I miss WFH

In reply to Steve_Jones :t

I've suggested and thought of this.  

Me being funny here l, you have fake coworkers that come and go over time.  

Conersation to wife; hey dear? Jeff on desk #3 is going to Disney over Thanksgiving- said it's a good day.   Should we go?  

In reply to Beer Baron :

SV reX said:

CrustyRedXpress said:

SV reX said:

CrustyRedXpress said:

It's definitely yet another way that knowledge workers are privileged in society and there are a massive number of things we as a society can and should do to make things easier for no-collar and blue collar workers. 

I'm with Duke. I'd really like to hear some of these ideas. 

Haha! Sorry guys, I love you lots but that would turn political real quick.

I see no reason why "What are some things we can do to make things easier for blue collar workers?" should need to turn political. Why can't we have an honest discussion about solutions?

Because a significant portion of those solutions would involve public policy. Probably federal programs and regulations. Such things would cost money. People will argue based on their politics about how those funds are raised and/or programs being administered by the public vs. private sector.
 

I'd still love to hear about this WFH solution for blue collar workers. What am I missing? I can't think of a single blue collar job that could be done from home due to the very nature of the work. Or is this just about making things "fair" for blue collar workers? If so, are we using 40+ year old opinions on blue collar vs. white collar workers? Because things have changed quite a bit in the last few decades. Many blue collar workers are highly paid, while many white collar jobs are lower paid jobs. White collar office positions have replaced blue collar factory jobs in our economy. The old idea of getting a white collar job being a key to success is not what it used to be. Also, many white collar jobs are under threat by A.I..

We will never equalize that work from home is nice for those in a position that lends to utilizing it and that there are positions that just wont work for it...  Over time, it might drive wages for work from home positions down due to demand, thats pretty much it...  Just like a good plumber can make six figures, much of the reason is few people want to be a plumber for lower wages...

For me, does it make sense to travel to the cube farm to stare at the same laptop screen doing the same things I can do at home?  Before the pandemic, we struggled with getting conference rooms in the office for meetings, so teams has been a saving grace there. The few days I have been in the office, many meetings are still via teams because its easier to coordinate and there is less time pulling things together and getting people to the conference room. Not to mention the distraction of everyone else's conversation in the cube farm. 

Yes, I have things that take me into the office every month or so. But every day?  An arbitrary 2 days a week?   A lot of wasted effort there. 

I guess a short version of how I feel is.  Just because something new that works well for a subset of jobs cannot be applied  across the board doesnt mean that it shouldnt happen. 

In reply to Apexcarver :

I think the problem is grouping whole clumps of the workforce together in one big basket. It's not if you CAN do the same work if you WFH, it's if you MUST do the same work if you work from home. Lots of people can work from home, but when they got the opportunity, their work suffered. Of those that had a shared work load, many learned that if they didn't do it, someone else will. When enough of the group did the same, productivity as a whole dropped.

I can think of dozens of groups that I work with that this happened to. Pre-WFH, a call to the group was immediately answered and addressed. They couldn't just sit in their cubicle farm and ignore their ringing phones, their supervisor would freak out. But once WFH started, that is exactly what happened. Instead of a dozen cubicle phones ringing, a dozen home phones rang. And the workers let them ring, hoping someone else would get it. Those people had the chance to show that they could work from home, and blew it. They just proved why they need a supervisor. This was more common than not with shared responsibility jobs. Hourly, 9-5 employees just trying to get to the end of the day. It wasn't all of them- it was often the same few people that I got through to time after time. But the group as a whole failed the experiment. 
 

On the other side are the people who have individual responsibilities and workload. Usually salaried employees. They have to answer their calls, they have to do their work- no one else is going to do it for them. As for their individual production, they often went up with WFH. Since they weren't commuting, they often started earlier or worked later to get the work done. Which is one of the downsides of WFH for some, a less clear line of when the work day starts and ends. 

On another not from WFH note, 

I've been at the office 4 days, with zero piss or diarrhea on the seat. It was unusual if a day went by without that, so I'll call my signs a success. I'm a firm believer in calling people out for their E36 M3, and this is why. If nobody does, it just continues.

Boost_Crazy said:

On the other side are the people who have individual responsibilities and workload. Usually salaried employees. They have to answer their calls, they have to do their work- no one else is going to do it for them. As for their individual production, they often went up with WFH. Since they weren't commuting, they often started earlier or worked later to get the work done. Which is one of the downsides of WFH for some, a less clear line of when the work day starts and ends. 

Yep that's way we are, except the salaried part (tech writers are hourly, managers are salaried). But we are effectively treated that way, need to run some errands, doctor visit, etc, during the day, go do it. No managers are asking people to log the time you're gone.  We are treated like adults, so as long as you're getting you're stuff done and scheduling things around meetings you need to be in, no one cares. 

About 6 months into WFH in 2020, our productivity had increased so much our SVP told us we needed to step away from our computers more. 

Toyman! said:

OHSCrifle said:

Duke said:

Toyman! said:

Duke said:

Apexcarver said:

In reply to Toyman! :

Unless you work for yourself, not since 2018. They closed that deduction 

Plus, most folks don't have a dedicated home office, they have their dining room table, or a desk in a spare bedroom.

Everyone I know that is WFH have dedicated offices set up. Most are in spare bedrooms or the FROG.

I'm not familiar with FROG.

FROG is a Charleston, SC region term which means finished room over garage. 

Interesting. I had no idea that was a local acronym.  

Yep. I've lived in a bunch of places (including Summerville 1998-2002) and the low country was the only place I've seen that term. 

Maybe doctors can WFH:

Literally driving to my first in person/ in office role interview in years today. 
 

my company has pulled back heavily from work from home. I don't live near a "hub" office.  No firings yet. But no promotions and raises are stumped. The writing is on the wall. 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

So, for those who can WFH well, the increased output may lead to reductions in the workforce?  That's something I wouldn't have considered...

In reply to SV reX :

Well, we are hiring at my work right now. One big deal is that the ability to hire remote workers has helped DRASTICALLY improve the quality of candidates we get. 

@Apexcarver what type of work do you do?

Apexcarver said:

In reply to SV reX :

Well, we are hiring at my work right now. One big deal is that the ability to hire remote workers has helped DRASTICALLY improve the quality of candidates we get. 

My office is having a very hard time hiring.  They're requiring in-office work and of the few candidates that are showing up for roles here, nobody is accepting the offers that were made to the couple that seemed like they would actually be good employees.  They know that they would have more options in candidates if they allowed for remote work but they won't accept it.  It's really strange and it's hurting our department.

Press: I hate to go all capitalist about it, but something's gotta give if they won't. Fact is that a job that's more than happy with WFH just gets more people in the door and is a huge benefit with how chaotic life can become- speaking of... 

ShawnG said:

Maybe doctors can WFH:

Jokes aside, yeah actually! Telehealth is not only becoming a big damn deal, but is also means the physically handicapped can now become doctors or have patient care options. I've known of at least one Infectious disease provider who has kept working despite a neurological disorder this way.

SV reX said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

So, for those who can WFH well, the increased output may lead to reductions in the workforce?  That's something I wouldn't have considered...

Thankfully it's not the case for us. As we keep growing and hiring. Our pay is a bit behind competitors, but we also didn't lay anyone off last year or this year, unlike the huge layoffs you saw from other companies that went on massive hiring sprees throughout the pandemic. So essentially trading a lower salary for more stability, Dec will be 7 years with the current gig.

In reply to z31maniac :

Is 7 years good?

Average length of stay at my company is over 15 years. Every employee who came over from another company in 1997 still works here (except for those who have retired)

75 employees. None of us work from home. 

In reply to GIRTHQUAKE :

They are aware and I'm just waiting to see when their resolve breaks.  Right now we're extremely limited in on-deck certification talent due to someone finally retiring (for real this time, with lots of forewarning) and they're having to use a contract guy charging about 5x my hourly rate.  They told him he needed to work in the office and he told them no unless he actually needed to be here, like to sign something in ink or witness a test.  They relented.  It seems very self-harming on management's part.  And the peasants are noticing that 'special people' get to work from home as a regular thing but they don't.

I had a recruiter contact me in the last few days about a job two time zones away from where I live.  I asked if remote was available, he said no, but hoped I would consider relocation and asked if I knew anyone else that might be interested.  I told him no, I don't know anyone 2000 miles away from where I live that is looking for work, and wished him the best of luck.  I feel like this is all a weird waste of time.

SV reX said:

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

So, for those who can WFH well, the increased output may lead to reductions in the workforce?  That's something I wouldn't have considered...

ehh.. I don't see that.. WFH can attract higher levels of talent that can be done before.  The big issue is that all of these companies have huge office buildings they are paying for and they are empty...   So.. They want to fill them back up.

Walmart is throwing hundreds of millions at making Bentonville a great place to live and work.. and it is..  but remote employees make this a problem..

Target and best buy have gone the opposite way and are offering remote to nearly eveyrone.. They are now trying to dump office space for pennys on the dollar.

Personally.. I'd love a hybrid setup.  I have no office near me and would like flexibility to live and lead a team as they see fit. 

Demanding returns to office and tracking badge scans like Amazon is doing is just a shadow layoff.  My old company, a major aerospace company, is doing the same now.. 

SV reX said:

In reply to z31maniac :

Is 7 years good?

Average length of stay at my company is over 15 years. Every employee who came over from another company in 1997 still works here (except for those who have retired)

75 employees. None of us work from home. 

The current average is just over 4 years for men, and just under 4 years for women. 

Most "office" jobs have to move every so often to get worthwhile raises. Most companies once they have you, you get paltry raises that barely keep up with inflation. I worked at a defense company that they raises were so small and the cost of their healthcare kept rising, that 2 years in a row, I ended up taking home less money than the year before. 

I left. 

With my current gig the base pay hasn't gone up much, but they have doled out hundreds of RSU's over the years to make up for it. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/return-to-office-crackdown-tech-jobs-at-risk-2023-8

dis what i'm saying.... 

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

With all the talk of a slowing economy, I wonder if they are doing this so they can justify a reduction in their workforce without paying unemployment. They can then show that employees are not complying with company directives were given months to do so and were justifiably fired. Even better a lot of them will just quit. It's a win/win if you need to get rid of some people.

In reply to Toyman! :

thats exactly it..  people hired over pandemic got insane salary bumps...  letting a few of them walk wouldn't hurt.  

In reply to Fueled by Caffeine :

You are touching on something that may turn out to be the trigger causing an economic downturn. 
 

Commercial real estate. 
 

A lot of these buildings are leased (creating a 2nd tier of business that own, lease, and manage properties).   Many financial institutions have a lot of commercial real estate on their balance sheets.
 

Commercial businesses have always had long term leases. 5 years or more.

When the pandemic started, they had no choice but to send people home.  But they had to continue paying their rent. 
 

Now, many of those long term leases are beginning to expire. WFH may have been good for a lot of employees, but it showed businesses that they didn't need the commercial real estate.  (And perhaps some of the staff)

Businesses are gonna start refusing to renew their leases.  This will put a big hurt on financial institutions who carry a lot of commercial real estate on their balance sheets. Which will put a lot of pressure on the economy. 
 

Rinse, repeat.

GIRTHQUAKE said:

Press: I hate to go all capitalist about it, but something's gotta give if they won't. Fact is that a job that's more than happy with WFH just gets more people in the door and is a huge benefit with how chaotic life can become- speaking of... 

ShawnG said:

Maybe doctors can WFH:

Jokes aside, yeah actually! Telehealth is not only becoming a big damn deal, but is also means the physically handicapped can now become doctors or have patient care options. I've known of at least one Infectious disease provider who has kept working despite a neurological disorder this way.

Telehealth was also a big part of the last job I worked, in company-wide meetings they liked to point out that one of the doctors with the most patient visits was working from some tropical vacation destination, although I'm kind of concerned that they were rewarding doctors by the sheer number of visits they could crunch through...

Edit: In terms of real estate, the software department of this company where I worked sold their larger building and kept their smaller one, and had more people working than there were seats in the remaining building, but still sent up RTO trial balloons after this.

The potential impact to the commercial real estate market keeps getting talked about; https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/13/investing/remote-work-impact-real-estate/index.html and the numbers talked about here are repeated elsewhere (not saying they're right or wrong, just talked about a lot).

There's a lot of potentially interesting ways that this might work out.