I agree with this. Even if a four people of our 22-member team resume WFO, the rest are screwed. Soon we all need to WFO. Sadly, there's definitely 4-8 ppl who _ hate _ being at home. So they're waiting for the office gates to open so they can go back. :(

> Even if a four people of our 22-member team resume WFO, the rest are screwed. Soon we all need to WFO.

Pre-COVID I was one of 3 remote people on my team, rest worked from the office. This arrangement didn’t cause any obvious problems.

The problem is ... We didn't have any remote workers in BC era. So, everything would be discussed & finalized over impromptu whiteboard sessions as-and-when-needed. The team is super-lazy on email communications too.

:(

Yeah I also don't blame them though, if I were a parent I would absolutely hate WFH.

Working from home as a parent is awesome actually ... if there’s another parent or nanny also at home who takes primary responsibility for the kid. That is how it should be, at least for young kids. Obviously with COVID, it’s not safe or affordable for some families to do this, but if you can afford daycare for another arrangement for your kid while you are in the office, you can afford daycare for your kid while you work from home.

Hiring a nanny is much more expensive than daycare. If it wasn’t, daycare wouldn’t exist.

> Working from home as a parent is awesome actually ... if there’s another parent or nanny also at home who takes primary responsibility for the kid.

And if there isn’t you can’t work from an office anyway.

WFH while your kids are in forced-remote schooling is quite different from WFH when they're in school for 6+ hours of the workday.

We'll have to see how fast the transition back is. You're right that if remote work stays it has to work with conference rooms and larger groups at the office. I think if the transition back is fairly gradual then the office infrastructure and culture will grow and WFH has a chance.

I've worked fully remote, fully in-office, and a blend (3 days in + 2 days WFH).

For me, I preferred blend. (Caveat: office ~25 minutes away, some on-site campus amenities including dining, and WFH included scheduling flexibility)

I could slot annoying business-hours-only chores into my WFH days, or shift work earlier and later if I needed to be there for a kid thing.

And 2 days of that a week felt about right. I got the facetime and meeting stuff done my other 3, and had quieter, individual progress time those 2.

Did you have hotel cubes/offices? If every employee doing blended still has to have their own space in the office, the company loses one of the big advantages of having people work from home. Obviously there are other advantages for WFH that can make it worthwhile for both sides, but reducing real estate costs is one most companies will want to reap.

It's not something I've run into yet, but the moment a company starts hotdesking I'll start looking for the door. I have to customize my workspace and know that its integrity is maintained in my absence in order to be fully productive.

Nope! In both blend scenarios I still had a personal desk: either a cube or a section of long table.

Good point, as I imagine my satisfaction in both scenarios would have decreased with a mandatory shared space.

Although, for a while we were "homeless", leading to ~30 minutes a day trying to find an office / conference room to squat in.

What about companies with multi site offices? Isn’t that effectively remote?

Not if you structure your org right.

Infra-office (ie in person) for the high bandwidth interfaces, usually the whole team is in the same office.

Inter-office for lower bandwidth interfaces, ie between teams and functions.

You definitely have some interactions that are effectively remote, say if your project involves working closely with $remote_team, but in general the highest-order terms in the equation should be in office, if you are doing a traditional WFO org.