What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

When are things going back to normal?  Will they ever? (1 Viewer)

You couched it as a matter of personal rudeness ... but there are also many work environments in which "just a cough" isn't considered a good enough reason to stay home. And sometimes, "just a cough" translates to "coughing up a lung with bronchitis, because - hey, those TPS reports ..." Hopefully THAT ethic changes.
My experience in engineering is that this is an unspoken martyr culture that supervisors don't like - the employee is proud and trumpets that they're so busy that they can't miss any time, while the supervisor would rather they just stay home.

That's just from my tiny window, though.  I'm sure there are supervisors who pressure people to work when they should be home.

 
This is the source of debate with my BIL. He works for a big bank that owns a huge hi rise in Manhattan. He swears Manhattan will go back to normal like it always has. 
 

I keep telling him my industry and many others like it have just learned they don’t need a physical presence. They don’t need all this real estate. So why pay for it?  Manhattan isn’t factories and R&D facilities. It’s offices with white collar service professionals who can now, so we’ve learned, do their jobs from anywhere. 
 

He refers back to 9/11 and asks what has changed?! People thought that was the demise of NYC and it wasn’t. I told him what has changed is bandwidth. Technology. In 2002 we couldn’t operate remotely. For the first time in human history now we can. Why wouldn’t smart businesses start taking advantage of those savings, like any other savings or tax loophole or other item smart businesses can exercise to increase profit?

Most if the smart people I’m hearing from are saying Manhattan and other big cities will never return to what they were. This is a game changer. 
 

I tend to agree. Manhattan is a city built to support a huge commuting workforce. Those businesses can’t survive if the big businesses decide they just need 1/2? 1/3? Of the real estate they had before.  Or less?  

And if you’re paying a premium to live in NYC so you don’t have to commute, as many people are?  Why on earth would you pay so much to live there if you don’t have to commute anyway?

BIL keeps sending me articles suggesting the real estate market isn’t significantly affected. Maybe it hasn’t been yet?  Or maybe people don’t sell and pick up and leave in a span of months, and this will take longer?  Or maybe the data is wrong?

Who knows. Either way I’m not sure what to believe, but I find the whole thing fascinating. 
I've actually been doing some work on this topic so here's my 2 cents:

I think what we have to consider is that this isn't a shift all the way over from one side (pre-pan) ALL the way over to the other (current state).  Some of what we are seeing right now-

In terms of working remote, it's not exactly that we have seen that we can WFH in some industries, in total. Instead, it is that we have seen that we don't need "that much" space. So, a permanent downsize is inevitable. So, maybe we see that instead of 20 people in an office 5 days/week, we see 3-4 full time and a few staggered 2-3 days and some not at all. That is going to cause some significant changes in the tax/revenue of any major city; especially NYC. We have already seen those forecasted concerns recently when we saw the mayor of NYC basically begging people to come into the city for various activities and this new specialization of hair washers in salons (for those not up on this, there is a licensure being put together for people who was hair in salons which was previously not required.  1000 hours of instruction to then apply for a license to operate.  This is a clear revenue churning attempt as the city anticipates their losses). In the end, there will be real estate opening up and prices will have to adjust (fall).

The stats on businesses such as restaurants are something in the 40-60% neighborhood of business that has or will permanently close. That doesn't mean that instead of 1000 places to eat there will be 500, it just means THOSE businesses will be gone (the owners/investors may open up something else, a new person may take the plunge and try to open a restaurant, etc). These numbers will be impacted by demand as we noted above there WILL be fewer people in the center hubs of NYC as well as other cities across the USA.

The unrest in some cities has caused some people to leave and combined with things you guys mentioned already in terms of them realizing that they CAN do this, the shift now makes people take stock and question if that lifestyle they wanted of living in the city measures up to being able to live somewhere else with less taxes, less commute, et.c  But it also poses the questions of "am I giving up educational opportunities for my kids, luxury of theatre, dining, shopping, etc)? Normally, this questions would be big drivers in the decision but we have seen every one of those things eroded severely in the past few months and many of the traditional, long-standing business are gone for good.

---I have seen an influx of "covid refugees" that moved their work from cities up into their summer places and holiday homes and its looking like some are deciding to stay. It just so happens that in my area, a lot of those people have good timing for this (their kids are at the end of school or they are close to retirement...obviously not the case everywhere).  

One of the bigger challenges with exodus in cities that may help retain it some better than we think is that there aren't a lot of places to go that can handle the infrastructure.  The "new city gems" like Abilene, Nashville, Memphis, Tuscon, Tampa were already attracting the up and coming generation. So, for older, more established folks, that idealistic life of moving out to somewhere remote and "off the grid-ish" is difficult because the technological broadband to support the white collar work is challenging in a lot of places. 

It IS very interesting and I typed so much you'd think I'm a lawyer charging by the word but to answer the OP's question: The answer is "Rocket Man" (it's gonna be a long, long time).  I honestly don't think the world will ever be the same. Not everything will change but, certainly, not nothing will change. It's going to be significant and that's not saying it is negative. But it will be significant. 

 
If you think about it, it was already starting to happen.  But only for tech companies and really progressive forward thinking companies. Most stodgy old big business refused or was reluctant.  But now it’s been battle tested and it’s proven that it works. That’s maybe the game changer here. Stodgy old industries can’t still sit around and say “that won’t work for us.”  It just did, for 6 months. 
For law firms, we're also at the tipping point of changing the old guard.   The people being made partner today have never had to shepardize anything and have never opened a reporter to do research.  They're comfortable with technology.   I spent years trying to convince old rich guys that leasing the 30th floor of a high rise in Seattle was a waste of money and that making everyone commute was an aggravating waste of time.  The up and coming partners in firms across the country know that, and now everyone has seen it in practice.   Nobody cares about your mailing address when all you do is send emails and talk on the phone.   If I need to market in person, I can take people to dinner or golfing or whatever.   I don't need an office with a view.   

Over the last three years, I've encouraged my clients to meet by videoconference instead of in person.   Now it's mandatory, and we're not going back.   My firm will never lease traditional office space again.   

 
Sorry for the long post above (so...I break it up and write another here...lol).

One of the most fascinating things to me in this really good topic (thanks OP) is watching this runaway impact of how an event has forced us to take stock in something that we, on the surface, have kind of daydreamed about as a society in some regards.  Not the bad side and sickness, of course but the notions a lot of people have had about getting out of the rat race, the crowds, spending more time with family, settling in places that appeal to nature and environment instead of big cities, etc.

Some of us may not have liked being closer to family and away from restaurants, bars, theaters, etc, as much as we day dreamed.  Others have loved it and are actively seeking to make permanent changes in their lives.

For those who can act on these wants, it will be nice but it also forces a large number of people to remain in place, whether they want to or not. If you live in Chicago in an average or below average neighborhood and you cannot afford to leave and you now are in a city with millions of dollars of structural damage, combined with less people paying taxes to support your infrastructure, it raises a daunting challenge. I think we are going to see a very fluid, dynamic ebb and flow across the nation as we adjust.  

 
I see a lot of people preaching WFH, but I've gotten screwed by it several times in the last week.

Last week my mortgage processor was taking vacation.  Rather than a supervisor instructing her to hand of the file to someone in the neighboring cubicle, it sat.  Now I missed my closing date which has impacted several things on my schedule.

Call the closing attorneys office.  Rather than one stop shop like usual, It was a message to the attorney and an e-mail to the paralegal.  Something that should have taken an hour took all day because everyone is waiting on someone to finish their laundry and reply to an e-mail.

Closed on another property last week.  Can't get my CD (signed by both parties) because the paralegal is work from home and on vacation.  Office isn't open so I can't get a copy there.

Pretty much anything I've been involved with that was a collaborative effort in the past now takes much longer to accomplish.  I sure it works great for you folks that are start to finish people.  But for those places where several people are involved and something needs to be expedited, it's not happening in a timely manner.

 
So in a pretty surprising move, my company (a large one) announced that they are re-opening our tri-state offices starting next Monday.  (they told us this last week completely out of the blue. Local leadership had no idea)I was honestly pretty shocked, as I sort of assumed that at this point, they would just wait out flu season and reevaluate in January.

They sent out a survey to see what everyone was thinking. Obviously there are some people who are caring for relatives, supervising remote learning kids, etc and they want to be supportive of that. I dont fall into any of those categories (single guy, no kids, healthy)

They've made changes around the office and they're going to operate at partial capacity. So I wasn't really concerned about being in the office itself (I trust that my co-workers will social distance, exercise proper hygiene, wear masks, etc) . My concern was the commute. I've made a pretty conscious effort to stay isolated from strangers (basically the only time I'm indoors with non-family members is the grocery store) , so I wasn't exactly psyched to get stuck on a 90 minute train ride (plus a couple stops on the NY subway) with a bunch of strangers.  I just know that every day, there's gonna be some schlub on the train wearing his mask around his chin, sitting too close, coughing (which will only get worse in the fall/winter), etc.  So my response to the survey was that while I was ABLE to come into work, I wasn't really comfortable taking mass transit.

At this point, it looks like anyone who answered similarly to me WONT be asked to go back in for the time being. Not trying to be difficult (And I really hope I'm not going to be perceived that way) but I just didn't see the point relative to the risk.  My role supports multiple offices and teams (which I still wont be able to visit under these guidelines, as they dont want to risk cross-contamination of multiple offices) and none of the clients we work with are going back into the city yet, (looks like January at the earliest based on people I've spoken to) so I just dont see the point of spending 3 hours commuting and exposing myself to the unwashed masses of mid-town.

Am I the crazy one here?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So in a pretty surprising move, my company (a large one) announced that they are re-opening our tri-state offices starting next Monday.  (they told us this last week completely out of the blue. Local leadership had no idea)I was honestly pretty shocked, as I sort of assumed that at this point, they would just wait out flu season and reevaluate in January.

They sent out a survey to see what everyone was thinking. Obviously there are some people who are caring for relatives, supervising remote learning kids, etc and they want to be supportive of that. I dont fall into any of those categories (single guy, no kids, healthy)

They've made changes around the office and they're going to operate at partial capacity. So I wasn't really concerned about being in the office itself (I trust that my co-workers will social distance, exercise proper hygiene, wear masks, etc) . My concern was the commute. I've made a pretty conscious effort to stay isolated from strangers (basically the only time I'm indoors with non-family members is the grocery store) , so I wasn't exactly psyched to get stuck on a 90 minute train ride (plus a couple stops on the NY subway) with a bunch of strangers.  I just know that every day, there's gonna be some schlub on the train wearing his mask around his chin, sitting too close, coughing (which will only get worse in the fall/winter), etc.  So my response to the survey was that while I was ABLE to come into work, I wasn't really comfortable taking mass transit.

At this point, it looks like anyone who answered similarly to me WONT be asked to go back in for the time being. Not trying to be difficult (And I really hope I'm not going to be perceived that way) but I just didn't see the point relative to the risk.  My role supports multiple offices and teams (which I still wont be able to visit under these guidelines, as they dont want to risk cross-contamination of multiple offices) and none of the clients we work with are going back into the city yet, (looks like January at the earliest based on people I've spoken to) so I just dont see the point of spending 3 hours commuting and exposing myself to the unwashed masses of mid-town.

Am I the crazy one here?
Did they explain why they were doing this?  Is leadership old-school and wants people to be there in person or have they said they don't think they are as productive with people working remote?  We've had numerous comments made at all levels about how we are getting things done and productivity, if anything, seems to be up. 

 
Did they explain why they were doing this?  Is leadership old-school and wants people to be there in person or have they said they don't think they are as productive with people working remote?  We've had numerous comments made at all levels about how we are getting things done and productivity, if anything, seems to be up. 


Not really. Just said that due to cases being down, they feel its appropriate and safe.

All we've heard from all levels of management is that they're happy with the way things have gone. Production (in terms of bringing in new accounts) has been slow, but that's not due to people working from home (even with the office open, we still wont be able to do the necessary travel to drum up additional opportunities) For me personally....I started my new position in early March (so I've been remote the entire time) and my mid-year review went great. Nothing but positive feedback.

I think they're pretty flexible on this, so I dont think anyone's gonna give me grief. But it was just a surprise. I know a bunch of people working for other companies in the industry (with offices in the city)  and they're all waiting until January at least.

If our brokers/clients were back in their offices and open to taking in-person meetings.....I'd say it might make sense. But tacking 3+ hours onto my work day to commute into mid-town.....just to do more zoom calls? That just seems silly right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see a lot of people preaching WFH, but I've gotten screwed by it several times in the last week.

Last week my mortgage processor was taking vacation.  Rather than a supervisor instructing her to hand of the file to someone in the neighboring cubicle, it sat.  Now I missed my closing date which has impacted several things on my schedule.

Call the closing attorneys office.  Rather than one stop shop like usual, It was a message to the attorney and an e-mail to the paralegal.  Something that should have taken an hour took all day because everyone is waiting on someone to finish their laundry and reply to an e-mail.

Closed on another property last week.  Can't get my CD (signed by both parties) because the paralegal is work from home and on vacation.  Office isn't open so I can't get a copy there.

Pretty much anything I've been involved with that was a collaborative effort in the past now takes much longer to accomplish.  I sure it works great for you folks that are start to finish people.  But for those places where several people are involved and something needs to be expedited, it's not happening in a timely manner.
That's because not everyone uses good collaboration tools.  No excuse for that in 2020 and I'm sure they'll all catch up. I've actually seen the opposite within our company and our corporate office.  No excuse not to get things done now and everyone has open access (with controls of course).

 
So in a pretty surprising move, my company (a large one) announced that they are re-opening our tri-state offices starting next Monday.  (they told us this last week completely out of the blue. Local leadership had no idea)I was honestly pretty shocked, as I sort of assumed that at this point, they would just wait out flu season and reevaluate in January.

They sent out a survey to see what everyone was thinking. Obviously there are some people who are caring for relatives, supervising remote learning kids, etc and they want to be supportive of that. I dont fall into any of those categories (single guy, no kids, healthy)

They've made changes around the office and they're going to operate at partial capacity. So I wasn't really concerned about being in the office itself (I trust that my co-workers will social distance, exercise proper hygiene, wear masks, etc) . My concern was the commute. I've made a pretty conscious effort to stay isolated from strangers (basically the only time I'm indoors with non-family members is the grocery store) , so I wasn't exactly psyched to get stuck on a 90 minute train ride (plus a couple stops on the NY subway) with a bunch of strangers.  I just know that every day, there's gonna be some schlub on the train wearing his mask around his chin, sitting too close, coughing (which will only get worse in the fall/winter), etc.  So my response to the survey was that while I was ABLE to come into work, I wasn't really comfortable taking mass transit.

At this point, it looks like anyone who answered similarly to me WONT be asked to go back in for the time being. Not trying to be difficult (And I really hope I'm not going to be perceived that way) but I just didn't see the point relative to the risk.  My role supports multiple offices and teams (which I still wont be able to visit under these guidelines, as they dont want to risk cross-contamination of multiple offices) and none of the clients we work with are going back into the city yet, (looks like January at the earliest based on people I've spoken to) so I just dont see the point of spending 3 hours commuting and exposing myself to the unwashed masses of mid-town.

Am I the crazy one here?
You’re not crazy. A lot of the people I’ve spoken with said they can’t imagine going back to how things were and going in every day. I’m in that boat. I could imagine 1-2 days a week, but not 4-5. Who knows whether that’ll be acceptable in a year or two...

But we’re going to all be going through this weird transition period now where it’s hard to know what is the reasonable view and who is just being a wuss or taking advantage. My company and most will take the party line that nobody should risk anything or do anything that makes them uncomfortable. But you just know there will be some individuals who will judge people and think it’s BS advantage taking.  
 

I will say I spoke to some people today who say they really miss the office and can’t wait for it to open again.  Different strokes I suppose.

 
You’re not crazy. A lot of the people I’ve spoken with said they can’t imagine going back to how things were and going in every day. I’m in that boat. I could imagine 1-2 days a week, but not 4-5. Who knows whether that’ll be acceptable in a year or two...

But we’re going to all be going through this weird transition period now where it’s hard to know what is the reasonable view and who is just being a wuss or taking advantage. My company and most will take the party line that nobody should risk anything or do anything that makes them uncomfortable. But you just know there will be some individuals who will judge people and think it’s BS advantage taking.  
 

I will say I spoke to some people today who say they really miss the office and can’t wait for it to open again.  Different strokes I suppose.
We have already gone 100% remote, but there’s definitely a subset that wants an office.  They’re looking to downsize by roughly 75%, so it won’t be a big office, but in the city the young kids living in boxes want a bigger working environment. 
 

Fwiw, there’s also a bunch of research out there that companies either have to be close to 100% remote or not at all since there will “judgers” like your example.

 
I mean....i certainly want to go back eventually. I just think September 14th is too soon for me to comfortable taking mass transit into NYC. We just dont whether this thing is going to bounce back in the fall.

If they would let me go into one of our NJ offices (There are 2 of them within 15 minutes of me) I'd do it tomorrow. But apparently that's not an option :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean....i certainly want to go back eventually. I just think September 14th is too soon for me to comfortable taking mass transit into NYC. We just dont whether this thing is going to bounce back in the fall.

If they would let me go into one of our NJ offices (There are 2 of them within 15 minutes of me) I'd do it tomorrow. But apparently that's not an option :shrug:
Totally with you. I may start going in once every week or two, and likely when I do that I’ll just drive in early in the morning and drive home at like 3:30pm to beat the rush hour. 

 
Good news....I'm not nuts.

They just sent out the rotation schedule and only like 10 people (out of like 60) are on it.  Seems like the only people who are actually going in are already in the city (and not even all of them)

So basically everyone else opted out for the time being.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good news....I'm not nuts.

They just sent out the rotation schedule and only like 10 people (out of like 60) are on it.  Seems like the only people who are actually going in are already in the city (and not even all of them)

So basically everyone else opted out for the time being.
PS, as to my idea that I might just drive into Manhattan, Cuomo was on TV pleading with people not to do that. He said traffic is awful and only getting worse, and mass transit is empty and cleaner than ever. So I might just take the train in one of these days. 

 
I think over the next few months, we'll see many more stories about the remote working backlash, with companies and some employees wanting to get back into the office and missing face to face conversations. It already started a bit with recent stories about Reed Hastings from Netflix. Netflix boss: Remote working has negative effects

The Wall Street Journal newspaper asked Mr Hastings if he had seen any benefits from staff working from home.

"No. I don't see any positives," he replied

“Not being able to get together in person, particularly internationally, is a pure negative,” Mr Hastings told the Wall Street Journal.
There will always be companies on both extremes - some that will go mostly or entirely virtual, and others that want people back in the office 5 days a week as soon as it's safe.  But I think many companies will wind up in the middle - people who used to go in 5 days a week now going in 2-3 days a week, staying home the others, long term. It's probably the best balance between in-person collaboration and employee happiness for most companies.

 
my son is back in school.  I have been going into work since May. we go out to eat once a week. besides wearing a mask into places,  seems pretty normal to me.

 
I think over the next few months, we'll see many more stories about the remote working backlash, with companies and some employees wanting to get back into the office and missing face to face conversations. It already started a bit with recent stories about Reed Hastings from Netflix. Netflix boss: Remote working has negative effects

There will always be companies on both extremes - some that will go mostly or entirely virtual, and others that want people back in the office 5 days a week as soon as it's safe.  But I think many companies will wind up in the middle - people who used to go in 5 days a week now going in 2-3 days a week, staying home the others, long term. It's probably the best balance between in-person collaboration and employee happiness for most companies.
The issue there is the main benefit to the company is to not have to house people.  Having housing for people, but you simply don't use it doesn't really make a lot of sense and isn't sustainable.  

You would need to be moving towards a "wework" model where people don't have a specific assigned desk or office to come into and shrink the overall footprint down to manage that.

 
My company (Parsippany NJ HQ) basically said, "don't plan on being back regularly until 2021 at the earliest."  I think they are working out a full HR plan that will involve 100% hotel space for anyone other than executives in the office, and a totally flexible work arrangement.  We've already had at least 10 folks I work with directly up and move out of state during this and they will do their job remotely.  We were at capacity in HQ, despite the building being less than 5 years old.  Going full hotel space solves the capacity issue.  Our CFO (I'm in finance) had major issues with remote working until this all started, and now his tune has changed as he has seen we CAN be productive at home.

 
So in a pretty surprising move, my company (a large one) announced that they are re-opening our tri-state offices starting next Monday.  (they told us this last week completely out of the blue. Local leadership had no idea)I was honestly pretty shocked, as I sort of assumed that at this point, they would just wait out flu season and reevaluate in January.
Based solely on this one decision and the details you provided above...that doesn't sound like the type of leadership team I would want to work for.  Good luck with them, something tells me you and your co-workers will have lots of uneven decision making to come.  This seems like a total whiff from an input and messaging perspective.

 
Based solely on this one decision and the details you provided above...that doesn't sound like the type of leadership team I would want to work for.  Good luck with them, something tells me you and your co-workers will have lots of uneven decision making to come.  This seems like a total whiff from an input and messaging perspective.


it was VERY surprising, as we'd been told from day 1 that we'd have a LOT of notice. Obviously that didn't happen.

But based on the subsequent discussions, its pretty clear that local leadership is fully supportive of everyone doing what they feel comfortable with until further notice.  Just seems like someone further up the chain jumped the gun.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Elementary schools started back in person this week, middle school starts next, HS the week after that. 

At which point working from home becomes a LOT easier. 

We still haven't been given a timeline for the office, but considering we have a lot of older people it probably won't be until after Christmas.

 
The issue there is the main benefit to the company is to not have to house people.  Having housing for people, but you simply don't use it doesn't really make a lot of sense and isn't sustainable.  

You would need to be moving towards a "wework" model where people don't have a specific assigned desk or office to come into and shrink the overall footprint down to manage that.
Totally agree, I think that will be part of it. Coordinating among various groups (finance comes in Mon and Wed, marketing comes in Tue and Thu, etc), shared desks, less real estate.  

 
Elementary schools started back in person this week, middle school starts next, HS the week after that. 

At which point working from home becomes a LOT easier. 

We still haven't been given a timeline for the office, but considering we have a lot of older people it probably won't be until after Christmas.
yea I'm getting screwed here. I was work from home for 2 years till everyone decided it was cool and came home—place all to myself, rock out the music, poop with the door open, raid the fridge.

Thankfully my wife is back to school full time, but both my kids are only part time. I had to put a desk in my office for my youngest so I can monitor him doing his online school work. Now its down to headphones and quiet conference calls. 

 
I need access to tools and labs that I cannot have at home.  I'm likely going to be a 2 day/week in office worker.  And then maybe I'll only do a half day in the office sometimes. 

 
Great thread.  I agree with most of it.  I’ve come to terms with being remote for the rest of my career - at least if I stay with the current company.  
I suppose what I'm struggling to wrap my head around is the impact this could have on the available talent pool to companies. If Person A is applying to a company, they're now competing against a much larger pool of people than before. Potentially by multiple orders of magnitude. 

It solves a logistical problem. A company wants talent. However, before this, they were limited by a host of factors such as location. Potentially, issues preventing a company from accessing the talent they want could be eradicated. "Potentially" is a key word here. 

The possibilities are infinite. 

If I look at this from an angle of the person applying to a company, I would imagine this is a blessing for the top talent. Assuming this holds true, this is a major plus for the top 10% of talent in an industry. Why? Solves logistical issues. They can work for companies not necessarily limited to their location. The companies and positions they can apply to (and theoretically get considering they're elite applicants) just went up substantially. I wouldn't want to be in the bottom 90% of applicants. 

 
I suppose what I'm struggling to wrap my head around is the impact this could have on the available talent pool to companies. If Person A is applying to a company, they're now competing against a much larger pool of people than before. Potentially by multiple orders of magnitude. 

It solves a logistical problem. A company wants talent. However, before this, they were limited by a host of factors such as location. Potentially, issues preventing a company from accessing the talent they want could be eradicated. "Potentially" is a key word here. 

The possibilities are infinite. 

If I look at this from an angle of the person applying to a company, I would imagine this is a blessing for the top talent. Assuming this holds true, this is a major plus for the top 10% of talent in an industry. Why? Solves logistical issues. They can work for companies not necessarily limited to their location. The companies and positions they can apply to (and theoretically get considering they're elite applicants) just went up substantially. I wouldn't want to be in the bottom 90% of applicants. 
As the elites get headhunted and hired, new positions will open up. With office overhead cut drastically, manpower totals can increase. Might be the best time to be the 90%

 
Many sales jobs will be changed. Less flying around the country taking customers to steak dinners and a game.

Now it is a question, “do you need to do this sales call face to face?”

My team was on the road 10-12 days a month and with no travel at all they have been just as effective. My company has put all those savings to the bottom line. 

Which sucks because the travel (and accompanying hotel and airline points) were a nice job perk. 

 
Seems like my office is rolling back a little from what I thought was an overly aggressive re-opening plan.

Very few people are going in anyway (and they're on a rotating schedule) but now they're requiring you to have a negative COVID test (within the previous 72 hours) before you go in on a monday. And if you go in again 2 weeks later....you have to test again.

I get the need, but dont see why anyone would deal with that hassle.

 
My wife is putting the full court press on me to move now.  She wants to be closer to her family now that commuting isn't really as much a concern.  I haven't gotten a single signal from my company what they see long term.  I don't have any idea how they would feel if I dropped back to post covid a 1-2x a week face showing.  Probably would be ok.  I mean we had a guy that was irreplaceable that wanted to downshift and run a BnB in Arkansas, we said you do your key job 20hrs a week and you can just move there.  Worked fine, so I'm not asking for that.

I travel internationally about 2-3x a year for work and I don't really see how that comes back.  It was really useless on the surface.  You commute 18hrs one way for maybe 4 hours of deep dive discussion and a few meals together with a client or team each day for 2-3 days, then return 18hrs.  Some meetings can be as short as an hour.  We've sent people to Germany to have a 2 hour F2F meeting where they flew in, showered and dresses' in the airport went to a meeting turned around and flew home without even having a hotel stay.

Our productivity and mine is more or less the same.  Things that were important/hot are less so now.  People aren't as quick to flap their arms to be seen.  

Issues I'm seeing is people are connected 24/7 on these teams system far more than they were by email.  Burnout is happening, we are being reached out to to take a week sabbatical to cut off contacts.  

The thing I hate the most is that it's sort of lonely.  In a typical workweek I might not see a single other person outside my family on any real level.

 
https://twitter.com/carlquintanilla/status/1364588174908002308

GOLDMAN CEO, on work-from-home: “This is not ideal for us and it’s not a new normal. .. It’s an aberration that we are going to correct as quickly as possible.”
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56192048

In particular he was worried about an incoming “class” of about 3,000 new recruits, who wouldn’t get the “direct mentorship” they need.

“I am very focused on the fact that I don’t want another class of young people arriving at Goldman Sachs in the summer remotely,” he said.

Although he thought the Covid-19 pandemic had helped push the adoption of digital technologies and created ways for the investment bank to run more efficiently, Mr Solomon thought it would not lead to huge changes over the longer term.

“I don’t think as we get out of the pandemic the overall operating mode of the way a business like ours operates will be vastly different,” he said.

Within the finance sector, it appears Mr Solomon is not alone.

In September, JP Morgan’s chief executive Jamie Dimon said that working from home has had a negative effect on productivity.

Barclays boss Jes Staley also expressed hope recently that the vaccine would allow employees to return to the office.

Tech companies, by contrast, appear to be more enthusiastic about work from home arrangements.

Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter have all said staff would have the option to work from home permanently.

Facebook has also suggested that up to half of its staff could work remotely within five to ten years.

The social media giant has also suggested remote workers might receive lower pay, as their expenses would be less away from San Francisco and Silicon Valley.

 
The thing I hate the most is that it's sort of lonely.  In a typical workweek I might not see a single other person outside my family on any real level.
I used to LOVE to WFH prior to COVID - less distractions, no commute, all the perks we know about.  Doing it 100% I quickly realized how much I was missing some interaction with people - lonely is a good way of putting it.  I’ve worked on a few things to help with that - one, we do some virtual Happy Hours which I thought would be lame but folks are used to them and now I think they are fun.  I’ve tried to spend time outdoors, talk to neighbors.  I’m back to loving this new WFH but even with that I won’t mind maybe 1 day a week in the office.  Hell, driving a one-hour doesn’t sound horrible at the moment.

 
I think this just highlights it depends on the industry - I know nothing about Financial industry but I do wonder how much they’ve embraced WFH and the tools to make collaboration simple and efficient.  I can just as easily (or maybe even more easily) have that quick 15 minute hallway conversation with Bob on Teams as I could before.  I think most old school people just don’t like it.

 
I suppose what I'm struggling to wrap my head around is the impact this could have on the available talent pool to companies. If Person A is applying to a company, they're now competing against a much larger pool of people than before. Potentially by multiple orders of magnitude. 

It solves a logistical problem. A company wants talent. However, before this, they were limited by a host of factors such as location. Potentially, issues preventing a company from accessing the talent they want could be eradicated. "Potentially" is a key word here. 

The possibilities are infinite. 

If I look at this from an angle of the person applying to a company, I would imagine this is a blessing for the top talent. Assuming this holds true, this is a major plus for the top 10% of talent in an industry. Why? Solves logistical issues. They can work for companies not necessarily limited to their location. The companies and positions they can apply to (and theoretically get considering they're elite applicants) just went up substantially. I wouldn't want to be in the bottom 90% of applicants. 
I'm hippling a bit here but this also opens up the job market to folks who just couldn't or wouldn't commute or come into an office.  Specifically older folks or folks with medical issues. It probably even pushes out retirement for some.  

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top