my role, I “know” hundreds of people and since I help enable them to do their job they want to chat or ask questions. And then 2 hours of commute - I was working well over 40 remotely. I won’t give them extra hours when there’s no reason for me to be in the office most days.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

If, however, it's shown that an employee is not doing the work required of the position while working at home vs the office then, of course, that situation needs rectifying.

Anyone that is doing things to avoid work while home will do the same in the office building. It's not like your boss hovers over you while in the office - and as you laid out there's a lot of time suck in the office where nothing is being accomplished other than being in a building with other co-workers.

 

[Scoresman]

In other words the labor force should be very afraid that work from home has enabled these companies to realize that everyone they've been paying to come to the office for a 40 hour work week can apparently get everything done in half the time at home. Why pay two people when we can pay one for the same production?

I think this is super old fashioned thinking.

We're predominantly a knowledge economy now. We're not in some early/mid stage industrial, Demming Time & Motion Study, put widgets on a doohickey, assembly line workforce.

An employer pays for what an employee knows. And if that is applied for 40 or 100 or sometimes 20 hours a week, that knowledge is still valuable. Letting it walk out the door simply because it sits idle (or doesn't adhere to some arbitrary, if previously universally accepted, 40 hour amount) from time to time is bad business.

Do you know more than the other guy with the same education and experience? I doubt there are too many of us here who are the only ones who can do what we do. If I'm paying you $100k for your 40 hours and I'm paying him $100K for his 40 hours, but it really only takes each of you 20 hours of real "work" when you're wfh doesn't it make sense to eliminate one of your salaries and just pile the workload on the other guy and give him a bump in pay?

I didn't go back and cherry pick them, but there are plenty of posts in here with people saying they're so much more productive now with wfh and they really only "work" a fraction of the time they did when they were glued to the office. It's a huge reason why so many are adamant about keeping it.

And, yes. I'm probably old fashioned.

There's two things about this that aren't right.

First - You're stuck on 40 hours. Why? I'm paid for the work I do, period. Whether that takes 40 or 20 hours is irrelevant. You're paying "him" and "me" to do $100k each of work. If that work isn't worth it, it makes sense not to pay it regardless of how long it takes.

It's the old joke about the guy who calls a plumber who takes 5 minutes to assess the situation, taps twice in the same spot, and tightens a nut way down the line - and charges $200. The guy gets mad and says, "$200!? You were here for 5 minutes and all you did was tap a pipe and tighten a nut!" The plumber replies, "You're paying for knowing WHERE to tap and tighten."

Second, if you want to double my work you're going to have to approximately double my pay. Otherwise I'll go work somewhere else.

When people say they're more productive at home, I'm not sure that's true. I think when you're in an office you're required to be there the full 40 hours (plus the commute time). But there's a TON of wasted time in an office setting as people often try to LOOK busy for the full 8 hours. WFH allows people to get their work done and then do productive things around the house rather than shoot the breeze at the office watering hole.

40 hours = typical in office American work week.

See previous post. I don't think "I'll just go work somewhere else" will be as easy as some think it will be. Maybe it is and remote jobs are cake to get? I honestly don't know. From posts in here I would think the competition for elite talent and high end positions will be fierce.

I did this exact thing 2 years ago. Moved to Oregon at the beginning of COVID because we were WFH and it was easier to transition. I always knew my job at the time would require people back to the office eventually (just the nature of the work), but it gave me time to find a remote or local job.

Yes, with remote jobs you're applying with a lot of other people, but that's mostly offset because you now have a nationwide, or even global pool of remote jobs to apply to. I was churning out applications left and right. Interviewed a half dozen times over 3-4 months at places all over the country, and finally nailed something local but 100% remote.

 

[massraider]

There are plenty of reasons why companies are “forcing” employees back to the office. The biggest being their profitability. It’s certainly not because they’re stupid.

Are we sure about this? Let's start a what's the dumb things you have seen from your company thread, I bet it gets a lot of action.

Yes, with remote jobs you're applying with a lot of other people, but that's mostly offset because you now have a nationwide, or even global pool of remote jobs to apply to. I was churning out applications left and right. Interviewed a half dozen times over 3-4 months at places all over the country, and finally nailed something local but 100% remote.

The thing I take away from your post is that the company also gets a wide pool of applicants. They get more to choose from. They should be able to fill this position with a better candidate, meaning better production from that position.

My buddy WFH, as does his wife. He lives walking distance from the commuter train, traveling to work for him is pretty easy (grading on the NY/NJ commute curve here). They want him back in the office more, as the top guy, an old Brit, likes to see the worker bees. He does a say or two, and shows up when the old man is in town. I asked him if everyone else was doing the same. He said no, many of them are back in the office 3-4 days. I asked what made him special. He said 'my numbers'. He's in sales, and doing well, and isn't afraid of getting fired. He was headhunted by a new company, offering him a lot more money. But in the office 4 days. Hard pass from him.

What I took away from that is if companies are forcing employees back, they run the risk of losing the employees who have options. Their good employees.

 

[eoMMan]

Any tips for applying for remote jobs?

 

[Scoresman]

Any tips for applying for remote jobs?

Volume is key. As previously mentioned, you're now competing with national applicants. You need to be applying to lots of jobs. I found linkedin to be the best source but this was over two years ago for me. I bet there are a lot of other sites now for remote jobs.

Dont just use job sites. I always prioritized remote jobs located in my state when doing my search. I think companies still probably prefer hiring people closeby too. Go on linkedin and do a people search to find who in your area and industry is working where. Bookmark those companies' jobs pages and check them a few times each week. I had about 200 companies I would be checking.

Trustworthiness and a love of the work you do needs to really come across on your resume and cover letter. If they're hiring you to work remotely, micromanaging wont be an option so these qualities are super sought after. If you dont come across as having a higher than average work ethic, you wont get calls back.

 

[Grahamburn]

There are plenty of reasons why companies are “forcing” employees back to the office. The biggest being their profitability. It’s certainly not because they’re stupid.

Are we sure about this? Let's start a what's the dumb things you have seen from your company thread, I bet it gets a lot of action.

Yes, with remote jobs you're applying with a lot of other people, but that's mostly offset because you now have a nationwide, or even global pool of remote jobs to apply to. I was churning out applications left and right. Interviewed a half dozen times over 3-4 months at places all over the country, and finally nailed something local but 100% remote.

The thing I take away from your post is that the company also gets a wide pool of applicants. They get more to choose from. They should be able to fill this position with a better candidate, meaning better production from that position.

My buddy WFH, as does his wife. He lives walking distance from the commuter train, traveling to work for him is pretty easy (grading on the NY/NJ commute curve here). They want him back in the office more, as the top guy, an old Brit, likes to see the worker bees. He does a say or two, and shows up when the old man is in town. I asked him if everyone else was doing the same. He said no, many of them are back in the office 3-4 days. I asked what made him special. He said 'my numbers'. He's in sales, and doing well, and isn't afraid of getting fired. He was headhunted by a new company, offering him a lot more money. But in the office 4 days. Hard pass from him.

What I took away from that is if companies are forcing employees back, they run the risk of losing the employees who have options. Their good employees.

The superstars get the perks.

 

[NutterButter]

If, however, it's shown that an employee is not doing the work required of the position while working at home vs the office then, of course, that situation needs rectifying.

Anyone that is doing things to avoid work while home will do the same in the office building. It's not like your boss hovers over you while in the office - and as you laid out there's a lot of time suck in the office where nothing is being accomplished other than being in a building with other co-workers.

There's just a much smaller subset of things to do at the office. A lot of times at the office, I would just work b/c it helped pass the time. LOL. I was also a lot more engaged in meetings b/c what was the alternative.