>Mandated return to work date 3 days/week minimum unless you’ve transitioned to remote

This is what bugs me about the hybrid set up. If the company onboarded a lot of permanent remotes and also doesn't have people sync up the in office days, then there is no point of going into the office. It's the worst of both worlds.

Speaking only for myself, if I had a company office in my city I would go to it three-four days a week — even if my colleagues were all working elsewhere. (Assuming I can define my hours and commute by public transit or cheap taxi.)

I was remote for 13 years and I definitely missed the option of the office, though not the mandate of it.

So in my biased opinion the hybrid model is to keep people like me happy. And my bet is these will eventually become the new senior management, comfortable with remote but happy in the office, just like the current managers who set up the hybrid thing for similar reasons for themselves.

Doesn’t help people like me who can’t do the jobs they want in the cities they want without being remote, but I think we’re a pretty small minority.

Eh, it's really not that hard. It basically means for most weeks you work remote Mon and Fri, while just about everyone is in the office Tues-Thurs. Bay area already feels like most people work remote on Fridays anyways.

Yes there's variance but it's being left intentionally vague for teams to set their own cadences.

Which is why hybrid doesn’t work, and back to the office will win for most companies.

I think you'll lose some talented employees if you don't allow WFH. I think it will take time to see how this plays out.

I think you’re right, because many employees prefer wfh. But I think for companies and esp startups wfh is a big loss, so that losing some employees is worth it. And if the bubble pops things will change.

There's definitely room for a hybrid where teams (or whatever org-unit) are able to determine which days will be in-office and what hours people are expected to be physically available for during those days. I don't really need to go into the office 40 hours (plus the 5-8 hours of commute time), but I'd have no objection with 3-5 hours, 2 days a week to facilitate meetings, teambuilding, etc.

The first one is HubSpot for anyone wondering (and yes we are hiring).

I do think that companies that allow remote are going to see an influx of workers as people leave other companies with in-office mandates. So many people have adjusted to remote working that it seems somewhat crazy to me to try and walk that back. There’s a clear preference based on what we’ve seen for some level of remote work among existing in-office workers who probably aren’t going to put up with a shift back, especially when tech jobs are in such high demand.

Is the second one wayfair? It echoes what all my friends there are saying.

It isn’t, but I’ve heard the same thing about Wayfair.

Your partner's company sounds like the one I left recently, for those exact reasons...

These two companies sound the same... Your company allows remote, hybrid or fulltime in-office. Partner's company allows hybrid (3 days minimum), fulltime (people going above the minimum) or "transitioned to remote".

My company allows whatever you want. Partners company allows hybrid, not full remote unless that was something you negotiated at the start or got them to change. Those are two very different things.

Does your company have web app where employee can choose what they prefer, submit it, and done?, or bunch of management have to approve that request?

Nope, there’s no management or oversight of who is in and when.

> If I had to put money on which company will thrive and which one will seriously regret it’s decision a year from now… the answer seems very clear

Well don't I look stupid for initially being skeptical... surely your company, with "no management or oversight" over its employees, is clearly set up for enormous success!

He was answering in regards to this particular option of going remote.

"Bad" company: Growing pushback from employees asking great questions… for example, why they should be required to sit on zoom at an office, conferencing with their remote colleagues

Why wouldn't this occur, in even greater magnitude, at a company with zero accountability regarding the whereabouts of the employees? Where an employee can wake up any morning and just decide not to come in? Where nobody can say with any certainty who will attend a meeting, or be in the building, or available to be on a call, at any time? Where nobody has any responsibility to ensure co-workers schedules line up, or that the person responsible for Task A completes it within a timeframe to allow the Task B person to meet his/her deadline?

You are conflating showing up at a physical office with being accountable and doing your work. True, my employer doesn’t care about my whereabouts, but they do care that I’m contributing, available to my colleagues, and adhering to reasonable schedules/deadlines. The reality is that for knowledge workers, none of this requires regular physical presence in an office with Zoom, Slack, and a calendar. This is a fact that’s been proven and accepted in my workplace for years now and there’s no reason to go back.