Re:Ask HN: Employers, why do you want us back in the office?
by kelnos on Sunday February 05, 2023 @02:59PM
(#34668589)
> There’s a lot of collaboration and spontaneous connection that happens in hallways and kitchenettes.
I love reading things like this, because it tickles my hypocritical funny bone.
Where is the evidence for this? Where is the hard data showing that these "hallway conversations" ultimately generate more sustainable long-term revenue for the company? Because at the end of the day, that's the only reason a company should ever mandate anything that employees don't want: because it either generates more revenue, or saves them money. If you can't prove that requiring employees to be in-office accomplishes this, then there's no reason to do so.
Regarding hypocrisy: I recall as an individual contributor all the times I've been required to justify -- with hard data -- things I wanted management to support because I believed it would increase developer happiness and comfort, and thus increase productivity (and reduce costs). It was always hard (or impossible) to do this, especially before the fact, so management would often turn me down. And yet, we have this completely unsupportable statement -- "everyone in-office creates better connections that leads to higher productivity" -- that management is all-in on enforcing.
I think the real reason for "return to office" initiatives is mundane and obvious: ego, power trips, and an unreasonable lack of trust.
> But if you already have an office and already expect everyone to be relatively close, why fly everyone to London or SF?
If you already have an office and expect everyone to be relatively close, you don't have to fly everyone anywhere. You just have "come to the office" days. Depending on the level of remoteness of your workers, that can be as often as once a week, or once a quarter.
> if you do a good job arranging your life (as most software engineers absolutely have the means to do) you can make a commute a quite pleasant part of your day
False. You're not taking into account the myriad ways people choose and need to live. I wouldn't do the SF<->south bay commute ever again (used to do that 10+ years ago daily). Are you telling me I'm required to move to take a job that's a 60-minute drive away? That's ridiculous.
> I’m also an Urbanism nerd and don’t want to see cities revert to the 70s-era trend, which is clearly and noticeably happening, destroying decades of progress on livability.
Ah, I see. So basically you see "people are leaving cities in droves" and think the solution is "make people come to the office". Another unsupportable statement, and also unreasonable to ask of people. I live in a city, have no intention of leaving, and value the fact that I work from home, even though any job I'd take would also be in the city. I hate sprawl and would never go back to living in a suburb.
Maybe some people don't want to live in cities, though. Your "solution" to this problem is to require people do that (through completely unrelated employment considerations), just to keep cities healthy? How selfish!
I love reading things like this, because it tickles my hypocritical funny bone.
Where is the evidence for this? Where is the hard data showing that these "hallway conversations" ultimately generate more sustainable long-term revenue for the company? Because at the end of the day, that's the only reason a company should ever mandate anything that employees don't want: because it either generates more revenue, or saves them money. If you can't prove that requiring employees to be in-office accomplishes this, then there's no reason to do so.
Regarding hypocrisy: I recall as an individual contributor all the times I've been required to justify -- with hard data -- things I wanted management to support because I believed it would increase developer happiness and comfort, and thus increase productivity (and reduce costs). It was always hard (or impossible) to do this, especially before the fact, so management would often turn me down. And yet, we have this completely unsupportable statement -- "everyone in-office creates better connections that leads to higher productivity" -- that management is all-in on enforcing.
I think the real reason for "return to office" initiatives is mundane and obvious: ego, power trips, and an unreasonable lack of trust.
> But if you already have an office and already expect everyone to be relatively close, why fly everyone to London or SF?
If you already have an office and expect everyone to be relatively close, you don't have to fly everyone anywhere. You just have "come to the office" days. Depending on the level of remoteness of your workers, that can be as often as once a week, or once a quarter.
> if you do a good job arranging your life (as most software engineers absolutely have the means to do) you can make a commute a quite pleasant part of your day
False. You're not taking into account the myriad ways people choose and need to live. I wouldn't do the SF<->south bay commute ever again (used to do that 10+ years ago daily). Are you telling me I'm required to move to take a job that's a 60-minute drive away? That's ridiculous.
> I’m also an Urbanism nerd and don’t want to see cities revert to the 70s-era trend, which is clearly and noticeably happening, destroying decades of progress on livability.
Ah, I see. So basically you see "people are leaving cities in droves" and think the solution is "make people come to the office". Another unsupportable statement, and also unreasonable to ask of people. I live in a city, have no intention of leaving, and value the fact that I work from home, even though any job I'd take would also be in the city. I hate sprawl and would never go back to living in a suburb.
Maybe some people don't want to live in cities, though. Your "solution" to this problem is to require people do that (through completely unrelated employment considerations), just to keep cities healthy? How selfish!