... And then they came for WFH

[herzlos]

Sept 2, 2023 4:39:46 GMT -5 Haighus said:

With things like this, I am reminded of the approximately 60%:40% extrovert:introvert split.

There are definitely some people who enjoy the social aspect of being in the office, and they may even be in the majority.

But there is still a significant minority of people who get drained by extraneous social interaction, and I am confident they are the folks who prefer WFH on the whole. From my own (introvert) perspective, it is definitely one of the benefits of being at home.

Of course you can get that social aspect without being in the office full time. Assuming it's sort of co-ordinated and you overlap with people you can still get that 1 or 2 days a week, which is more than enough for my social battery.

Though it does look kind of terrible; I'm in the office 2 days a week and I spend most of that chatting to people, but realistically I'm just condensing 5 days of scattered distractions into 2, and office workers are apparently only something like 40% productive anyway.

I'm not sure how I feel about 100% remote jobs, and how to handle starting at companies, since I worked in my office full time for like 15 years before covid hit I'm already on pretty friendly terms with everyone that was already there pre-covid.

We're likely to see more 100% remote jobs; a few of our engineers have arranged it already, and since we're looking to recruit for fairly niche roles we're advertising outside of the standard commute. I guess it'll work a lot better with experienced senior staff that you can almost treat like a contractor on payroll. It must be a nightmare for the junior staff who could really benefit from having closer support from peers.

[mdgv2]

In my role, there are genuine advantages to being in the office. For instance, if I need to listen to calls, our software won’t allow me to cue up multiple recordings to listen to in turn. So if I’m trying to figure out if it’s the same voice across multiple calls, I just can’t really do it.

Instead, I wait until I’m in the office, grab the requisite number of colleagues, and a meeting room. Every drops into the case, and queues (cues?) up a specific call. We listen to each in turn, and then have a consensus as to whether shenanigans are afoot.

Likewise it can be useful to have immediate brain picking, such as their take on ambiguous evidence.

But, I must stress, those don’t come up all the time, and once a week is usually plenty.

[mdgv2]

Of course, the important thing is that those who prefer to be in the office? Can be in the office, as often as they want.

[pacific]

Yes that's it - just don't force it on the rest of us lol.

A lot of the articles being quoted by easye are US based. I wonder if we will start to see a EU/US split with this sort of thing? As US employment law seems to heavily favour the employer in most other areas, why would this be any different? "Come into the office or you are fired" is not something that could ever be said in most EU countries.

The counterpoint to this is the immense costs involved in maintaining work premises and facilities for staff - 'efficiencies' tend to push businesses and markets in a certain direction, and if company A is more productive at a lower cost than Company B as a result of more home working, company B needs to try and sort itself out. So in that case you need some sort of demagogue in charge of the company, or for it to be turned into some sort of culture-war shit or partisan issue (as no doubt the Republicans will try). With the Tories in charge in the UK, they have already tried this where they are able, which is absolutely not a surprise to anyone.

[herzlos]

I think there may be some fudging there. I'm assuming the number of employees in an office will usually be a factor in how expensive that office is, and the occupation count will be a factor in how necessary that office is.

So if you were to cut your 'in office' workforce, the cost of the offices goes up, proportionally.
Ditto if you cut the office days in a way that impacts occupancy i.e. You have the home and office days evenly distributed so the place is always at 40% capacity instead of having it full 2 days and empty 3, then that'll make the office appear to be too big.

Rationally, that doesn't make any sense because a $1m/year office is still $1m/year whether you're keeping a chair warm or not, but for business/budget metrics it may be beneficial for a manager to have his per-head count under $x or his occupancy level above y%. Especially if budget cuts / redundancies are considered, because it's likely easier to close the "under utilized" offices.

For instance, my desk is largely a waste of real estate because on the days I am in, I'm sure I could comfortably just share a hot desk, and I'm in a lot of meetings anyway, but it probably makes more sense for my boss to pretend I use it daily.

[mdgv2]

I think the central argument is businesses need to realise maintaining an office is an expense no longer completely necessary.

And it’s not just the lease cost. It’s taxes, electric, gas, water in, water out, parking lots, security staff, front desk staff, cleaners, maintenance, furniture etc.

Now don’t get me wrong. Like I dare say many Big Yins in business, I’m of a pre-Internet vintage. Certainly I completed my education with only the barest use of computers. So being somewhat short sighted and unaware of the full potential is understandable. And to some extent, it is scary.

I’m sure we all have, or have had, colleagues who will take any opportunity to slack off unless they’re being observed. So again, there is some genuine concern to be had there. Particularly in the UK where it’s difficult and time consuming to sack someone, unless they blatantly deserve it (such as, I dunno, being in a position of responsibility, accessing a password protected file you shouldn’t have, that just happens to include the entire organisation’s performance reviews……).

But that’s judging all by the worst, which is never justified.

[pacific]

I had heard from a chap in finance that one of the offices my place has closed now was costing upwards of £11 million a year to operate. Very hard to justify when you are barely achieving 25% capacity (to be fair, it was struggling along even before Covid - that just sounded the death-knell).

This is one of the main reasons why there has not been a whole-sale return to offices in certain sectors, and unless it's strictly necessary for the industry/job role.

[easye]

A lot of those office buildings are not treated as pure expense. They are also treated as an asset with accounting benefits like depreciation involved. Therefore, removing them from a companies balance sheet is not always a win, especially if you try to sell them in a down market now and the asset can't be sold for what you have been claiming it is worth.

US tax treatment of property like offices and store fronts can be really weird, and sometimes you can benefit from keeping a place empty for a long time, sometimes selling it is worse than owning it, and other situations that mean that the market is not as simple as Econ 101 would have you believe.

I have seen it first hand in rural areas where landlords do not even bother trying to get tenants or rent them out because it is just as valuable in their portfolio to be "losing" money on the property!

[pacific]

Wow that is interesting.. I wonder if some of that comes from having a luxury of lots of space for development? In the UK at least it's often at a premium, and un-used buildings can be re-used for housing if they are in a good location. Apparently wrecking balls are going to be coming in to my old place - it was a big old building, probably at least space for several hundred houses, and fairly close to a city centre, so it will be worth an enormous amount of money.

[redchimera]

Sept 5, 2023 9:41:48 GMT -5 easye said:

A lot of those office buildings are not treated as pure expense. They are also treated as an asset with accounting benefits like depreciation involved. Therefore, removing them from a companies balance sheet is not always a win, especially if you try to sell them in a down market now and the asset can't be sold for what you have been claiming it is worth.

US tax treatment of property like offices and store fronts can be really weird, and sometimes you can benefit from keeping a place empty for a long time, sometimes selling it is worse than owning it, and other situations that mean that the market is not as simple as Econ 101 would have you believe.

I have seen it first hand in rural areas where landlords do not even bother trying to get tenants or rent them out because it is just as valuable in their portfolio to be "losing" money on the property!

It's drifting OT, but this is why a lot of UK high streets are losing shops. Commercial landlords would rather keep a property empty rather than lower the rent (and therefore it's value as an investment) to make it easier for a business to move in.

[Haighus]

Sept 6, 2023 8:59:39 GMT -5 pacific said:

Wow that is interesting.. I wonder if some of that comes from having a luxury of lots of space for development? In the UK at least it's often at a premium, and un-used buildings can be re-used for housing if they are in a good location. Apparently wrecking balls are going to be coming in to my old place - it was a big old building, probably at least space for several hundred houses, and fairly close to a city centre, so it will be worth an enormous amount of money.

It may be a difference in who owns the property too. If you lease the property, it is likely much less advantageous to hold on to than if you own it. Possibly also differences in taxation structure between the UK and US.

[easye]

As federal workers are ordered back to their offices, pockets of resistance remain

www.npr.org/2023/09/07/1196787623/federal-workers-remote-office-ordered-taxpayers-telework-science

Early this year, House Republicans decided enough is enough.

"The federal workforce needs to get back to work," said Kentucky Rep. James Comer just before a vote on his bill, the SHOW UP Act, which aimed to bring federal workers back into their offices.

"Federal agencies are falling short on their missions. They are not carrying out their duties. They are failing the American people."

Even with COVID once again on the rise, the push for more in-person work has taken on a more urgent tone, even in workplaces that have allowed employees to remain largely remote since the onset of the pandemic in 2020.

That includes the federal government — the nation's largest employer — where, according to a report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office, building occupancy at 17 agencies (nearly 3 out of 4 of those examined) was at 25% or less as recently as March this year.

Aware of rising complaints about the government's ability to provide taxpayers with services they rely on, the White House has stepped up the pressure.

"This is a priority of the President – and I am looking to each of you to aggressively execute this shift in September and October," wrote White House chief of staff Jeff Zients in a memo to cabinet members last month.

In some corners of the federal government, the orders have led to clashes, as management and employees remain at odds over what the future should look like.

[easye]

www.cnn.com/2023/10/24/business/rebecca-pearce-risk-taker/index.html

This executive has a unique return-to-office strategy. Here’s how it’s going

“We want people to want to be [at the office]. We do not want them to have to be forced to be there,” Pearce told CNN. “At the end of the day, we don’t believe that just being in an office is what helps people to be happy, productive, collaborative [and] innovative.”

In theory, letting more than 2,600 managers who work directly with their employees call the shots sounded like a win-win. Autodesk employees were less likely to stage a massive walkout like Amazon workers did in May after the company began requiring employees to return to offices three days a week. The company also presumably wouldn’t lose nearly half of its workforce, which is what happened to LGBTQ dating app Grindr after it announced a return-to-office mandate.

However, the program risked letting all employees work from home or any other remote location. And that would have left Autodesk with unused office space and leases that wouldn’t be up for renewal for years.

But, Pearce conceded, “we are going to say to employees from time to time, ‘Hey, we think you need to be here for the next few months in person because it’s going to accelerate your success and it’s going to accelerate our success.’”

Nevertheless, Pearce was not keen to give the appearance that Autodesk was looking for “an easy way to get talent” through offering such a flexible and attractive work arrangement, she told CNN.

[mdgv2]

So thanks to anxiety related to driving 70 miles on Arsehole Motorway with Truckers That Don’t Give A Fuck, I’m probably getting out of having to go into the office.

Therapist is doing me a letter, and if needs be I’ll get that ratified by a Consulting Psychiatrist.

It’s not like my productivity and quality has been higher than ever since WFH became reality.

[skyth]

That wouldn't get me out of having to go into the office 3 days a week where I work...They've been denying most Reasonable Accommodation requests.