Maybe some group selection bias happening here. People who are less interested in climbing the corporate ladder choose remote work situations as a way of prioritizing life outside of work.

YouBet said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Maybe some group selection bias happening here. People who are less interested in climbing the corporate ladder choose remote work situations as a way of prioritizing life outside of work.

---

Probably and that should be fine for a career path as long as people realize that going into it. I'm just thinking back to all the people during COVID who went full-time remote and then demanded that they should be treated the exact same as someone who went into the office every day.

Maybe, but that isn't reality and they shouldn't expect equal treatment in that situation. And I do feel for the younger folks starting out who are not getting the OTJ learning and coaching they would have received pre-COVID who desire that. For the younger folks who want to be 100% remote and still expect to get that kind of learning...they are simply naive.

---

I agree fully with this. The issue is that people don't realize full-time remote is a trade off for upward corporate mobility. This problem is amplified because new to the workforce individuals don't yet appreciate how beneficial asking for help in person and the engagement from an in person environment is to their development.

Now all that said, a super star will normally still get promoted. A great manager and leadership team will recognize talent and promote them up. But that gets harder and harder the larger the enterprise is and the lack of touch points available.

Done7 said:

---

This is all BS. For 12 of my 15 year career my direct manager worked at a different location. Never had an issue getting a promotion.

---

lol. It's absolutely not bull***** Your scenario was specific to you. Mine is based on 20 years of senior leadership at a F250, my wife's 25 years with last part of it as an executive at F250, and understanding basic human behavior and how **** generally works in the leadership ranks.

htxag09 said:

---

My wife works for a major IT company. She was 100% WFH since well before COVID, I want to say since 2017ish.

Obviously COVID happened and then everyone went WFH. I think they caught a lot of people working 2 jobs, etc. and decided to mandate everyone has to go back into the office last Q4 (3 days a week). Unfortunately, this was a mandate for all so teams like hers caught got up in it and had to also go back into the office.

Well, issue is they planned for WFH. My wife's team, for example, has nobody in the same city. She's in Houston, someone's in Austin, another in the midwest, one in North Carolina, and another somewhere on the east coast. So they just go to the local offices, hotel, and have virtual meetings anyway. And their "hotels" don't even have chargers or docking stations.

Also....company has been getting more strict on "go back to the office or you're getting fired" so attendance has gone up to the point they don't have enough parking.....If you don't get one of the spots you have to pay $25 to park in the garage across the street, then traverse the homeless camps to get to the office.

I will say I believe hybrid is the way to go. Most (not all) people need to be, or are greatly benefited by being in person for several reasons. Companies are just really, really bad at implementing these changes. And, as said, made really dumb and costly changes during what ended up simply as a few year transition.

---

Slight update for this...for the worse.

My wife's company announced that working at the various offices is no longer acceptable. They have to relocate to a "strategic" site or separate from the company. She's on maternity leave so hasn't heard anything formally from her management or HR. Just a reported announcement online.

We're in Houston, closest strategic site would be Austin.

Fun stuff.

Mark Fairchild said:

---

I am an OLD! It is impossible for me to grasp remote working. Cannot grasp not meeting and talking with people in person. Also, as one poster mentioned the relationship with vendors. Too old for remote working to make any sense to me. Not many people have the self determination to close out their surroundings at home and concentrate on work, as the Boss in Dilbert once said 'Work is Supposed to Hurt'!

---

Entirely depends on the job and requirements. My job is very technical (software engineering/design) and I have a dedicated office space.

I get dressed and shoes on every day (no pj's or meetings in bed) I'm way more productive at home and have been WFH for almost a decade (pre covid).

TTUArmy said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

My wife works for a major IT company. She was 100% WFH since well before COVID, I want to say since 2017ish.

Obviously COVID happened and then everyone went WFH. I think they caught a lot of people working 2 jobs, etc. and decided to mandate everyone has to go back into the office last Q4 (3 days a week). Unfortunately, this was a mandate for all so teams like hers caught got up in it and had to also go back into the office.

Well, issue is they planned for WFH. My wife's team, for example, has nobody in the same city. She's in Houston, someone's in Austin, another in the midwest, one in North Carolina, and another somewhere on the east coast. So they just go to the local offices, hotel, and have virtual meetings anyway. And their "hotels" don't even have chargers or docking stations.

Also....company has been getting more strict on "go back to the office or you're getting fired" so attendance has gone up to the point they don't have enough parking.....If you don't get one of the spots you have to pay $25 to park in the garage across the street, then traverse the homeless camps to get to the office.

I will say I believe hybrid is the way to go. Most (not all) people need to be, or are greatly benefited by being in person for several reasons. Companies are just really, really bad at implementing these changes. And, as said, made really dumb and costly changes during what ended up simply as a few year transition.

---

Slight update for this...for the worse.

My wife's company announced that working at the various offices is no longer acceptable. They have to relocate to a "strategic" site or separate from the company. She's on maternity leave so hasn't heard anything formally from her management or HR. Just a reported announcement online.

We're in Houston, closest strategic site would be Austin.

Fun stuff.

---

We'll see more of this. Interest rates will remain higher for longer and the Fed wants/needs higher unemployment as well. Still too many COVID dollars and years of "ZIRP and burrr" propping up this economy. Low interest bonds are about to mature and wipe out banking. Many companies are struggling with operating costs and searching for any reason to get rid of people. T&P for all of us.

---

She got more details today....it's.....interesting. Definitely an attempt at layoffs, IMO.

She's on a team of 8 people, including her boss. One of those 8 is in Austin. Two, including her boss, are at their bigger campus in the Research Triangle in North Carolina. They still have to relocate to Austin. All 7, again including her boss, that aren't in Austin are planning on separating vs. relocating.

So, an effective layoff. Not sure how if you scale this out over larger teams and segments of the business they'll be able to function, but whatever.

An attempt to get out of severance I assume?

I keep thinking what I'd do in that situation and I keep landing on quiet quitting. String them along for as long as possible until they fire me.

Maybe even start my next job in the process.

I'd find a new job and make them lay me off, whichever comes first. And I'd decline their first severance offer and negotiate higher.

htxag09 said:

---

TTUArmy said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

htxag09 said:

---

My wife works for a major IT company. She was 100% WFH since well before COVID, I want to say since 2017ish.

Obviously COVID happened and then everyone went WFH. I think they caught a lot of people working 2 jobs, etc. and decided to mandate everyone has to go back into the office last Q4 (3 days a week). Unfortunately, this was a mandate for all so teams like hers caught got up in it and had to also go back into the office.

Well, issue is they planned for WFH. My wife's team, for example, has nobody in the same city. She's in Houston, someone's in Austin, another in the midwest, one in North Carolina, and another somewhere on the east coast. So they just go to the local offices, hotel, and have virtual meetings anyway. And their "hotels" don't even have chargers or docking stations.

Also....company has been getting more strict on "go back to the office or you're getting fired" so attendance has gone up to the point they don't have enough parking.....If you don't get one of the spots you have to pay $25 to park in the garage across the street, then traverse the homeless camps to get to the office.

I will say I believe hybrid is the way to go. Most (not all) people need to be, or are greatly benefited by being in person for several reasons. Companies are just really, really bad at implementing these changes. And, as said, made really dumb and costly changes during what ended up simply as a few year transition.

---

Slight update for this...for the worse.

My wife's company announced that working at the various offices is no longer acceptable. They have to relocate to a "strategic" site or separate from the company. She's on maternity leave so hasn't heard anything formally from her management or HR. Just a reported announcement online.

We're in Houston, closest strategic site would be Austin.

Fun stuff.

---

We'll see more of this. Interest rates will remain higher for longer and the Fed wants/needs higher unemployment as well. Still too many COVID dollars and years of "ZIRP and burrr" propping up this economy. Low interest bonds are about to mature and wipe out banking. Many companies are struggling with operating costs and searching for any reason to get rid of people. T&P for all of us.

---

She got more details today....it's.....interesting. Definitely an attempt at layoffs, IMO.

She's on a team of 8 people, including her boss. One of those 8 is in Austin. Two, including her boss, are at their bigger campus in the Research Triangle in North Carolina. They still have to relocate to Austin. All 7, again including her boss, that aren't in Austin are planning on separating vs. relocating.

So, an effective layoff. Not sure how if you scale this out over larger teams and segments of the business they'll be able to function, but whatever.

---

Who is this? IBM?

Your wife's story reaffirms with me that I made the right decision turning down a 100% remote position for a company in Chicago (I'm in Houston). I had this fear that they'd pitch it as fully remote, it'd be that way for a few months, and then they'd have a change of heart and tell me I have to relocate. I turned them down because I just didn't want to take that chance.

Now you go to this company's LinkedIn page and look at their job postings....all specify "on site".

I think the reason for back to office mandates is that CEOs are more or less 60+ in age, and started their careers pre-internet. They are old school and set in their ways and love the feeling of a power trip when they "command the room". They don't know what to do when all their plans fail and revenue falls, so this is another lever to blame someone else.

I have worked on site for 22 years and remote for 4 years. I am doing some of my best work remotely. I never met any of my coworkers or manager in real life in my previous job but we got a lot done and enjoyed it too. Granted, it is possible in my field of high tech, it is not possible in some others.

What is funny is that in 2001, CEOs were all about offshoring and sending jobs to India. By their logic, the internet made it possible to do a software programming job "from anywhere in the world". That is because they saw cost savings and did not care about quality loss. In 2023-24, CEOs are complaining about remote work and want to bring everyone back to the office. Doesn't that seem hypocritical? Another reason is these guys made huge investments in real estate and have to justify that. Example is JPMorganChase which built a billion dollar building in NYC.

https://instagr.am/p/C7CdDHKOKOY

Lol at this.

infinity ag said:

---

I think the reason for back to office mandates is that CEOs are more or less 60+ in age, and started their careers pre-internet. They are old school and set in their ways and love the feeling of a power trip when they "command the room". They don't know what to do when all their plans fail and revenue falls, so this is another lever to blame someone else.

I have worked on site for 22 years and remote for 4 years. I am doing some of my best work remotely. I never met any of my coworkers or manager in real life in my previous job but we got a lot done and enjoyed it too. Granted, it is possible in my field of high tech, it is not possible in some others.

What is funny is that in 2001, CEOs were all about offshoring and sending jobs to India. By their logic, the internet made it possible to do a software programming job "from anywhere in the world". That is because they saw cost savings and did not care about quality loss. In 2023-24, CEOs are complaining about remote work and want to bring everyone back to the office. Doesn't that seem hypocritical? Another reason is these guys made huge investments in real estate and have to justify that. Example is JPMorganChase which built a billion dollar building in NYC.

---

While there is truth to all of this, I'll still die on the hill that collaboration and innovation suffer for lack of face-to-face interaction. Some of the reasoning for these companies coming back on site is because of this.

My company is a startup and we are all remote. We are actively talking about how we have to start creating some kind of hybrid solution because we are feeling the effects of rarely being in person with one another. It's not sustainable long-term.

That means I'll need to figure out how I secure a landing pad in Austin which is 3 hours from me. I might ultimately walk away rather than do that, but I simultaneously recognize the need for it as a company and have actually been an advocate for it.

After 8 years of being a remote worker, my wife's company is making our family move halfway across the country, before she can take a promotion to sr manager. All other VP's and Sr managers on her team were in their positions and are scattered across the US. Apparently a few bad apples pretty much ruined work from home for all.

And of course, rather than tailor the "punishment" to the bad apples it just gets rolled out to everyone for the sake of "fairness".

All-remote work is great if you believe that on-the-job-training and company culture are fairy tales. Ten years from now everyone will look back with "Hey, do you remember the Shut-in Era after COVID, when everyone pretended to work from their couch full time?". Trusted senior people should, in many industries, be able to work from home for a portion of their time, so long as they spend "anchor days" in the office to mentor junior staff, interact with co-workers and engage first-hand with clients. New hiresno way. This will be apparent when mid-level jobs come open and none of the newbies have a clue what's being asked of them.

What aspect of knowledge work can't be trained remotely but can be performed remotely? Every time I've heard this it turned out to be a management issue.