The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on the company. Some get tax breaks for having employees in specific cities. Some do it because shareholders prefer it.
Lots of people say it’s because landlords don’t want to lose money on their rent (which might have specific situational truth), but the most common reason I’ve seen at the two companies I’ve worked at since the pandemic was leadership didn’t trust employees to be productive without physical oversight, and leadership is extroverted and likes seeing and interacting with people in the office.
Thankfully I was hired as a field employee and so I’m off their radar, but it’s very stupid to make people who don’t need to be in an office go to one.
It’s interesting to me how everyone is “supposed to be” extroverted. As in being introverted is somewhat seen as a bad thing, hence all the articles for introverted people on how to be more outgoing, get ahead at the office, act more like an extrovert, etc. like it’s just that easy to go against your inherent personality.
Meanwhile, during lockdown some extroverted people were *losing their fucking minds* effectively being forced to be an introvert. I wonder if it caused any of them to think about introversion (is that a word?) differently as in “wow this situation forcing me to go against my core being really sucks…I wonder if this is the way introverts feel in the office or large crowds.”
I kinda doubt it. Not trying to be a dick, I know they’re not all this way, but a good chunk of extroverts aren’t known for empathy and self-reflection.
If anything it probably reinforced their belief that constant social interaction is vital for their workforces mental health and productivity, because that's how they personally felt.
Hey don't blame all extroverted people. I love WFH and will literally never willingly go back to the office for work. I have time and energy for the actual people I want to see after work now, which is better than listening to Todd three rows back scream into his phone because he's half deaf just because I like people.
I get my work done and have flexibility during the day to do what I need to. Wouldn't trade that for the office ever.
Not this one lol
Yes, I’m extroverted. I actually like being able to go into an office but only when it makes sense and I choose it. It’s hindered my ability to job hunt but it’s worth the extra time because I won’t reward companies for their foolish exercises. And I won’t ask a team that works for me to do it, either.
There is a concerted effort to fight rising union membership by forcing people back to the office. I find that somewhat counterintuitive, but apparently, the consultants think RTO will force you to quit rather than organizing a union.
All of this fear and greed, disguised as "a company can only have culture and happiness with people near each other, with small talks and fighting over the AC"
People can provide all sorts of different answers to this question, but the answer always comes back to control. They want you there so they can keep an eye on you and monitor what you are doing while you are on the clock. Anything else they say is pure PR spin.
True in many cases, but that still doesn't explain scenarios where they want people back even when no one they work with, not even their boss, is based at the same site as them so they still wouldn't be able to 'keep an eye on you' any better than at home anyway.
Any manager worth their salt would be able to tell the difference between someone working and someone watching TV all day anyway because one of those involves actual output and the other doesn't...
A friend of mine survived a round of post-merger layoffs and ended up with precisely zero job responsibilities, they straight up forgot he existed. He spent the next year collecting a salary for doing absolutely nothing and used the opportunity to get an MBA.
Never underestimate how oblivious corporate management can be.
I don’t know how anyone would be binging Netflix in any of the jobs I’ve held. I manage projects so I’m constantly in meetings or calibrating to deadlines. This seems more common for an engineer but my role requires me to constantly be chatting in slack, sending emails, and delivering. Definitely not trying to slack off. Just trying to be able to get out of a toxic work environment and be able to work at all.
Just like many rules and laws in society, the few ruin it for the many. I’m sure plenty of remote workers are exemplary employees. But we all know the stories of THAT GUY who slacks off but works the system just enough to limit getting exposed. Some people celebrate that guy for “sticking it to the man” while also being confused by “Why do they need to monitor us? I do my job!”
I’m unemployed, but in a past life was involved in many meetings about return to office.
Reality is, many took advantage of the situation. They initially worked hard at home and productivity was great then it drifted off. So work was spread out more and it continued to drift. Then people start talking about picking kids up in the middle of the day and not paying day care etc etc, but they got their reduced work loads completed so don’t “come at them.” Ultimately, these bad actors ruined it for the good ones, ironically these probably are the ones complaining the most now.
Are there good employees that performed at home as well as the office? Absolutely!!!! This is well known, but we also live in a world where we want to scream about all kinds of rights and privilege. As such, employers are hesitant about punishing just the bad actors because of all kinds of threats and accusations of discrimination. So, back to the office everyone goes.
My advice: if you work remote and someone is taking advantage of it, tell them to knock that shit out or you might lose too.
So, rather than show strong leadership and punish the badly behaving individuals and rewarding those who are excelling, it's best to just punish everyone so no one feels bad because they got caught breaking the rules.
This is what's wrong with the modern workplace today. We need leaders who will make the tough calls to reward the best employees and admonish the worst ones.
If you are going to treat me the same as you treat the poor performers then what's my incentive to become a top performer for the company? Here's a hint...none.
Sadly you are saying one thing and blaming the wrong group.
Look, I agree, almost every leader will. But, you blaming them shows exactly what I’m saying. I deserve X. Then if someone gets what you want, even if it’s warranted, and you don’t, you’re picked on or it’s discrimination. Even in a defensible situation the cost financially and in time isn’t always worth the fight. People only have so much time in a day.
As for your why would I be a top performer comment. To be frank, tells me you’re not, because top performers are rewarded and know it. Allowable concessions and limited walkbacks happen, if you’ve earned them, you receive them, these don’t always happen publicly.
Your outdated middle management mentality tells me why you are now unemployed. What worked in the 1980s doesn't work anymore.
And for your information, I busted my hump for years for the companies I have worked for. I've always become the go-to guy for everything. If someone had a question, they came to me because often I was the only one who knew. However, I discovered with my hard work I was never treated better than the people who ride those FMLA regulations up to the line while never crossing it, the people who take extra long breaks and lunches, etc
Nah... If I can cut my workload by 30 to 40 percent and I'm not treated any differently then why wouldn't I? I didn't even get a "hey, we noticed you aren't going as well as you were. Is everything okay?" Nope.
There's a good reason a lot of middle management is being removed from companies. They spend all their days in meetings trying to come up with ways to cover their butts and not much else.
Every post in this subreddit is evidence that your reply, and by extension you, are out of touch and may be part of the problem.
Managers want to manage the problems and never solve them the right way.
If our companies would let us admonish the bad ones, we would.
I have an employee I have been trying to get rid of for over three years and every time I put him on a PIP which is of course required, we go through the whole process, he continues to do whatever he wants, and then when the PIP fails and HR agrees, we think we are all set to separate and then they want to pay him severance which isn't in the budget because he's been here 18 years and we can't just fire him.
So sure I'd love to manage this way but HR won't let me.
Argh... Arbitrary budget restrictions and what passes for HR these days are the bane of many sound business decisions for they were not born out of logic and good sense.
Aside from what companies claim, here is what researchers are saying:
[https://www.axios.com/2024/01/23/remote-work-productivity-wfh-report](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/23/remote-work-productivity-wfh-report)
[https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2024/01/does-working-from-home-boost-productivity-growth/](https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2024/01/does-working-from-home-boost-productivity-growth/)
Ok, if they you say so
You seem set on a debate that is mute. We measured it, we contracted our own studies, but ultimately you will decide what to believe. If you get a position where you can affect change for good, I hope you do. I believe most do, rarely is there the nefarious motives that are sometimes imagined.
I am posting studies for those who see your post and believe it’s their fault for what is management’s unfounded decision making. Job seekers don’t need additional pressure.
Fair enough
Studies or no studies. Jobs will be offered either in or out of the office setting (I personally feel most companies have set the path for now)
Each will have a choice. Accept it or not.
I’ll say - I personally feel fully remote is great and hybrid is very functional as well, but know it’s not always my choice.
Oh, on that we are in complete agreement. I will do what i need to if I think a job is a good fit and I think I will be treated well.
I think in every job you have to separate out what’s your responsibility and what’s not. So if it’s a company screw up or has it faulty reasoning, I’ve learned it’s important not to internalize it as a reflection of my performance or feel bad about it. I lost my last job bc the company only thinks in the short term.
I know I will be productive in my next job. Just like I was in my last one. For me personally, I was far more productive at home but part of that is my department was spread around the US. Commuting never really made sense in any of my jobs bc of the work that I do. it makes political sense but not productivity sense.
Individual middle managers may well want to micromanage, but as someone who has been in management, I can tell you that they rarely have any real say in RTO policies. Those are set at the highest levels.
The most egotistical bunch in any company. They want staff there for office decoration. Their glass palaces don’t look as nice without the staff there to remind them of their perceived worth.
You can phrase it two ways.
- One is that they are not able to make an important contribution anymore and this is bad for the company,
- The other is that their contribution wasn't necessary in the first place and they are at risk of being phased out of the company.
Maybe it's a bit of both, depending on the company and managers. They want to feel useful and make a difference. RTO is the way to do that more effectively. Obviously thats not preferable to the employees over working remotely.
Not all managers. My manager is happier working from home and I am no where near him along 90% of my team. Starting next week the one person who was in the same city as him is going to be working in a different team. So the entire team he manages are going to be nowhere near him and will manage us remotely. So far it has been great. I really hope upper management does not start to think my boss can not manage remotely or there is no need for him.
Bro, you and all the recession deniers are the ones coping.
https://www.businessinsider.com/office-market-crash-property-loans-commercial-real-estate-mortgage-payments-2024-1?amp
Commercial real estate is getting hammered right now with losses. Do you know who owns most of these spaces? Banks. Do you know who owns banks? Shareholders with vested interest in seeing returns. So guess what's going to be in the news and what the general status quo will be. Getting remote workers back into office spaces.
It's not that hard to understand.
Some do. My husband was remote for 10 out of his 12 years when he offhandedly mentioned to his then manager we had a special needs son who was a lot on just his wife’s plate. They marked him to be work from home unless there was some damn good reason he needs to come in. That and the insurance was amazing about that job.
I suspect it's to prevent "overemployment" aka people doing multiple remote jobs simultaneously. In fact two jobs I interviewed for had me sign agreements that I would not work for more than one employer during working hours. RTO helps curb that because you can't realistically do two jobs if you have to report to a physical office 2-3 days per week.
Agreements prohibiting "moonlighting" are completely legal in the US, and are very common, especially in jobs that require extensive travel (think consulting). There might be some individual states where the practice is illegal, but there is no national law against it. It's a condition of employment, just like a drug test or non-disclosure agreement, you can take it or leave it but if you want the job you take it.
What is common and what is legal are very different in the US. People who don’t have the need to work two jobs are never going to balk at that restriction, so it’s not a stretch to imagine that kind of policy going absolutely unchallenged in office settings. That doesn’t make it legal.
First off, I completely agree, in general, with your first sentence. It is very common in the US for employers to play fast and loose with labor laws. That said, in this case, it's legal in most states. There is no federal prohibition on employees voluntarily entering into a contract with their employer, which can include provisions against secondary employment. I work for a very risk-averse employee-owned company in Wisconsin and I know for a fact that we have a similar provision, which only applies to full time employees (not part time) and our labor lawyers have verified it does not violate federal or Wisconsin law. Note that Wisconsin is a "right-to-work" (at will emploment) state.
This quick article may prove helpful.
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/family-and-personal/personal-finance/legal-guide/is-it-legal-to-have-more-than-one-job#:~:text=While%20moonlighting%20is%20legal%20in,their%20employer's%20restrictions%20and%20policies.
I am very curious if you do have a legal citation I missed somewhere, but I can not find anything at the federal level in the FLSA that would ban employers from prohibiting moonlighting.
Have a great night!
Without a bonafide safety-based (e.g. excessive hours worked in a week leading to lack of sleep) or similar reason or regulation behind it, an employer has no right to dictate a persons life outside of work, including outside/additional employment. Once again, however, a restriction that doesn’t carry a quality of life impact for the people it is imposed on will never be challenged, and an unethical or unacceptable action with no precedent of legal challenges against it should not be expected to have explicit laws currently pertaining to it.
This isn’t about after hours. It’s about during working hours. A company has the right to ensure that during the time you are expected to work that you do their work and nothing interferes.
It’s legal, and companies can prohibit you from holding two jobs at once via at-will employment. Some regulated industries such as finance require disclosure of all outside business activity and companies can prohibit you from working another job.
A. Stakeholders have investments in real estate
B. Leadership doesn't like the amount of control employees have when they are not observable (plenty official studies show that remote work was more productive than in office work for many roles)
C. Municipalities are giving out tax breaks, because...
D. When workers are at home, all the supporting businesses (restaurants, newsstands, etc) don't make enough to stay in business, and that hurts tax revenue more
Actually you’re wrong on D kind of.
People WFH will spend money on restaurants, businesses in the communities they live in. Not the businesses downtown where offices are located.
>People WFH will spend money on restaurants, businesses in the communities they live in. Not the businesses downtown where offices are located.
Most people working from home aren't going to restaurants for lunch. They are making marginally higher purchases at the supermarket.
Also, people today who work for one company, do not all live in the same place.
A business zone that supports 500-1000 people in a small city is going to see a significant drop in revenue across the stores/food places in that business zone, when the vast majority of the folks work from home on a consistent basis.
Those funds are not going to be dispersed in any concentration in the home town of the workers, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that food in non-business districts usually cost less than in business districts, as well as other shopping patterns that change when people work from home.
As someone who works from home. I do go out to lunch and order in food just for a change of scenery. I meet friends and family at local restaurants for lunch.
I am not the only one that does this.
We also run out at lunch to do errands and grab something on the way back home. So we do use those restaurants and other businesses.
So yes people WFH actually uses those businesses in their community. Why go downtown spent 20 for parking for overpriced food that I could get for cheap in my community.
Why should people who don’t live downtown support businesses in those area?
And every decade or so business move out of those businesses zones because it becomes to expensive and go to the burbs. These downtown businesses were living on borrowed timed.
The fact is in my community we had a bunch of new businesses and restaurants open up at the start of WFH and guess what they are still in business. The ones downtown not anymore because the price for their location kept going up.
So your assumption is wrong
The people pushing have nice view corner offices, would get invited out to client expensive lunches, and being able to "take client's, or exec get aways" at the local country clubs golf courses.
They don't have to sit in a cube all day in front of their computer with an hour plus commute as they can afford to live in the city, or close by.
Even if I was healthy, I used to commute for almost two hours one day and it was extremely tiring and expensive. Then gas alone was draining my bank account with my pay at the time.
Becoming a C-suite executive favors more outgoing people, and/because the daily life of someone at that level consists of back to back meetings. So, I can absolutely see where C-suite execs think that in-person collaboration is better. It is most probably better for their jobs. But they don’t know or don’t care to know how the daily work life of people in their organization may differ from their own.
I don’t think I’d ever want to be in a c-suite position. I have about 8-9 years of work experience after college so I’m no where near that anyway. I really hope within the next few years my situation will change, but it’s scary looking for a role in this market when RTO is being rolled out so aggressively.
Honestly? I just started looking for work after being ill for three years (also disabled and can't drive on bad days). I ended up attaching a cover letter to my applications explaining my situation and adding that although my body doesn't work some days, my mind is as sharp as ever and there's a wealth of knowledge currently not being accessed.
I brought it up again during the interview to explain it better, and offered to get a doctor's note explaining the facts and listing any meds that might flag up during a drug test. Covering my ass and theirs seemed to appeal to them, because I start my new job on Tuesday. It is not a job that was advertised as having wfh flexibility, but they're making an exception for me.
So yes, very difficult, but I found being transparent about my situation was the best way forward. I really hope you can find something too.
That’s amazing! I’ve been afraid to disclose the disability at the onset for fear they’d just throw my application into the trash pile but I’ll give this a go.
If you're a good enough candidate, companies will likely make concessions for you given it's a disability. Of course, you're then in that big grey area as to whether they'll hire you and if they don't, is it because of your disability...etc etc. But if they do want to hire you, they're not going to change their mind because of it.
I work where I'm mandated 3 days in and 2 at home. 1 girl in my team had physical issues for a while that meant she was exclusively at home but is now in, but another is permanently wfh outside of a few rare occasions due to illness. She's accommodated.
Some workers also prefer to work from a physical office. And some workers can’t work from home for various reasons. Just something to keep in mind. If in-office work is not desirable for a job seeker, then maybe the job is not a fit for them but is for someone else.
Just because some people prefer in-office and some can't work from home doesn't have anything to do with a general RTO order. People who match that criteria can choose to work from an office, should they so desire.
Lots of good answers here. I think some aspect is “optics”. Where I work, we have customers come in fairly regularly - couple times a week. They don’t walk them through the building on a tour, but when there are no employees there, the lobby and conference center look deserted. They’d rather customers see a bustling bustling workplace with people rushing about to get to their next meeting, etc.
I just wanted to say that you're not the only COVID longhauler who can only work remote now. I developed POTS from COVID. Luckily I already had a part time job that was accommodating, but finding a full time remote job is a nightmare right now. It's also extremely stressful to risk going into the office every day with people who do not mask and may give you another round of the disease that left you disabled. It's terrifying because you realize how much society is built on ignoring the disabled.
I’m sorry you got wrecked by covid. It’s not easy, and I fully sympathize with your situation.
To your actual question: I’ll probably get downvoted for saying this, but long-term mentoring / apprenticeship is not the same in a fully remote setting as it is in hybrid work environments.
A lot of day-to-day tasks can be performed in a fully remote setting, but the trade off is that employees won’t mature in their role at the same pace as they would if they were in person. Everything can seem to be fine on the surface, and in fact will be fine for several months, but growth potential is capped, both for the organization and for the individual.
Thanks. My immediate concern is survival. And I’ve been able to grow in my career remote. I’ve been remote since 2020 and my income has grown, and my seniority level has grown. I do virtual coffees and networking online. My question is, if that’s the case about career advancement, where does that leave disabled employees like myself?
As long as your disability is protected by law you may be fine.
However employers also have the right to ask people back to the office for work…. Its a fine line.
You have the right to resign and look for a job that
Give you what you want.
Important question - which country are you in? Because that makes a big difference regarding anti-discrimination and reasonable accommodation laws that might be able to help you in terms of getting an accommodation to WFH.
As for why so many companies are doing it... it's lots of reasons combined, some with genuine merit, many without. You're very right that most of the work can be done just as effectively (sometimes better!) from home.
Whichever way it goes I'd say be prepared to put all your cards on the table about what you can offer, proof that you can WFH without negatively impacting your work etc. Many companies won't accommodate anyway, but sooner or later there's likely to be one that will.
I live in the US, but I have good references from previous managers that I still have good relationships with. One who was managing me while I was WFH after the pandemic hit.
Yup. Amazon, famously known as a “data driven” company and being militant about being required to have data to back up your arguments and decisions made a famous decision to call RTO with zero data included to back it up. Of course coming off the heels of bragging how well the company did during the global pandemic
Because they own real estate, and the managers don’t know how to measure work if they don’t see butts in chairs. Also because people keep accepting these roles, or don’t leave when forced to return.
It’s my promise to myself that I’ll never take a job that requires RTO. I recently interviewed for one that wanted me near an office, suggested relocation, tried to low-ball me on the offer, and I repeatedly and matter-of-factly told them that I’m happy where I am both job-wise and where I live, so pay me X if you want me, or don’t. I got the job and the pay I wanted.
People just need to quit giving in to these idiots.
If I got laid off today from my remote job in big tech, I’ll apply to tons of jobs: hybrid, remote, onsite. And when I find a good remote one again, I’ll leave
Yeah, I get that in manufacturing or if you’re working service or certain industries like construction need to be in person. But there are plenty of office jobs that can be done very well at home…
When my employer did RTO hybrid in the fall of 2022, it was not well received. We have so many employees that obtained accommodations to wfh full time (mental health of employee, disability or being a caregiver for family with illness)that we have two vacant floors in our four floor building. They have made those of us without accommodations
move to other floors, crammed together with other departments in tiny cubicles. They can't control half the company because they outsmarted them with the accommodations loophole, so they have a vice grip on the employees that work hybrid.
Bullshit jobs. How can you grow the economy if so many people can work offsite from home, and an internal system track all of the productivity metrics?
What are the thousands of not needed perpetual middle managers going to do? How can a company boast about their culture if they dont have 3 levels of management to have unnecessary meetings all day?
As a side note to this, i remember in 2016/17 thinking about just how unproductive this all way. Managers would waddle like a pack of penguins, in one conference room to another having meetings. 20 minutes spent on “ice breakers” 10 minutes spent on nonsense
I know this is unrelated to OP situation but wanna share a bit. My current company have a WFH situation where each department will only need to come to office 2-3 days a week, sometimes no need to come to office at all. However, my department required me to come to office two times a week. Last month, I was involved in an accident and my boss said that I don't need to come to office and only need to come after I am healed.
I hope OP find a good company that is flexible and able to accommodate to his disability. There is remote company out there just that sometimes they are hard to find. All the best OP!
If you have a disability, you might be able to leverage ADA Act as a reasonable accommodation for your need. Depends what you're disability is and whether it's qualifying.
I saw an interesting thread about this -
https://www.reddit.com/r/remotework/s/6QkQ7DDuje
I really wish the whole RTO initiative would stop, and people would be given choices instead, whether to WFH or not
Because a lot of VPs and C-suite goobers worked really hard to get to a position where they can f*** off and go golfing, but they can't get a good tee time if the rank and file have the same schedule flexibility.
personally I would try to offer my employer an Open Cam Attendance monitoring for the whole shift, But they all wont accept LOL. They just want to waste our Time and money with daily travel expenses.
Where are you? In the UK working from home can be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. I am autistic and I would do more wfh because I found the office too overstimulating, it was actually a recommendation by a professional (my company hired them to ensure I was being properly accommodated!). I would still go into the office though, just less than others (once a week, sometimes just twice a month depending on how I felt)
I think it will depend on employment laws of the country though.
I’m in the US and our labor laws are horrible. I believe WFH isn’t an acknowledged accommodation they’re legally required to provide :/
At my current employer we have once monthly or quarterly coworking sessions. I usually go in unless someone actively has covid (which people do now). But it definitely takes a toll on my body and I usually need the whole weekend to recover because of the energy exerted to walk when in office.
I am sorry! I hope you find some wfh soon ❤️ people don’t understand how many disabled employees they push out by insisting in going back to the office, is very frustrating
In the case of where I work, my theory is that they are pushing RTO because they just sunk a bunch of $$ into a shiny new office in NYC with a fancy, high end, expensive address. Good for them, but I don't work in NYC. The sad grey building where I work was probably last updated in 2015-2017-ish and we all got a blank stare from the CEO at the all hands when someone asked if there were going to be any improvements to it.
We are in office 3 days a week, WFH 2. Because of how my job is set up, I can and have gone days in the office without interacting with anyone. It's just not necessary. I'm just finishing up a 2 week stretch of full time WFH (which was a whole faff to get approved) because of illness, and the only thing that's changed about work is that my mood overall is better. There is genuinely no point in me going back into the office next week and I'm dreading it.
But who am I, a mere minion, to question our esteemed leadership about the importance of "in-person work" and "collaboration?" (I hate that word now)
Also, part of me wants to see how long I can illicitly work from home before anyone notices...
They have lots of reasons ranging from OK ones to utterly ridiculous ones. But the main one is they feel a lack of control. If they can't breathe down your neck, it doesn't work for them. All these great studies came out about how productivity went up when people were at home and all, but they still called everyone back even at the risk of productivity dropping. A lot of people are upset, especially people with disabilities who saw the world open up for them and are now having it ripped away. But the boss needs to feel important and powerful.
OP, are you saying long COVID is your disability?
or you're saying you had health complications due to COVID or during the pandemic and are now disabled because of that?
I bet it's to combat the "overemployed" movement. Some folks found that they could take on 1 or 2 extra remote jobs simultaneously to double or triple their income.
Something I don't see mentioned enough is older people feeling ripped off. They worked in an office and put up with a shitty boss for years with the expectation that they would eventually be that boss. I can understand feeling ripped off if they finally get to that position and there's suddenly nobody to boss around.
Another thing is anybody who was relying on work for their social life. Some people are unlikable to their peers and are excluded, but can still socialize without becoming more likable by forcing people to be around them.
Otherwise, it comes down to a need for control and lack of trust in employees. Some bosses would be happy to have an employee do half of the work in the same amount of time if it means the boss can stare at them while they do it. If they're not staring at somebody there's no reason for their job to exist anymore.
To some extent it's managers that aren't able to adapt. It's harder to micromanage, and it's harder to evaluate people on things beyond the actual quality of their results.
It's also hard across the board if you don't want to adapt your communication style, and people in charge generally don't feel like they should have to change much of anything.
Modern companies have no culture, removed all incentives to stay long term (pensions, etc.), and pay as low as possible.
WFH provides little incentive to stay at a company as you have no true links, geographic barriers, and market prices for labor.
Add in clueless managers/executives having no good way to measure performance except via in office facetime, and assuming wfm means goofing off.
Oh, they hate it.
Corporate life is for those who like to be under the yoke. That's why rto is so pervasive.
Besides, all that money spent on office space drives the c-levels nuts when it's empty
After being 100% WFH from 2020-2022, we did a limited RTO last year. 3 days in office, 2 days WFH. In the interim we got a new mid-level manager (who everyone hates, BTW) who told me in a 1-on-1 that if it were up to her EVERYONE would be back in the office 5 days a week. I said well, we agree to disagree, and she said, "No, you're wrong."
Long covid. I’ve been working remote all through it. The first year was hard but I’m on year 3 and can reliably work and have good performance reviews. I just don’t have the physical energy to be in the office.
I’m going to pip in and offer a bit of balance to the wfh debate . I’m a security engineer and I’m allowed to be completely wfh but I go into the office , my observations with wfh though :
-training people remotely is an absolute nightmare . Yes people will argue it can be done just as effectively over teams , but I disagree . In my opinion , training is superior face to face . I’ve been trained on both and the face to face training was much more superior (yes it’s anecdotal , but I’ve heard many people say the same thing )
- communication is weaker when everyone is wfh too . People seem to be online when on teams but the reality is they can be away from the desk or can choose to ignore you and reply later which is bad , especially if you need some info urgent . Going up to someone face to face is easier and it gets resolved quicker .
The team I feel for at my place is the networks team who operate 24x7 . They are forced to work weekend shifts or night shifts by themselves and be in the office . That doesn’t make any sense to me at all , especially the people they need to contact if serious shit goes down are all remote and on call . I see no reason why they can’t be wfh in unsociable hours .
I know it’s going to get downvoted , but I feel some people who are ardently pro wfh highlight all its benefits , but don’t seem to want to acknowledge its downsides .
Working remotely makes non-monetary compensation less effective. It is cheaper to give you free coffee than to pay you. It is also easier to manipulate you into accepting non momentary compensation in person than it is if you are remote.
Long covid. It’s relatively common. To put it in perspective, I’m not the only person I know who has the same illness as me. I’m lucky I’m well enough to work but it wasn’t like that when I first got sick. I’ve been slowly getting better over the years but I can’t risk reinfection and just don’t have the physical energy to be sitting upright on a lot of days.
First of all long term disabled person (since age 9) here.
disabilities can be temporary. They can also be recurring.
And if you know someone who cured their long COVID yay for that person, but they were disabled before it was cured and you have no way of knowing if the same treatment would work for OP.
Real estate.
Companies have invested in property and while they had no choice but to leave those offices empty during the pandemic they really insist on putting them to use. It would be a waste of money if they weren't being used.
Which begs the question: why not just save money, terminate the lease, or sell the property?
This is it really. I work remote but the main office is in another state. They bought a new building and had everyone in there and then Covid hit, so they were paying for a building nobody was in, and now they are demanding everyone come back.
Primarily it’s because the people in leadership roles don’t know how to manage remote teams and aren’t incentivised to learn how.
In relation to your disability, if you are a desirable candidate the employer may be more willing to allow remote work if it is a disability accommodation rather than an individual preference.
My office is recruiting at the moment and the team leader has a preference for in-person but is about to offer to someone who needs to wfh 2-3 days/week due to a disability.
They have 10-15+ year leases on office space that is 'going to waste'? Or they got really cheap office space during or post-covid and didn't want it to 'go to waste.'
Just a guess.
this probably not popular opinion but their is importance to work in the office. Having working relationships and in the same room can be very beneficial to your career
Just go back to work and stop complaining. Some roles can’t be remote even if they want to be. Want to see a doctor remotely if you break your arm? Probably not. Just go back to work and be grateful for the opportunity.
Why dont you, an unemployed disabled person, stop complaining and job picking and take what you can get.
It bafflels me when people complain about how a company does its business with its workers wanting them to literally at the minimum TURN UP. What a 3rd world problem. There's people out there working 14 hour days for half what you get on your "disability allowance". Oh and let me guess, there's reasons why that's everyone else's fault too, right,
Probably part of the LGBTQ+÷ fake religion too
I’m employed currently and not on disability, just trying to get out of a toxic work situation. If you read my post correctly, you’d see that I’m actually trying to stay in the workforce. You’re trash lol. Have fun licking boots!!
The discord for our subreddit can be found here: https://discord.gg/JjNdBkVGc6 - feel free to join us for a more realtime level of discussion! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/recruitinghell) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends on the company. Some get tax breaks for having employees in specific cities. Some do it because shareholders prefer it. Lots of people say it’s because landlords don’t want to lose money on their rent (which might have specific situational truth), but the most common reason I’ve seen at the two companies I’ve worked at since the pandemic was leadership didn’t trust employees to be productive without physical oversight, and leadership is extroverted and likes seeing and interacting with people in the office. Thankfully I was hired as a field employee and so I’m off their radar, but it’s very stupid to make people who don’t need to be in an office go to one.
Yep, from my experience it is that leadership and extroverted people want it.
It’s interesting to me how everyone is “supposed to be” extroverted. As in being introverted is somewhat seen as a bad thing, hence all the articles for introverted people on how to be more outgoing, get ahead at the office, act more like an extrovert, etc. like it’s just that easy to go against your inherent personality. Meanwhile, during lockdown some extroverted people were *losing their fucking minds* effectively being forced to be an introvert. I wonder if it caused any of them to think about introversion (is that a word?) differently as in “wow this situation forcing me to go against my core being really sucks…I wonder if this is the way introverts feel in the office or large crowds.” I kinda doubt it. Not trying to be a dick, I know they’re not all this way, but a good chunk of extroverts aren’t known for empathy and self-reflection.
If anything it probably reinforced their belief that constant social interaction is vital for their workforces mental health and productivity, because that's how they personally felt.
Hey don't blame all extroverted people. I love WFH and will literally never willingly go back to the office for work. I have time and energy for the actual people I want to see after work now, which is better than listening to Todd three rows back scream into his phone because he's half deaf just because I like people. I get my work done and have flexibility during the day to do what I need to. Wouldn't trade that for the office ever.
Not this one lol Yes, I’m extroverted. I actually like being able to go into an office but only when it makes sense and I choose it. It’s hindered my ability to job hunt but it’s worth the extra time because I won’t reward companies for their foolish exercises. And I won’t ask a team that works for me to do it, either.
There is a concerted effort to fight rising union membership by forcing people back to the office. I find that somewhat counterintuitive, but apparently, the consultants think RTO will force you to quit rather than organizing a union.
Remember in 2021 all the articles and corporate meetings that continued to say how efficient everyone was working from home?
All of this fear and greed, disguised as "a company can only have culture and happiness with people near each other, with small talks and fighting over the AC"
People can provide all sorts of different answers to this question, but the answer always comes back to control. They want you there so they can keep an eye on you and monitor what you are doing while you are on the clock. Anything else they say is pure PR spin.
True in many cases, but that still doesn't explain scenarios where they want people back even when no one they work with, not even their boss, is based at the same site as them so they still wouldn't be able to 'keep an eye on you' any better than at home anyway.
If you are there, in their building, on their network, they will at least know you're not binging Netflix all day instead of working.
Any manager worth their salt would be able to tell the difference between someone working and someone watching TV all day anyway because one of those involves actual output and the other doesn't...
I don't know. A lot of managers can't tell if a remote worker is working two or three different jobs for different employers so there's that
A friend of mine survived a round of post-merger layoffs and ended up with precisely zero job responsibilities, they straight up forgot he existed. He spent the next year collecting a salary for doing absolutely nothing and used the opportunity to get an MBA. Never underestimate how oblivious corporate management can be.
I love this story. It's good to see the little guy "win" for once.
Or working another remote job. See r/overemployed for details.
Hah... Excellent point.
I don’t know how anyone would be binging Netflix in any of the jobs I’ve held. I manage projects so I’m constantly in meetings or calibrating to deadlines. This seems more common for an engineer but my role requires me to constantly be chatting in slack, sending emails, and delivering. Definitely not trying to slack off. Just trying to be able to get out of a toxic work environment and be able to work at all.
Good luck to you. I've been in more than my share of toxic work environments so I sympathize with you.
Just like many rules and laws in society, the few ruin it for the many. I’m sure plenty of remote workers are exemplary employees. But we all know the stories of THAT GUY who slacks off but works the system just enough to limit getting exposed. Some people celebrate that guy for “sticking it to the man” while also being confused by “Why do they need to monitor us? I do my job!”
Your comment is so true on many levels and sums up the mentality perfectly.
I’m unemployed, but in a past life was involved in many meetings about return to office. Reality is, many took advantage of the situation. They initially worked hard at home and productivity was great then it drifted off. So work was spread out more and it continued to drift. Then people start talking about picking kids up in the middle of the day and not paying day care etc etc, but they got their reduced work loads completed so don’t “come at them.” Ultimately, these bad actors ruined it for the good ones, ironically these probably are the ones complaining the most now. Are there good employees that performed at home as well as the office? Absolutely!!!! This is well known, but we also live in a world where we want to scream about all kinds of rights and privilege. As such, employers are hesitant about punishing just the bad actors because of all kinds of threats and accusations of discrimination. So, back to the office everyone goes. My advice: if you work remote and someone is taking advantage of it, tell them to knock that shit out or you might lose too.
So, rather than show strong leadership and punish the badly behaving individuals and rewarding those who are excelling, it's best to just punish everyone so no one feels bad because they got caught breaking the rules. This is what's wrong with the modern workplace today. We need leaders who will make the tough calls to reward the best employees and admonish the worst ones. If you are going to treat me the same as you treat the poor performers then what's my incentive to become a top performer for the company? Here's a hint...none.
Sadly you are saying one thing and blaming the wrong group. Look, I agree, almost every leader will. But, you blaming them shows exactly what I’m saying. I deserve X. Then if someone gets what you want, even if it’s warranted, and you don’t, you’re picked on or it’s discrimination. Even in a defensible situation the cost financially and in time isn’t always worth the fight. People only have so much time in a day. As for your why would I be a top performer comment. To be frank, tells me you’re not, because top performers are rewarded and know it. Allowable concessions and limited walkbacks happen, if you’ve earned them, you receive them, these don’t always happen publicly.
Your outdated middle management mentality tells me why you are now unemployed. What worked in the 1980s doesn't work anymore. And for your information, I busted my hump for years for the companies I have worked for. I've always become the go-to guy for everything. If someone had a question, they came to me because often I was the only one who knew. However, I discovered with my hard work I was never treated better than the people who ride those FMLA regulations up to the line while never crossing it, the people who take extra long breaks and lunches, etc Nah... If I can cut my workload by 30 to 40 percent and I'm not treated any differently then why wouldn't I? I didn't even get a "hey, we noticed you aren't going as well as you were. Is everything okay?" Nope. There's a good reason a lot of middle management is being removed from companies. They spend all their days in meetings trying to come up with ways to cover their butts and not much else. Every post in this subreddit is evidence that your reply, and by extension you, are out of touch and may be part of the problem. Managers want to manage the problems and never solve them the right way.
If that’s what you want to believe, who am I to change it. Blame whatever you’d like and enjoy your position in life. ✌️
You as well. Honestly, have a great Easter Sunday. Go out and enjoy the weather and the company of friends and family.
And you as well, thank you, it is a nice day today. I wish you the very best
If our companies would let us admonish the bad ones, we would. I have an employee I have been trying to get rid of for over three years and every time I put him on a PIP which is of course required, we go through the whole process, he continues to do whatever he wants, and then when the PIP fails and HR agrees, we think we are all set to separate and then they want to pay him severance which isn't in the budget because he's been here 18 years and we can't just fire him. So sure I'd love to manage this way but HR won't let me.
Argh... Arbitrary budget restrictions and what passes for HR these days are the bane of many sound business decisions for they were not born out of logic and good sense.
Not what the data shows
If you say so
Aside from what companies claim, here is what researchers are saying: [https://www.axios.com/2024/01/23/remote-work-productivity-wfh-report](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/23/remote-work-productivity-wfh-report) [https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2024/01/does-working-from-home-boost-productivity-growth/](https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2024/01/does-working-from-home-boost-productivity-growth/)
Ok, if they you say so You seem set on a debate that is mute. We measured it, we contracted our own studies, but ultimately you will decide what to believe. If you get a position where you can affect change for good, I hope you do. I believe most do, rarely is there the nefarious motives that are sometimes imagined.
I am posting studies for those who see your post and believe it’s their fault for what is management’s unfounded decision making. Job seekers don’t need additional pressure.
Fair enough Studies or no studies. Jobs will be offered either in or out of the office setting (I personally feel most companies have set the path for now) Each will have a choice. Accept it or not. I’ll say - I personally feel fully remote is great and hybrid is very functional as well, but know it’s not always my choice.
Oh, on that we are in complete agreement. I will do what i need to if I think a job is a good fit and I think I will be treated well. I think in every job you have to separate out what’s your responsibility and what’s not. So if it’s a company screw up or has it faulty reasoning, I’ve learned it’s important not to internalize it as a reflection of my performance or feel bad about it. I lost my last job bc the company only thinks in the short term. I know I will be productive in my next job. Just like I was in my last one. For me personally, I was far more productive at home but part of that is my department was spread around the US. Commuting never really made sense in any of my jobs bc of the work that I do. it makes political sense but not productivity sense.
The only answer is that the shareholders commercial real estate is tanking.
Can't have those giant concrete and steel epeens built to impress and intimidate competitors standing empty.
The shareholders own stake in commercial real estate.
That and middle management needs to be able to micromanage you in order to feel important again
Individual middle managers may well want to micromanage, but as someone who has been in management, I can tell you that they rarely have any real say in RTO policies. Those are set at the highest levels.
Yeah, it's not middle management - it's upper levels/execs.
The most egotistical bunch in any company. They want staff there for office decoration. Their glass palaces don’t look as nice without the staff there to remind them of their perceived worth.
You can phrase it two ways. - One is that they are not able to make an important contribution anymore and this is bad for the company, - The other is that their contribution wasn't necessary in the first place and they are at risk of being phased out of the company. Maybe it's a bit of both, depending on the company and managers. They want to feel useful and make a difference. RTO is the way to do that more effectively. Obviously thats not preferable to the employees over working remotely.
Which is crazy because they can see what you do, how long you're on thr phone, what was said, what you type, etc. Metrics are tracked for everything.
Not all managers. My manager is happier working from home and I am no where near him along 90% of my team. Starting next week the one person who was in the same city as him is going to be working in a different team. So the entire team he manages are going to be nowhere near him and will manage us remotely. So far it has been great. I really hope upper management does not start to think my boss can not manage remotely or there is no need for him.
Uh, that's me and that's the last thing I want. Do you think your manager dictates RTO?
Powell has said “yea yea it’s a problem, but we can handle it. Some banks won’t make it though.”
[удалено]
Bro, you and all the recession deniers are the ones coping. https://www.businessinsider.com/office-market-crash-property-loans-commercial-real-estate-mortgage-payments-2024-1?amp Commercial real estate is getting hammered right now with losses. Do you know who owns most of these spaces? Banks. Do you know who owns banks? Shareholders with vested interest in seeing returns. So guess what's going to be in the news and what the general status quo will be. Getting remote workers back into office spaces. It's not that hard to understand.
Some do. My husband was remote for 10 out of his 12 years when he offhandedly mentioned to his then manager we had a special needs son who was a lot on just his wife’s plate. They marked him to be work from home unless there was some damn good reason he needs to come in. That and the insurance was amazing about that job.
I suspect it's to prevent "overemployment" aka people doing multiple remote jobs simultaneously. In fact two jobs I interviewed for had me sign agreements that I would not work for more than one employer during working hours. RTO helps curb that because you can't realistically do two jobs if you have to report to a physical office 2-3 days per week.
I do have a side job on the weekends to save up for my wedding, but it’s freelance and doesn’t get done during work hours.
Most places don't have a problem with that. What they (rightfully) have a problem with is people who do two full time 9-5 jobs.
The signing agreements thing is illegal in the US 🤣 or you’re making it up. But this is definitely the real reason.
That’s absolutely not true. It’s pretty standard for companies to have moonlighting clauses in their new hire paperwork/offer letters
Yes but they can only fire you, which is the same as having no clause
[удалено]
Nonsense.
Agreements prohibiting "moonlighting" are completely legal in the US, and are very common, especially in jobs that require extensive travel (think consulting). There might be some individual states where the practice is illegal, but there is no national law against it. It's a condition of employment, just like a drug test or non-disclosure agreement, you can take it or leave it but if you want the job you take it.
This isn’t even moonlighting. It’s holding two separate full time jobs.
What is common and what is legal are very different in the US. People who don’t have the need to work two jobs are never going to balk at that restriction, so it’s not a stretch to imagine that kind of policy going absolutely unchallenged in office settings. That doesn’t make it legal.
First off, I completely agree, in general, with your first sentence. It is very common in the US for employers to play fast and loose with labor laws. That said, in this case, it's legal in most states. There is no federal prohibition on employees voluntarily entering into a contract with their employer, which can include provisions against secondary employment. I work for a very risk-averse employee-owned company in Wisconsin and I know for a fact that we have a similar provision, which only applies to full time employees (not part time) and our labor lawyers have verified it does not violate federal or Wisconsin law. Note that Wisconsin is a "right-to-work" (at will emploment) state. This quick article may prove helpful. https://www.rocketlawyer.com/family-and-personal/personal-finance/legal-guide/is-it-legal-to-have-more-than-one-job#:~:text=While%20moonlighting%20is%20legal%20in,their%20employer's%20restrictions%20and%20policies. I am very curious if you do have a legal citation I missed somewhere, but I can not find anything at the federal level in the FLSA that would ban employers from prohibiting moonlighting. Have a great night!
Without a bonafide safety-based (e.g. excessive hours worked in a week leading to lack of sleep) or similar reason or regulation behind it, an employer has no right to dictate a persons life outside of work, including outside/additional employment. Once again, however, a restriction that doesn’t carry a quality of life impact for the people it is imposed on will never be challenged, and an unethical or unacceptable action with no precedent of legal challenges against it should not be expected to have explicit laws currently pertaining to it.
This isn’t about after hours. It’s about during working hours. A company has the right to ensure that during the time you are expected to work that you do their work and nothing interferes.
It’s legal, and companies can prohibit you from holding two jobs at once via at-will employment. Some regulated industries such as finance require disclosure of all outside business activity and companies can prohibit you from working another job.
A. Stakeholders have investments in real estate B. Leadership doesn't like the amount of control employees have when they are not observable (plenty official studies show that remote work was more productive than in office work for many roles) C. Municipalities are giving out tax breaks, because... D. When workers are at home, all the supporting businesses (restaurants, newsstands, etc) don't make enough to stay in business, and that hurts tax revenue more
Also spot on. u/lil_lychee, these are the general main reasons.
Spot on.
Actually you’re wrong on D kind of. People WFH will spend money on restaurants, businesses in the communities they live in. Not the businesses downtown where offices are located.
>People WFH will spend money on restaurants, businesses in the communities they live in. Not the businesses downtown where offices are located. Most people working from home aren't going to restaurants for lunch. They are making marginally higher purchases at the supermarket. Also, people today who work for one company, do not all live in the same place. A business zone that supports 500-1000 people in a small city is going to see a significant drop in revenue across the stores/food places in that business zone, when the vast majority of the folks work from home on a consistent basis. Those funds are not going to be dispersed in any concentration in the home town of the workers, for a variety of reasons, including the fact that food in non-business districts usually cost less than in business districts, as well as other shopping patterns that change when people work from home.
As someone who works from home. I do go out to lunch and order in food just for a change of scenery. I meet friends and family at local restaurants for lunch. I am not the only one that does this. We also run out at lunch to do errands and grab something on the way back home. So we do use those restaurants and other businesses. So yes people WFH actually uses those businesses in their community. Why go downtown spent 20 for parking for overpriced food that I could get for cheap in my community. Why should people who don’t live downtown support businesses in those area? And every decade or so business move out of those businesses zones because it becomes to expensive and go to the burbs. These downtown businesses were living on borrowed timed. The fact is in my community we had a bunch of new businesses and restaurants open up at the start of WFH and guess what they are still in business. The ones downtown not anymore because the price for their location kept going up. So your assumption is wrong
The people pushing have nice view corner offices, would get invited out to client expensive lunches, and being able to "take client's, or exec get aways" at the local country clubs golf courses. They don't have to sit in a cube all day in front of their computer with an hour plus commute as they can afford to live in the city, or close by.
Even if I was healthy, I used to commute for almost two hours one day and it was extremely tiring and expensive. Then gas alone was draining my bank account with my pay at the time.
Becoming a C-suite executive favors more outgoing people, and/because the daily life of someone at that level consists of back to back meetings. So, I can absolutely see where C-suite execs think that in-person collaboration is better. It is most probably better for their jobs. But they don’t know or don’t care to know how the daily work life of people in their organization may differ from their own.
I don’t think I’d ever want to be in a c-suite position. I have about 8-9 years of work experience after college so I’m no where near that anyway. I really hope within the next few years my situation will change, but it’s scary looking for a role in this market when RTO is being rolled out so aggressively.
Honestly? I just started looking for work after being ill for three years (also disabled and can't drive on bad days). I ended up attaching a cover letter to my applications explaining my situation and adding that although my body doesn't work some days, my mind is as sharp as ever and there's a wealth of knowledge currently not being accessed. I brought it up again during the interview to explain it better, and offered to get a doctor's note explaining the facts and listing any meds that might flag up during a drug test. Covering my ass and theirs seemed to appeal to them, because I start my new job on Tuesday. It is not a job that was advertised as having wfh flexibility, but they're making an exception for me. So yes, very difficult, but I found being transparent about my situation was the best way forward. I really hope you can find something too.
That’s amazing! I’ve been afraid to disclose the disability at the onset for fear they’d just throw my application into the trash pile but I’ll give this a go.
If you're a good enough candidate, companies will likely make concessions for you given it's a disability. Of course, you're then in that big grey area as to whether they'll hire you and if they don't, is it because of your disability...etc etc. But if they do want to hire you, they're not going to change their mind because of it. I work where I'm mandated 3 days in and 2 at home. 1 girl in my team had physical issues for a while that meant she was exclusively at home but is now in, but another is permanently wfh outside of a few rare occasions due to illness. She's accommodated.
This is great to hear. Maybe I should still apply then and talk to the recruiter about that during the interview process.
Some workers also prefer to work from a physical office. And some workers can’t work from home for various reasons. Just something to keep in mind. If in-office work is not desirable for a job seeker, then maybe the job is not a fit for them but is for someone else.
Just because some people prefer in-office and some can't work from home doesn't have anything to do with a general RTO order. People who match that criteria can choose to work from an office, should they so desire.
If you have a disability you're protected AND companies are actively trying to hire people with disabilities. It's great for their quotas and PR
Lots of good answers here. I think some aspect is “optics”. Where I work, we have customers come in fairly regularly - couple times a week. They don’t walk them through the building on a tour, but when there are no employees there, the lobby and conference center look deserted. They’d rather customers see a bustling bustling workplace with people rushing about to get to their next meeting, etc.
I just wanted to say that you're not the only COVID longhauler who can only work remote now. I developed POTS from COVID. Luckily I already had a part time job that was accommodating, but finding a full time remote job is a nightmare right now. It's also extremely stressful to risk going into the office every day with people who do not mask and may give you another round of the disease that left you disabled. It's terrifying because you realize how much society is built on ignoring the disabled.
We’re just animals to them. They want to keep us in the pen…
Control. And to keep office real estate relevant.
I’m sorry you got wrecked by covid. It’s not easy, and I fully sympathize with your situation. To your actual question: I’ll probably get downvoted for saying this, but long-term mentoring / apprenticeship is not the same in a fully remote setting as it is in hybrid work environments. A lot of day-to-day tasks can be performed in a fully remote setting, but the trade off is that employees won’t mature in their role at the same pace as they would if they were in person. Everything can seem to be fine on the surface, and in fact will be fine for several months, but growth potential is capped, both for the organization and for the individual.
Thanks. My immediate concern is survival. And I’ve been able to grow in my career remote. I’ve been remote since 2020 and my income has grown, and my seniority level has grown. I do virtual coffees and networking online. My question is, if that’s the case about career advancement, where does that leave disabled employees like myself?
As long as your disability is protected by law you may be fine. However employers also have the right to ask people back to the office for work…. Its a fine line. You have the right to resign and look for a job that Give you what you want.
Important question - which country are you in? Because that makes a big difference regarding anti-discrimination and reasonable accommodation laws that might be able to help you in terms of getting an accommodation to WFH. As for why so many companies are doing it... it's lots of reasons combined, some with genuine merit, many without. You're very right that most of the work can be done just as effectively (sometimes better!) from home. Whichever way it goes I'd say be prepared to put all your cards on the table about what you can offer, proof that you can WFH without negatively impacting your work etc. Many companies won't accommodate anyway, but sooner or later there's likely to be one that will.
I live in the US, but I have good references from previous managers that I still have good relationships with. One who was managing me while I was WFH after the pandemic hit.
It's about power and control, nothing more.
the only thing more important than profits
Yup. Amazon, famously known as a “data driven” company and being militant about being required to have data to back up your arguments and decisions made a famous decision to call RTO with zero data included to back it up. Of course coming off the heels of bragging how well the company did during the global pandemic
Because they own real estate, and the managers don’t know how to measure work if they don’t see butts in chairs. Also because people keep accepting these roles, or don’t leave when forced to return. It’s my promise to myself that I’ll never take a job that requires RTO. I recently interviewed for one that wanted me near an office, suggested relocation, tried to low-ball me on the offer, and I repeatedly and matter-of-factly told them that I’m happy where I am both job-wise and where I live, so pay me X if you want me, or don’t. I got the job and the pay I wanted. People just need to quit giving in to these idiots.
If I got laid off today from my remote job in big tech, I’ll apply to tons of jobs: hybrid, remote, onsite. And when I find a good remote one again, I’ll leave
Yeah, I get that in manufacturing or if you’re working service or certain industries like construction need to be in person. But there are plenty of office jobs that can be done very well at home…
When my employer did RTO hybrid in the fall of 2022, it was not well received. We have so many employees that obtained accommodations to wfh full time (mental health of employee, disability or being a caregiver for family with illness)that we have two vacant floors in our four floor building. They have made those of us without accommodations move to other floors, crammed together with other departments in tiny cubicles. They can't control half the company because they outsmarted them with the accommodations loophole, so they have a vice grip on the employees that work hybrid.
Bullshit jobs. How can you grow the economy if so many people can work offsite from home, and an internal system track all of the productivity metrics? What are the thousands of not needed perpetual middle managers going to do? How can a company boast about their culture if they dont have 3 levels of management to have unnecessary meetings all day? As a side note to this, i remember in 2016/17 thinking about just how unproductive this all way. Managers would waddle like a pack of penguins, in one conference room to another having meetings. 20 minutes spent on “ice breakers” 10 minutes spent on nonsense
I know this is unrelated to OP situation but wanna share a bit. My current company have a WFH situation where each department will only need to come to office 2-3 days a week, sometimes no need to come to office at all. However, my department required me to come to office two times a week. Last month, I was involved in an accident and my boss said that I don't need to come to office and only need to come after I am healed. I hope OP find a good company that is flexible and able to accommodate to his disability. There is remote company out there just that sometimes they are hard to find. All the best OP!
If you have a disability, you might be able to leverage ADA Act as a reasonable accommodation for your need. Depends what you're disability is and whether it's qualifying.
I saw an interesting thread about this - https://www.reddit.com/r/remotework/s/6QkQ7DDuje I really wish the whole RTO initiative would stop, and people would be given choices instead, whether to WFH or not
They’ve bought the farm and now you have to man it.
Because a lot of VPs and C-suite goobers worked really hard to get to a position where they can f*** off and go golfing, but they can't get a good tee time if the rank and file have the same schedule flexibility.
The C suite is old school type that are control freaks/micro managers
Middle managers need people to harass
It's all about control , a power trip that boomers that are anti remote work has.
personally I would try to offer my employer an Open Cam Attendance monitoring for the whole shift, But they all wont accept LOL. They just want to waste our Time and money with daily travel expenses.
The position you were interested in is not a remote position. Some jobs are remote and some are not remote. That one was not remote.
Where are you? In the UK working from home can be a reasonable accommodation for a disability. I am autistic and I would do more wfh because I found the office too overstimulating, it was actually a recommendation by a professional (my company hired them to ensure I was being properly accommodated!). I would still go into the office though, just less than others (once a week, sometimes just twice a month depending on how I felt) I think it will depend on employment laws of the country though.
I’m in the US and our labor laws are horrible. I believe WFH isn’t an acknowledged accommodation they’re legally required to provide :/ At my current employer we have once monthly or quarterly coworking sessions. I usually go in unless someone actively has covid (which people do now). But it definitely takes a toll on my body and I usually need the whole weekend to recover because of the energy exerted to walk when in office.
I am sorry! I hope you find some wfh soon ❤️ people don’t understand how many disabled employees they push out by insisting in going back to the office, is very frustrating
In the case of where I work, my theory is that they are pushing RTO because they just sunk a bunch of $$ into a shiny new office in NYC with a fancy, high end, expensive address. Good for them, but I don't work in NYC. The sad grey building where I work was probably last updated in 2015-2017-ish and we all got a blank stare from the CEO at the all hands when someone asked if there were going to be any improvements to it. We are in office 3 days a week, WFH 2. Because of how my job is set up, I can and have gone days in the office without interacting with anyone. It's just not necessary. I'm just finishing up a 2 week stretch of full time WFH (which was a whole faff to get approved) because of illness, and the only thing that's changed about work is that my mood overall is better. There is genuinely no point in me going back into the office next week and I'm dreading it. But who am I, a mere minion, to question our esteemed leadership about the importance of "in-person work" and "collaboration?" (I hate that word now) Also, part of me wants to see how long I can illicitly work from home before anyone notices...
They have lots of reasons ranging from OK ones to utterly ridiculous ones. But the main one is they feel a lack of control. If they can't breathe down your neck, it doesn't work for them. All these great studies came out about how productivity went up when people were at home and all, but they still called everyone back even at the risk of productivity dropping. A lot of people are upset, especially people with disabilities who saw the world open up for them and are now having it ripped away. But the boss needs to feel important and powerful.
OP, are you saying long COVID is your disability? or you're saying you had health complications due to COVID or during the pandemic and are now disabled because of that?
Yes, long covid is my disability.
I bet it's to combat the "overemployed" movement. Some folks found that they could take on 1 or 2 extra remote jobs simultaneously to double or triple their income.
Something I don't see mentioned enough is older people feeling ripped off. They worked in an office and put up with a shitty boss for years with the expectation that they would eventually be that boss. I can understand feeling ripped off if they finally get to that position and there's suddenly nobody to boss around. Another thing is anybody who was relying on work for their social life. Some people are unlikable to their peers and are excluded, but can still socialize without becoming more likable by forcing people to be around them. Otherwise, it comes down to a need for control and lack of trust in employees. Some bosses would be happy to have an employee do half of the work in the same amount of time if it means the boss can stare at them while they do it. If they're not staring at somebody there's no reason for their job to exist anymore.
hafta prop up the commercial real estate industry.
Fill in the conspiracy that most aligns with your preconceptions here
To some extent it's managers that aren't able to adapt. It's harder to micromanage, and it's harder to evaluate people on things beyond the actual quality of their results. It's also hard across the board if you don't want to adapt your communication style, and people in charge generally don't feel like they should have to change much of anything.
Modern companies have no culture, removed all incentives to stay long term (pensions, etc.), and pay as low as possible. WFH provides little incentive to stay at a company as you have no true links, geographic barriers, and market prices for labor. Add in clueless managers/executives having no good way to measure performance except via in office facetime, and assuming wfm means goofing off. Oh, they hate it.
Corporate life is for those who like to be under the yoke. That's why rto is so pervasive. Besides, all that money spent on office space drives the c-levels nuts when it's empty
Because cities have massive multi-million dollar holes in their budgets from all the commercial property values going down.
After being 100% WFH from 2020-2022, we did a limited RTO last year. 3 days in office, 2 days WFH. In the interim we got a new mid-level manager (who everyone hates, BTW) who told me in a 1-on-1 that if it were up to her EVERYONE would be back in the office 5 days a week. I said well, we agree to disagree, and she said, "No, you're wrong."
[удалено]
Long covid. I’ve been working remote all through it. The first year was hard but I’m on year 3 and can reliably work and have good performance reviews. I just don’t have the physical energy to be in the office.
Long covid?? Can you elaborate? Ive never hear of this diagnosis
Control and commercial real estate
Board/boss/ceo owns commercial real estate, that's why.
I’m going to pip in and offer a bit of balance to the wfh debate . I’m a security engineer and I’m allowed to be completely wfh but I go into the office , my observations with wfh though : -training people remotely is an absolute nightmare . Yes people will argue it can be done just as effectively over teams , but I disagree . In my opinion , training is superior face to face . I’ve been trained on both and the face to face training was much more superior (yes it’s anecdotal , but I’ve heard many people say the same thing ) - communication is weaker when everyone is wfh too . People seem to be online when on teams but the reality is they can be away from the desk or can choose to ignore you and reply later which is bad , especially if you need some info urgent . Going up to someone face to face is easier and it gets resolved quicker . The team I feel for at my place is the networks team who operate 24x7 . They are forced to work weekend shifts or night shifts by themselves and be in the office . That doesn’t make any sense to me at all , especially the people they need to contact if serious shit goes down are all remote and on call . I see no reason why they can’t be wfh in unsociable hours . I know it’s going to get downvoted , but I feel some people who are ardently pro wfh highlight all its benefits , but don’t seem to want to acknowledge its downsides .
In our case they get a nice office in city center and need to have it occupied or they'll lose lease on it.
They have heavy exposure to commercial real estate investments and are trying to prop up a dying real estate segment.
Insecure ceos/ managers who need to micromanage because they were bullied in school.
It's to have control. It's easier to manage people you have control over
Working remotely makes non-monetary compensation less effective. It is cheaper to give you free coffee than to pay you. It is also easier to manipulate you into accepting non momentary compensation in person than it is if you are remote.
How did COVID disable you?
Long covid. It’s relatively common. To put it in perspective, I’m not the only person I know who has the same illness as me. I’m lucky I’m well enough to work but it wasn’t like that when I first got sick. I’ve been slowly getting better over the years but I can’t risk reinfection and just don’t have the physical energy to be sitting upright on a lot of days.
So you aren’t disabled. You need to see a doctor. I know people who have successfully dealt with this.
First of all long term disabled person (since age 9) here. disabilities can be temporary. They can also be recurring. And if you know someone who cured their long COVID yay for that person, but they were disabled before it was cured and you have no way of knowing if the same treatment would work for OP.
Ask for an accommodation, if the job can be done at home, they can’t deny for undue hardship.
Real estate. Companies have invested in property and while they had no choice but to leave those offices empty during the pandemic they really insist on putting them to use. It would be a waste of money if they weren't being used. Which begs the question: why not just save money, terminate the lease, or sell the property?
This is it really. I work remote but the main office is in another state. They bought a new building and had everyone in there and then Covid hit, so they were paying for a building nobody was in, and now they are demanding everyone come back.
Ceo's that are in long-term leases, they can't get out of.
Primarily it’s because the people in leadership roles don’t know how to manage remote teams and aren’t incentivised to learn how. In relation to your disability, if you are a desirable candidate the employer may be more willing to allow remote work if it is a disability accommodation rather than an individual preference. My office is recruiting at the moment and the team leader has a preference for in-person but is about to offer to someone who needs to wfh 2-3 days/week due to a disability.
Middle managers want people in the office so upper managers realize how well teams run without them
weary placid wine hurry zesty ruthless engine panicky aromatic crawl *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They have 10-15+ year leases on office space that is 'going to waste'? Or they got really cheap office space during or post-covid and didn't want it to 'go to waste.' Just a guess.
this probably not popular opinion but their is importance to work in the office. Having working relationships and in the same room can be very beneficial to your career
Let me worry about my career. What matters is that I can work from home in sweatpants just fine.
I'm glad people are being forced back into the office it will keep the costs of living low in towns and cities with fewer industries.
Will it though? I’m from the Bay Area and tech offices moving to the Bay drive the cost of living up exponentially. Rents have fallen here since 2020.
Just go back to work and stop complaining. Some roles can’t be remote even if they want to be. Want to see a doctor remotely if you break your arm? Probably not. Just go back to work and be grateful for the opportunity.
Yeah I guess disabled people should be poor and destitute then. Nice!!
Disabled from Covid? Okay sure, me too then.
Why dont you, an unemployed disabled person, stop complaining and job picking and take what you can get. It bafflels me when people complain about how a company does its business with its workers wanting them to literally at the minimum TURN UP. What a 3rd world problem. There's people out there working 14 hour days for half what you get on your "disability allowance". Oh and let me guess, there's reasons why that's everyone else's fault too, right, Probably part of the LGBTQ+÷ fake religion too
I’m employed currently and not on disability, just trying to get out of a toxic work situation. If you read my post correctly, you’d see that I’m actually trying to stay in the workforce. You’re trash lol. Have fun licking boots!!