Twitter (1 Viewer)

[Terminalxylem]

I’m a dinosaur who likes to go into the office. So I may be completely off base and out of touch with the following observation. But for those who are big time proponents of WFH, isn’t there a real risk that when your role, department, industry etc. is fully accepted as, and transitions to, a WFH environment that the companies will start shifting your jobs overseas to remote workers at half or a third of the pay with no benefits?

Maybe, but job security isn’t itself a good enough reason to go through the motions of showing up to work in-person. I know employers’ concerns, but has anyone objectively shown that WFH reduces productivity?

My point isn’t about employers’ concerns, or based on argument that WFH reduces productivity. It’s more a matter of employers leveraging the new paradigm to lower personnel costs now that the labor market for your job is a global one (speaking generally, not necessarily your job).

I understand, but figure employers will always find ways to pay their employees as little as possible. If there isn’t tangible benefit going to the office, the potential for globalization of some jobs shouldn’t be a deterrent to scrapping an antiquated paradigm.

 

[The General]

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer but being in the same time zone or relatively close is key for my work as there is collaborating, meetings etc that happen throughout the day as well as lots of random questions that pop-up that need relatively quick answers.

I work in higher ed administration, which is not exactly a culture where people are chained to their desk from 8-5. Faculty come and go pretty much whenever they feel like it, and everybody is okay with that. We're not a bank or something.

One thing I've noticed this year specifically is a widespread acknowledgement that things actually did slip when we went to WFH, and it was exactly the kind of stuff you're talking about. The big problems all got handled just fine. It was the little stuff that would normally get resolved by pulling somebody aside for two minutes before some meeting on some other unrelated topic. Or stuff that pops into your head when you pass the right person in the hallway. None of those issues cause the world to stop spinning on its axis or anything, but I think it disabused people of the idea that we can do our jobs remotely over an extended period of time.

If we were forced to go back to WFH for some reason, I'm sure we could figure out a way to resolve stuff like that over Slack or something similar. It's just that there's a lot serendipity to working in physical proximity that is very valuable in some industries and irrelevant in others. I can see where code people and HR drones do well in WFH settings.

Yep. Lots of different factors obviously based on line of work but the tools for people being immediately available is there for WHF home folks...Slack, Teams, etc. People need to be available and when there is not enough work I can definitely see people being less immediately available than say when they were forced to sit at a desk from 8ish - 6ish. I think a lot of this comes down to management and the work people have to do.

This stuff was always talked about in my company before pandemic but nobody really used it. Pandemic forced us to use this and quality of life I think has improved and now the hybrid work is being figured out. I think companies that own buildings want them being used

If you are in India or Europe none of that really works. If time isn't as critical or live interaction isn't as important some job replacement could def take place and already has.

 

[Scoresman]

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer but being in the same time zone or relatively close is key for my work as there is collaborating, meetings etc that happen throughout the day as well as lots of random questions that pop-up that need relatively quick answers.

I work in higher ed administration, which is not exactly a culture where people are chained to their desk from 8-5. Faculty come and go pretty much whenever they feel like it, and everybody is okay with that. We're not a bank or something.

One thing I've noticed this year specifically is a widespread acknowledgement that things actually did slip when we went to WFH, and it was exactly the kind of stuff you're talking about. The big problems all got handled just fine. It was the little stuff that would normally get resolved by pulling somebody aside for two minutes before some meeting on some other unrelated topic. Or stuff that pops into your head when you pass the right person in the hallway. None of those issues cause the world to stop spinning on its axis or anything, but I think it disabused people of the idea that we can do our jobs remotely over an extended period of time.

If we were forced to go back to WFH for some reason, I'm sure we could figure out a way to resolve stuff like that over Slack or something similar. It's just that there's a lot serendipity to working in physical proximity that is very valuable in some industries and irrelevant in others. I can see where code people and HR drones do well in WFH settings.

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that WFH in their experience is less productive. I can't think of one person I know or work with who doesn't claim the opposite. I know I am more productive from home. I start working as soon as I'm up instead of having to head out to catch the bus/train. And at the end of the day, I'm not looking at the clock for when I need to leave to catch the bus. I work longer hours as a result, but because I'm not wasting so much time each week commuting, work/life balance is not taking a hit. Distractions are about the same. Things like my puppy needing to go out, or switching out the laundry replaces the water cooler talk and other many distractions in an office.

Almost three years since WFH started, that IS an extended period of time. If it's been working so far, it will continue to work. This notion that we haven't been doing this long enough is incorrect.
Bottom line is, if your company is unable to determine if people who are WFH are being productive, then that's an internal problem with the company, not the concept of WFH.

 

[massraider]

Hey!!!


Anyone want to estimate what percentage of their posts originated when they were at the office?

 

[The General]

Elon telling all these people to work in the office 80 hours a week on a Twitter re-hash seems pretty insane to me but lots of Tech jobs are starting to tighten so who knows.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I’m a dinosaur who likes to go into the office. So I may be completely off base and out of touch with the following observation. But for those who are big time proponents of WFH, isn’t there a real risk that when your role, department, industry etc. is fully accepted as, and transitions to, a WFH environment that the companies will start shifting your jobs overseas to remote workers at half or a third of the pay with no benefits?

Maybe, but job security isn’t itself a good enough reason to go through the motions of showing up to work in-person. I know employers’ concerns, but has anyone objectively shown that WFH reduces productivity?

If you want firms to go this route, the burden of proof is going to be on you to show that WFH doesn't reduce productivity. The intuitive common-sense case for why people are more likely to shirk when they are unmonitored in their own homes is too compelling.

Fair enough. I don’t think it’s as clear-cut as you frame it, however, as there’s a lot of time/energy saved by not going to the office. And probably a ton of variability, depending on the job. Not the best source, but some WFH data here:

A two-year study published in February 2021 of 3 million employees at 715 U.S. companies, including many from the Fortune 500 list, showed that working from home improved employee productivity by an average of 6 percent.

Another survey of 800 employers found that 94 percent of employers said their employees were just as productive or even more productive while working remotely. And 83 percent of workers said they were happy with remote work arrangements, while only 7 percent wanted to return to an office immediately. Most workers said they wanted a hybrid setup when they do eventually return to their workplaces, splitting their time between home and the office.

Such remote work productivity gains aren’t surprising. Pre-COVID research showed that telework boosted productivity; after all, remote work removes many hassles taking up time for in-office work, such as lengthy daily commutes. Moreover, working from home allows employees much more flexibility to do work tasks at times that work best for their work-life balance, rather than the traditional 9-to-5 schedule. Such flexibility matches research showing

we all have different times of day when we are best suited for certain tasks, enabling us to be more productive when we have more flexible schedules.

Some might feel worried that these productivity gains are limited to the context of the pandemic. Fortunately, research shows that after a forced period of work from home, if workers are given the option to keep working from home, those who choose to do so experience even greater productivity gains than in the initial forced period.

An important academic paper from the University of Chicago provides further evidence of why working at home will stick. First, the researchers found that working at home proved a much more positive experience for employers and employees alike than either had anticipated. That led employers to report a willingness to continue work-from-home after the pandemic.

Second, an average worker spent over 14 hours and $600 to support their work-from-home. In turn, companies made large-scale investments in back-end IT facilitating remote work. Some paid for home office equipment for employees. Furthermore, remote work technology improved over this time. Therefore, both workers and companies will be more invested in telework after the pandemic.

Apart from that, non-survey research similarly shows significant productivity gains for remote workers during the pandemic. Moreover, governments plan to invest in improving teleworking infrastructure, making higher productivity gains even more likely.

Academics demonstrated a further increase in productivity in remote work throughout the pandemic. A study from Stanford showed that efficiency for remote work increased from 5 percent greater than in the office in the summer of 2020 to 9 percent greater in May 2022, as companies and employees alike grew more comfortable with work-from-home arrangements.

More studies here.

 

[moleculo]

On being "hardcore": that's the kind of thing that would have attracted a 25-year-old me. Someone who wants to make a name for himself by engineering up something cool and important, working for Big Tech, and giving me face time with a rockstar like Musk. Sign me the hell up!

The 47-year-old me says, "pass". I have a wife, kids, a nice house, hobbies, and I just can't work at that pace for a prolonged time. But while I have less ambition and drive than I did 22 years ago, I have a hell of a lot more experience. I've seen some ****, and I know TONS of ways things can go south that 25-year-old me wouldn't have considered.

At the same time, I do consider myself one of the hardest-working guys in my company. I am absolutely still a hard charger and I get things done. I look around my office at 6:00 and wonder where everyone else is, and how much easier things would go if other people could just figure things out on their own. So I get it.

But here's the thing - I work like that because I want to. the minute my boss demands I put in extra effort, I turn in my 2 weeks' notice. I don't do well with threats or unobtainable expectations. Give me average expectations and I'll exceed them, but expect more and more and I will feel taken advantage of (I already do, TBH).

I guess what I'm saying is I like going above and beyond, but if that becomes expected... I'm out.

 

[moleculo]

I (and my co-workers) are much more productive in the office. It's not really close.

We are trying to develop a physical product. My office has a workshop where I can mock up prototypes and a lab where I can test them. I also need my co-workers available to review them - I'm talking about manufacturing, quality, product marketing, brand marketing, senior management, etc. My marketing team likes to WFH (for obvious reasons) but if I need them to review a potential change, doing it over Teams sucks.

There are some folks on my team that WFH and it makes no difference to me - purchasing and finance, for example. I know it can work, just not for me.

Obviously, if you are'not working on a physical product, YMMV.

 

[the moops]

There are also millions of WFH jobs that are more or less small businesses that really have no incentive or opportunities to outsource their work oversees or to a cheaper cost of living locale.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer but being in the same time zone or relatively close is key for my work as there is collaborating, meetings etc that happen throughout the day as well as lots of random questions that pop-up that need relatively quick answers.

I work in higher ed administration, which is not exactly a culture where people are chained to their desk from 8-5. Faculty come and go pretty much whenever they feel like it, and everybody is okay with that. We're not a bank or something.

One thing I've noticed this year specifically is a widespread acknowledgement that things actually did slip when we went to WFH, and it was exactly the kind of stuff you're talking about. The big problems all got handled just fine. It was the little stuff that would normally get resolved by pulling somebody aside for two minutes before some meeting on some other unrelated topic. Or stuff that pops into your head when you pass the right person in the hallway. None of those issues cause the world to stop spinning on its axis or anything, but I think it disabused people of the idea that we can do our jobs remotely over an extended period of time.

If we were forced to go back to WFH for some reason, I'm sure we could figure out a way to resolve stuff like that over Slack or something similar. It's just that there's a lot serendipity to working in physical proximity that is very valuable in some industries and irrelevant in others. I can see where code people and HR drones do well in WFH settings.

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that WFH in their experience is less productive. I can't think of one person I know or work with who doesn't claim the opposite. I know I am more productive from home. I start working as soon as I'm up instead of having to head out to catch the bus/train. And at the end of the day, I'm not looking at the clock for when I need to leave to catch the bus. I work longer hours as a result, but because I'm not wasting so much time each week commuting, work/life balance is not taking a hit. Distractions are about the same. Things like my puppy needing to go out, or switching out the laundry replaces the water cooler talk and other many distractions in an office.

Almost three years since WFH started, that IS an extended period of time. If it's been working so far, it will continue to work. This notion that we haven't been doing this long enough is incorrect.
Bottom line is, if your company is unable to determine if people who are WFH are being productive, then that's an internal problem with the company, not the concept of WFH.

What do you do for a living?

Edit: I should also add for full disclosure that I live in a small town. My house is five minutes from my office. It's too far to walk, but I can and do occasionally run to campus and back. I don't have a commute. That dramatically changes the cost-benefit calculation for me and my colleagues. I get how this is different if you live in Atlanta or something. I'm not saying that WFH is terrible or that it's suboptimal in all industries. I'm sure it's fine in certain occupations. Just not mine.

 

[The Commish]

@bigbottom

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Here's a Ted Talk on a case study in Shanghai.....similar findings have been here in the US as well...various studies out there on it. More point to a net benefit than a net hindrance.

Thanks. I will give it a listen when I have a moment. Given the description (and the first minute I listened to just now), is it about the productivity of remote workers? If so, I just want to be clear that I haven’t argued that remote workers are less productive, or that companies with remote workers are less successful. My issue was that the remote work structure expands labor availability and as a result puts downward pressure on compensation (which is of course a benefit to companies). Maybe the TedTalk speaks to this. Someone upthread mentioned having to pay people more to go into the office. That makes sense. But so does the corollary.

It's about the cost to the company, which is what companies care about. Yes, that includes productivity. It includes a lot of things. The bottom line of this study and many others is that WFH is an effective way to reduce costs and get more productivity. As of right now, especially in tech, the alternative is to go to India for "cheaper" labor. Right or wrong, there is a pretty big stigma attached to doing that and many places would like to avoid that. Since India hasn't really adopted a WFH mentality, the costs of allowing me to work from home are pretty close to the same as shipping my job overseas and they don't have the stigma to deal with and logistics of having someone in a largely different timezone.

 

[bigbottom]

@bigbottom

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Here's a Ted Talk on a case study in Shanghai.....similar findings have been here in the US as well...various studies out there on it. More point to a net benefit than a net hindrance.

Thanks. I will give it a listen when I have a moment. Given the description (and the first minute I listened to just now), is it about the productivity of remote workers? If so, I just want to be clear that I haven’t argued that remote workers are less productive, or that companies with remote workers are less successful. My issue was that the remote work structure expands labor availability and as a result puts downward pressure on compensation (which is of course a benefit to companies). Maybe the TedTalk speaks to this. Someone upthread mentioned having to pay people more to go into the office. That makes sense. But so does the corollary.

It's about the cost to the company, which is what companies care about. Yes, that includes productivity. It includes a lot of things. The bottom line of this study and many others is that WFH is an effective way to reduce costs and get more productivity. As of right now, especially in tech, the alternative is to go to India for "cheaper" labor. Right or wrong, there is a pretty big stigma attached to doing that and many places would like to avoid that. Since India hasn't really adopted a WFH mentality, the costs of allowing me to work from home are pretty close to the same as shipping my job overseas and they don't have the stigma to deal with and logistics of having someone in a largely different timezone.

Interesting. And that makes a lot of sense. But I also fear that the stigma will lessen greatly over time as remote work becomes ubiquitous. Well, I don’t fear it for me as I’m (hopefully) in the job I will retire from and I am certain my position will never be remote. And if my kid ends up pursuing the career I think he will, he should be fine as well. Anyway, good discussion. I have to go join a zoom call now!

 

[fatness]

WFH is definitely here to stay but I do think companies need a balance.

I believe Musk went to so hard on the in person working in order to weed out people that didn't work and didn't want to work for him. Probably close to 80% of twitters staff was dead weight costing the company billions in salary.

What is this percentage based on?

He just laid off 75% of the company and it's still running fine. Their average salary I had thought was $85k. Turns out it was closer to $120k.

It's going to run beautifully until they run into an issue. Or until the 50% of people that stayed realize that they are working twice as hard and decide to leave. Do more with less is not popular.

And there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

 

[krista4]

@bigbottom

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Here's a Ted Talk on a case study in Shanghai.....similar findings have been here in the US as well...various studies out there on it. More point to a net benefit than a net hindrance.

Yeah, that's a Ted Talk on the study I linked a couple of pages back.

I think part of the "what makes you think they won't move these jobs overseas" answer is, at least in the areas that I'm seeing, it hasn't happened. Or in instances where it was attempted, it failed. But we might be talking about totally different kinds of jobs. I'm talking about skilled jobs.

And I realize there are many, many different reasons that a company might or might not move jobs overseas. "Cutting costs" isn't the be-all and end-all. Employee morale, teamwork, camaraderie, time zones, public perception, government incentives/penalties, etc. etc. all come into play. But you all know this.

 

[krista4]

Hey!!!


Anyone want to estimate what percentage of their posts originated when they were at the office?

Touché!

 

[The General]

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer but being in the same time zone or relatively close is key for my work as there is collaborating, meetings etc that happen throughout the day as well as lots of random questions that pop-up that need relatively quick answers.

I work in higher ed administration, which is not exactly a culture where people are chained to their desk from 8-5. Faculty come and go pretty much whenever they feel like it, and everybody is okay with that. We're not a bank or something.

One thing I've noticed this year specifically is a widespread acknowledgement that things actually did slip when we went to WFH, and it was exactly the kind of stuff you're talking about. The big problems all got handled just fine. It was the little stuff that would normally get resolved by pulling somebody aside for two minutes before some meeting on some other unrelated topic. Or stuff that pops into your head when you pass the right person in the hallway. None of those issues cause the world to stop spinning on its axis or anything, but I think it disabused people of the idea that we can do our jobs remotely over an extended period of time.

If we were forced to go back to WFH for some reason, I'm sure we could figure out a way to resolve stuff like that over Slack or something similar. It's just that there's a lot serendipity to working in physical proximity that is very valuable in some industries and irrelevant in others. I can see where code people and HR drones do well in WFH settings.

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that WFH in their experience is less productive. I can't think of one person I know or work with who doesn't claim the opposite. I know I am more productive from home. I start working as soon as I'm up instead of having to head out to catch the bus/train. And at the end of the day, I'm not looking at the clock for when I need to leave to catch the bus. I work longer hours as a result, but because I'm not wasting so much time each week commuting, work/life balance is not taking a hit. Distractions are about the same. Things like my puppy needing to go out, or switching out the laundry replaces the water cooler talk and other many distractions in an office.

Almost three years since WFH started, that IS an extended period of time. If it's been working so far, it will continue to work. This notion that we haven't been doing this long enough is incorrect.
Bottom line is, if your company is unable to determine if people who are WFH are being productive, then that's an internal problem with the company, not the concept of WFH.

What do you do for a living?

Edit: I should also add for full disclosure that I live in a small town. My house is five minutes from my office. It's too far to walk, but I can and do occasionally run to campus and back. I don't have a commute. That dramatically changes the cost-benefit calculation for me and my colleagues. I get how this is different if you live in Atlanta or something. I'm not saying that WFH is terrible or that it's suboptimal in all industries. I'm sure it's fine in certain occupations. Just not mine.

I work in the Tech world in Seattle. Traffic, high cost of living etc all factors. Desire at my company is to have peeps in the office but provide WFH as well. Some roles need people in the office more than others. I think this is where many places are settling broadly speaking.

Think this type of stuff is highly personal and different across all types of work even within organizations with the same culture and established rules.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer but being in the same time zone or relatively close is key for my work as there is collaborating, meetings etc that happen throughout the day as well as lots of random questions that pop-up that need relatively quick answers.

I work in higher ed administration, which is not exactly a culture where people are chained to their desk from 8-5. Faculty come and go pretty much whenever they feel like it, and everybody is okay with that. We're not a bank or something.

One thing I've noticed this year specifically is a widespread acknowledgement that things actually did slip when we went to WFH, and it was exactly the kind of stuff you're talking about. The big problems all got handled just fine. It was the little stuff that would normally get resolved by pulling somebody aside for two minutes before some meeting on some other unrelated topic. Or stuff that pops into your head when you pass the right person in the hallway. None of those issues cause the world to stop spinning on its axis or anything, but I think it disabused people of the idea that we can do our jobs remotely over an extended period of time.

If we were forced to go back to WFH for some reason, I'm sure we could figure out a way to resolve stuff like that over Slack or something similar. It's just that there's a lot serendipity to working in physical proximity that is very valuable in some industries and irrelevant in others. I can see where code people and HR drones do well in WFH settings.

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that WFH in their experience is less productive. I can't think of one person I know or work with who doesn't claim the opposite. I know I am more productive from home. I start working as soon as I'm up instead of having to head out to catch the bus/train. And at the end of the day, I'm not looking at the clock for when I need to leave to catch the bus. I work longer hours as a result, but because I'm not wasting so much time each week commuting, work/life balance is not taking a hit. Distractions are about the same. Things like my puppy needing to go out, or switching out the laundry replaces the water cooler talk and other many distractions in an office.

Almost three years since WFH started, that IS an extended period of time. If it's been working so far, it will continue to work. This notion that we haven't been doing this long enough is incorrect.
Bottom line is, if your company is unable to determine if people who are WFH are being productive, then that's an internal problem with the company, not the concept of WFH.

What do you do for a living?

Edit: I should also add for full disclosure that I live in a small town. My house is five minutes from my office. It's too far to walk, but I can and do occasionally run to campus and back. I don't have a commute. That dramatically changes the cost-benefit calculation for me and my colleagues. I get how this is different if you live in Atlanta or something. I'm not saying that WFH is terrible or that it's suboptimal in all industries. I'm sure it's fine in certain occupations. Just not mine.

My work is also problematic from home, though it can be done. And even jobs which seem amenable to occurring virtually, like teaching, can be a major PITA when performed remotely. Nonetheless, I suspect many, if not most jobs wouldn't suffer if employees never set foot in an office. Then again, there are plenty of jobs which probably should've already been outsourced or automated.

 

[bigbottom]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

 

[krista4]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen are that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

 

[uwillbsoon]

https://twitter.com/CaseyNewton/status/1593770866457853957?t=w4LVx1mpOF4ieX8u--LQuQ&s=19

I thought the sales leader had quit. Didn't realize Elon begged her to stay... Then fired her.

Probably not hardcore enough. Or he didn't like her code print outs.

 

[massraider]

Another thing about WFH getting farmed out to wherever:

It's a lot more common for work from home people to be in the office occasionally. My best friend sells software, he is in his backyard at his pool every day. Last two days he was in the office for meetings, and because the big boss was in town, and the big boss wants face to face meetings. He can pop into the office for a meeting. Can't do that from around the world.

 

[bigbottom]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen is that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

 

[sho nuff]

So the people who stuck around after the initial ultimatum and culling, now have to fly to SF to interview for their current jobs.

Meet with the Musk and the Bobs?

 

[krista4]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen is that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Is there any evidence that this has actually happened (lower compensation for remote workers)? I'm not being argumentative but haven't seen evidence that it's happened at all and am truly wondering if there is data out there. As pointed out (I think - maybe it wasn't), employers can save a lot on office space and some of the office perqs (gyms, cafeterias, etc. that have to be staffed) if people aren't coming in. Remote workers would cost less organically, without any need for a reduction in compensation. And since there isn't evidence that productivity is negatively affected - if anything, it might be the opposite - there's nothing that an employer needs to compensate for on their bottom lines by paying less.

 

[Ilov80s]

@Bozeman Bruiser this isn't a political thread, please don't do that.

 

[Desert_Power]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen is that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Curious where you come down on the phenomenon of BS jobs? My experience has been that most folks are working far less than the time they're in an office anyways.

 

[Desert_Power]

Casey Newton
@CaseyNewton

Multiple ex-Twitter sources telling me that Robin Wheeler, the sales leader who Musk begged to stay at the company days ago when she tried to resign, has now been fired

 

[bigbottom]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen is that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Is there any evidence that this has actually happened (lower compensation for remote workers)? I'm not being argumentative but haven't seen evidence that it's happened at all and am truly wondering if there is data out there. As pointed out (I think - maybe it wasn't), employers can save a lot on office space and some of the office perqs (gyms, cafeterias, etc. that have to be staffed) if people aren't coming in. Remote workers would cost less organically, without any need for a reduction in compensation. And since there isn't evidence that productivity is negatively affected - if anything, it might be the opposite - there's nothing that an employer needs to compensate for on their bottom lines by paying less.

I have no idea if there is any data on reduced compensation effects. I only raised the issue as a matter of common sense as companies (or divisions within companies) embrace fully remote work constructs and it becomes less relevant where the people you hire live. I’m not trying to be argumentative either, as I fully admit that I’m not particularly informed on the subject matter. All of the components you mentioned in one of your posts above certainly impact decision making on the issue.

 

[bigbottom]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen is that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Curious where you come down on the phenomenon of BS jobs? My experience has been that most folks are working far less than the time they're in an office anyways.

I don’t know what you mean by BS jobs. And as for your second statement, I think we have plenty of evidence over the course of 20 years right here at Footballguys!

 

[Desert_Power]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen is that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Curious where you come down on the phenomenon of BS jobs? My experience has been that most folks are working far less than the time they're in an office anyways.

I don’t know what you mean by BS jobs. And as for your second statement, I think we have plenty of evidence over the course of 20 years right here at Footballguys!

I linked an article about the book in my post.

 

[bigbottom]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen is that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Curious where you come down on the phenomenon of BS jobs? My experience has been that most folks are working far less than the time they're in an office anyways.

I don’t know what you mean by BS jobs. And as for your second statement, I think we have plenty of evidence over the course of 20 years right here at Footballguys!

I linked an article about the book in my post.

I think your link might be broken because the language filter blocks the URL. But I found the article and read it. Definitely an interesting read. I am certain that there are indeed BS jobs that largely serve no beneficial purpose, but I would hesitate to name them as I think that would require having a full and complete understanding of the position.

But I will recount a story from very early in my career. I worked for a very large international law firm back in the late 90s. The firm hired a consultant (starts with an M and rhymes with “Ms. Lindsay”) to come in and do an analysis in an effort to improve firm profitability. They were paid something like two million bucks (a lot back in the late 90s), spent months interviewing hundreds of people, and put together some giant report. They ultimately presented at a firm-wide meeting and after all that work, their recommendation boiled down to two things: (1) all attorneys needed to increase their annual billable hours by 10%; and (2) the firm needed to get rid of underperforming partners in terms of business generation. I remember being completely dumbfounded that we had paid all that money for all that work only to be told something that was so absurdly obvious. Of course, the reality is that the real utility of the report was to provide cover for firm management to take unpopular actions in order to increase profitability (which they did), but it all seemed so pointless to me. I was also pissed because I had just billed a 2475 hour year and they said that the 10% billable hour increase applied to everyone. Anyway, I’d say that those McMindy people were doing a BS job on our project at least.

 

[The Commish]

@bigbottom

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Here's a Ted Talk on a case study in Shanghai.....similar findings have been here in the US as well...various studies out there on it. More point to a net benefit than a net hindrance.

Yeah, that's a Ted Talk on the study I linked a couple of pages back.

I think part of the "what makes you think they won't move these jobs overseas" answer is, at least in the areas that I'm seeing, it hasn't happened. Or in instances where it was attempted, it failed. But we might be talking about totally different kinds of jobs. I'm talking about skilled jobs.

And I realize there are many, many different reasons that a company might or might not move jobs overseas. "Cutting costs" isn't the be-all and end-all. Employee morale, teamwork, camaraderie, time zones, public perception, government incentives/penalties, etc. etc. all come into play. But you all know this.

Jobs I speak of are IT jobs....everything from analysts to engineers. We still supplement with overseas, but in our afile approach, the timezones are too much to overcome. So we use them as oncall support more than anything now.

 

[Desert_Power]

Back from my Zoom call! One other issue I’ve seen raised is that shifting to remote work can negatively impact certain populations, namely lower income people in small residences, people without ready access to high speed Internet, multi-generational households, etc. Again, just raising for discussion.

Not having to commute and get child care hurts lower income people? I've certainly read instead that, especially regarding the child care issue, lower income people would benefit from remote work, and the complaints I've seen is that it is not available enough to lower-and-middle income people who could benefit from it.

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Curious where you come down on the phenomenon of BS jobs? My experience has been that most folks are working far less than the time they're in an office anyways.

I don’t know what you mean by BS jobs. And as for your second statement, I think we have plenty of evidence over the course of 20 years right here at Footballguys!

I linked an article about the book in my post.

I think your link might be broken because the language filter blocks the URL. But I found the article and read it. Definitely an interesting read. I am certain that there are indeed BS jobs that largely serve no beneficial purpose, but I would hesitate to name them as I think that would require having a full and complete understanding of the position.

But I will recount a story from very early in my career. I worked for a very large international law firm back in the late 90s. The firm hired a consultant (starts with an M and rhymes with “Ms. Lindsay”) to come in and do an analysis in an effort to improve firm profitability. They were paid something like two million bucks (a lot back in the late 90s), spent months interviewing hundreds of people, and put together some giant report. They ultimately presented at a firm-wide meeting and after all that work, their recommendation boiled down to two things: (1) all attorneys needed to increase their annual billable hours by 10%; and (2) the firm needed to get rid of underperforming partners in terms of business generation. I remember being completely dumbfounded that we had paid all that money for all that work only to be told something that was so absurdly obvious. Of course, the reality is that the real utility of the report was to provide cover for firm management to take unpopular actions in order to increase profitability (which they did), but it all seemed so pointless to me. I was also pissed because I had just billed a 2475 hour year and they said that the 10% billable hour increase applied to everyone. Anyway, I’d say that those McMindy people were doing a BS job on our project at least.

Sorry about the link.

I listened to the audiobook a while a go and it definitely resonated with my experience, but the author is obviously biased against finance and consulting type of roles. Folks that bill hours or earn a salary with little to no oversight. The bold is something I have heard many times in my career, particularly from the one hiring said consultants.

I know that lawyers typically have their time tracked much more closely, so thought you would have an interesting view. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Desert_Power]

@bigbottom

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Here's a Ted Talk on a case study in Shanghai.....similar findings have been here in the US as well...various studies out there on it. More point to a net benefit than a net hindrance.

Yeah, that's a Ted Talk on the study I linked a couple of pages back.

I think part of the "what makes you think they won't move these jobs overseas" answer is, at least in the areas that I'm seeing, it hasn't happened. Or in instances where it was attempted, it failed. But we might be talking about totally different kinds of jobs. I'm talking about skilled jobs.

And I realize there are many, many different reasons that a company might or might not move jobs overseas. "Cutting costs" isn't the be-all and end-all. Employee morale, teamwork, camaraderie, time zones, public perception, government incentives/penalties, etc. etc. all come into play. But you all know this.

Jobs I speak of are IT jobs....everything from analysts to engineers. We still supplement with overseas, but in our afile approach, the timezones are too much to overcome. So we use them as oncall support more than anything now.

Has this been better or worse since your group changed firms in the last couple of years?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

Why am I thinking about Mr. Burns and Smithers dancing around attempting to run the power plant after the workers went on strike?

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I don't think there is a one size fits all answer but being in the same time zone or relatively close is key for my work as there is collaborating, meetings etc that happen throughout the day as well as lots of random questions that pop-up that need relatively quick answers.

I work in higher ed administration, which is not exactly a culture where people are chained to their desk from 8-5. Faculty come and go pretty much whenever they feel like it, and everybody is okay with that. We're not a bank or something.

One thing I've noticed this year specifically is a widespread acknowledgement that things actually did slip when we went to WFH, and it was exactly the kind of stuff you're talking about. The big problems all got handled just fine. It was the little stuff that would normally get resolved by pulling somebody aside for two minutes before some meeting on some other unrelated topic. Or stuff that pops into your head when you pass the right person in the hallway. None of those issues cause the world to stop spinning on its axis or anything, but I think it disabused people of the idea that we can do our jobs remotely over an extended period of time.

If we were forced to go back to WFH for some reason, I'm sure we could figure out a way to resolve stuff like that over Slack or something similar. It's just that there's a lot serendipity to working in physical proximity that is very valuable in some industries and irrelevant in others. I can see where code people and HR drones do well in WFH settings.

I think you're the first person I've ever heard say that WFH in their experience is less productive. I can't think of one person I know or work with who doesn't claim the opposite. I know I am more productive from home. I start working as soon as I'm up instead of having to head out to catch the bus/train. And at the end of the day, I'm not looking at the clock for when I need to leave to catch the bus. I work longer hours as a result, but because I'm not wasting so much time each week commuting, work/life balance is not taking a hit. Distractions are about the same. Things like my puppy needing to go out, or switching out the laundry replaces the water cooler talk and other many distractions in an office.

Almost three years since WFH started, that IS an extended period of time. If it's been working so far, it will continue to work. This notion that we haven't been doing this long enough is incorrect.
Bottom line is, if your company is unable to determine if people who are WFH are being productive, then that's an internal problem with the company, not the concept of WFH.

I've been WFH 30+ years now. I've always had an office too but wasn't expected there. Of course I work all the time. I had two days off work, 7 years ago, lol, but that's on me. I love what I do. Pretty great little life.

 

[The Commish]

@bigbottom

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

Here's a Ted Talk on a case study in Shanghai.....similar findings have been here in the US as well...various studies out there on it. More point to a net benefit than a net hindrance.

Yeah, that's a Ted Talk on the study I linked a couple of pages back.

I think part of the "what makes you think they won't move these jobs overseas" answer is, at least in the areas that I'm seeing, it hasn't happened. Or in instances where it was attempted, it failed. But we might be talking about totally different kinds of jobs. I'm talking about skilled jobs.

And I realize there are many, many different reasons that a company might or might not move jobs overseas. "Cutting costs" isn't the be-all and end-all. Employee morale, teamwork, camaraderie, time zones, public perception, government incentives/penalties, etc. etc. all come into play. But you all know this.

Jobs I speak of are IT jobs....everything from analysts to engineers. We still supplement with overseas, but in our afile approach, the timezones are too much to overcome. So we use them as oncall support more than anything now.

Has this been better or worse since your group changed firms in the last couple of years?

It's two completely different organizations. I DO think my current one uses overseas resources in a better way than my previous employer. They seem to realize it's not an either/or sort of proposition and that if they are thoughtful in how they use the option it can work for everyone. That said, I like my current situation FAR more than I did my last.

 

[FairWarning]

It’s interesting that a lot of guys in here are calling Musk archaic because he is trying to get people back into the office. And its understandable - we are a bunch of old farts with long careers and wives and families and all these responsibilities.

But I can tell you, I know a handful of recently graduated college kids who WANT some kind of office experience. That is where they meet people, actually learn their jobs, go out for beers with their colleagues….etc….

I know some kids who have turned down full work from home jobs because they want to meet people and be around like minded workers.

They are young and are just starting their lives. Don’t assume that concept is so archaic. And as these covid kids grow up who were isolated for two years, they are going to need that office experience. They are going to need to be around people.

Now, I know for some jobs working at home is much better for them, and Musk should be flexible of course. But I can see a shift BACK to the office environment for these young workers who need that kind of thing.

It’s not so much he is asking people to come back occasionally. It’s the demand that they have to, every single day, the next day after the email was sent, or they’re fired.

You’re missing quite a bit of the story there.

Agreed. As a manager I am pretty big on being in the office. But that's not the issue here, it's how he has handled this every step of the way.

It’s been handled very poorly on both sides, which leads to trenching in.

 

[the moops]

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Perhaps. But perhaps we are also overestimating just how productive people are when they work in the office.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

But I will recount a story from very early in my career. I worked for a very large international law firm back in the late 90s. The firm hired a consultant (starts with an M and rhymes with “Ms. Lindsay”) to come in and do an analysis in an effort to improve firm profitability. They were paid something like two million bucks (a lot back in the late 90s), spent months interviewing hundreds of people, and put together some giant report. They ultimately presented at a firm-wide meeting and after all that work, their recommendation boiled down to two things: (1) all attorneys needed to increase their annual billable hours by 10%; and (2) the firm needed to get rid of underperforming partners in terms of business generation. I remember being completely dumbfounded that we had paid all that money for all that work only to be told something that was so absurdly obvious. Of course, the reality is that the real utility of the report was to provide cover for firm management to take unpopular actions in order to increase profitability (which they did), but it all seemed so pointless to me. I was also pissed because I had just billed a 2475 hour year and they said that the 10% billable hour increase applied to everyone. Anyway, I’d say that those McMindy people were doing a BS job on our project at least.

I know we're getting a little off-topic here, but I chuckled a little at this because I remember being young and naive and not understanding how this particular game is played, too. We don't bring in expensive consultants (well, to us at least $2M would be unthinkable for this sort of thing), but we invest a massive amount of person-hours into exercises like this on a fairly regular basis. Not coincidentally, the guy who the "BS Jobs" book talks about academia a lot.

As a person-watcher, it's always interesting to see which members of our various work groups and which members of the audience "get it" and which ones don't.

 

[the moops]

I was also pissed because I had just billed a 2475 hour year

Dude. That sounds terrible

 

[Joe Bryant]

Think this type of stuff is highly personal and different across all types of work even within organizations with the same culture and established rules.

100%.

I think it's way more nuanced that the definitive all-encompassing claims that are often thrown out on this topic.

 

[bigbottom]

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Perhaps. But perhaps we are also overestimating just how productive people are when they work in the office.

Yeah, very well could be.

 

[the moops]

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Perhaps. But perhaps we are also overestimating just how productive people are when they work in the office.

Yeah, very well could be.

Not speaking about you though, Mr 2500 billable hours man

 

[bigbottom]

I was also pissed because I had just billed a 2475 hour year

Dude. That sounds terrible

It was. I had to take meds to deal with the stress. And just to provide an example of how completely out of whack my priorities were, the day my son (Chance) was born, my wife started having contractions around 4am or so. We called the doctor and she had us time the contractions. She said we were likely still a few hours off before we needed to leave for the hospital. My mom had just flown in the night before, so I LEFT MY WIFE AND WENT TO WORK. I thought I could get a few hours work in (from 5 until 8am) and then meet my wife and mom at the hospital. Looking back, I’m so ashamed at my behavior, which I felt was completely appropriate at the time.

As it turned out, my wife had a very difficult labor and ultimately had to undergo an emergency C-section that evening as the baby’s heart rate started dropping. Thankfully the surgery went well and Chance was born at 6:30pm. The first person I called to share the news? Not my dad. Or my brother. Or any other friend or family member. No, my first call was to the partner I worked for to let him know my status. He told me to take the next day off. One day. After my wife had major surgery and things were very scary. And I WAS THANKFUL FOR THE ONE DAY. Again, how were my priorities so screwed up.

But I thought I had a plan. My mom was in town to help out for five weeks. I had scheduled to take a week long vacation that sixth week so I could be around after my mom left. Managed to get all the cases I was working on handled so that I could take the week off. I think it was two days before my vacation was scheduled to start, I got a call at home late in the evening from the partner I worked for. He told me that he was sorry, but he needed me to cancel my vacation. They needed me to step in for a couple weeks running a labor campaign in another city. So not only was I not going to be home to help my wife and new baby, I was going to be out of town for two weeks. I was devastated. I asked him why they needed me to cover the campaign and he said that the partner running the campaign needed the time off BECAUSE HIS WIFE JUST HAD A BABY. I hung up the phone and told my wife the news, and that I would start looking for a new job.

Thanks for letting me vent!

 

[bigbottom]

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Perhaps. But perhaps we are also overestimating just how productive people are when they work in the office.

Yeah, very well could be.

Not speaking about you though, Mr 2500 billable hours man

Well, as you can see from my story. I never did that again.

 

[Capella]

It’s interesting that a lot of guys in here are calling Musk archaic because he is trying to get people back into the office. And its understandable - we are a bunch of old farts with long careers and wives and families and all these responsibilities.

But I can tell you, I know a handful of recently graduated college kids who WANT some kind of office experience. That is where they meet people, actually learn their jobs, go out for beers with their colleagues….etc….

I know some kids who have turned down full work from home jobs because they want to meet people and be around like minded workers.

They are young and are just starting their lives. Don’t assume that concept is so archaic. And as these covid kids grow up who were isolated for two years, they are going to need that office experience. They are going to need to be around people.

Now, I know for some jobs working at home is much better for them, and Musk should be flexible of course. But I can see a shift BACK to the office environment for these young workers who need that kind of thing.

It’s not so much he is asking people to come back occasionally. It’s the demand that they have to, every single day, the next day after the email was sent, or they’re fired.

You’re missing quite a bit of the story there.

Agreed. As a manager I am pretty big on being in the office. But that's not the issue here, it's how he has handled this every step of the way.

It’s been handled very poorly on both sides, which leads to trenching in.

How have the employees handled this poorly? This dope put his thumb over them from minute one.

 

[belljr]

Certainly a fair point. But if you’re providing child care simultaneously with doing your job, wouldn’t that likely hurt productivity? Also, this would seem to another component that would put downward pressure on compensation for remote workers.

Perhaps. But perhaps we are also overestimating just how productive people are when they work in the office.

I can say I'm way more creative wasting time in the office than home

 

[FairWarning]

It’s interesting that a lot of guys in here are calling Musk archaic because he is trying to get people back into the office. And its understandable - we are a bunch of old farts with long careers and wives and families and all these responsibilities.

But I can tell you, I know a handful of recently graduated college kids who WANT some kind of office experience. That is where they meet people, actually learn their jobs, go out for beers with their colleagues….etc….

I know some kids who have turned down full work from home jobs because they want to meet people and be around like minded workers.

They are young and are just starting their lives. Don’t assume that concept is so archaic. And as these covid kids grow up who were isolated for two years, they are going to need that office experience. They are going to need to be around people.

Now, I know for some jobs working at home is much better for them, and Musk should be flexible of course. But I can see a shift BACK to the office environment for these young workers who need that kind of thing.

It’s not so much he is asking people to come back occasionally. It’s the demand that they have to, every single day, the next day after the email was sent, or they’re fired.

You’re missing quite a bit of the story there.

Agreed. As a manager I am pretty big on being in the office. But that's not the issue here, it's how he has handled this every step of the way.

It’s been handled very poorly on both sides, which leads to trenching in.

How have the employees handled this poorly? This dope put his thumb over them from minute one.

They spoke out a lot about leaving when there was a possible sale, then got butthurt when it came back on them. It doesn’t mean I agree with how he wants to run it, but he does own it. If they are as valuable as they think, they should have little problem finding a job.

 

[Capella]

It’s interesting that a lot of guys in here are calling Musk archaic because he is trying to get people back into the office. And its understandable - we are a bunch of old farts with long careers and wives and families and all these responsibilities.

But I can tell you, I know a handful of recently graduated college kids who WANT some kind of office experience. That is where they meet people, actually learn their jobs, go out for beers with their colleagues….etc….

I know some kids who have turned down full work from home jobs because they want to meet people and be around like minded workers.

They are young and are just starting their lives. Don’t assume that concept is so archaic. And as these covid kids grow up who were isolated for two years, they are going to need that office experience. They are going to need to be around people.

Now, I know for some jobs working at home is much better for them, and Musk should be flexible of course. But I can see a shift BACK to the office environment for these young workers who need that kind of thing.

It’s not so much he is asking people to come back occasionally. It’s the demand that they have to, every single day, the next day after the email was sent, or they’re fired.

You’re missing quite a bit of the story there.

Agreed. As a manager I am pretty big on being in the office. But that's not the issue here, it's how he has handled this every step of the way.

It’s been handled very poorly on both sides, which leads to trenching in.

How have the employees handled this poorly? This dope put his thumb over them from minute one.

They spoke out a lot about leaving when there was a possible sale, then got butthurt when it came back on them. It doesn’t mean I agree with how he wants to run it, but he does own it. If they are as valuable as they think, they should have little problem finding a job.

I mean, 75% of them have left so that’s a safe assumption.