Leaked Zoom all-hands: CEO says employees must return to offices because they can't be as innovative or get to know each other on Zoom
Leaked Zoom all-hands: CEO says employees must return to offices because they can't be as innovative or get to know each other on Zoom::Zoom CEO Eric Yuan discussed the benefits of in-person work in a leaked meeting.
https://www.businessinsider.com/zoom-ceo-employees-return-to-office-2023-8Open linkView original on lemmy.world1801
Comments387
Ice cream factory urges its employees not to eat ice cream.
Dog food company doesn't want to serve its food to their own dogs 🤔
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food
For those who are unaware. Highly relevant.
If only there was some generic term for this phenomenon.
Food-dogging. It’s like raw-digging but for food. Wait…
Couldn't have said it better myself! It's like telling someone to work at an ice cream factory but not have any ice cream. Just doesn't make sense.
You def couldn’t have said it better because you just repeated what they said
Zoom CEO says that his companies product is trash.
“No, no, you misunderstood! I’m just terrible at my job!"
Why not both?
I'm going to choose to believe the CEO is actively trying to tank the share price for some reason. This is approaching get fired or sued by shareholders level.
Either that or a forced reduction in workforce without having to do layoffs.
It’s this. All the tech companies overexpanded during COVID when free investment money was everywhere. Now they’re all over staffed and want employees to self select out of employment rather than announce widespread layoffs. Meanwhile ruining life for everyone who can’t afford to quit.
That and seeing corporate real estate tanking. Its in the best interest of anyone who owns an office space to encourage return to work to try to help prop up the market long enough to exit.
But the “WORK FROM HOME” company should be doing EVERYTHING to encourage the activity that keeps THEM in business. It’s mind-boggling!
According to local news media, small businesses want this return to office because their restaurants are hurting. Doesn’t seem like they would lie about that.
They are not all overstaffed lol, that is total nonsense. Most "tech" companies are not FAANG or flashy startups.
These companies are greedy and trying to prop up real estate value while flexing on their employees, that's all there is to it. My company is severely understaffed and still refusing to hire people out of sheer greed.
This is what I believe as well.
Companies noticed people like to give up when mistreated so they now bully them into it. Reminder: Soft Quitting is a Reactionary method. People wouldn't do it at all if they were simply dissatisfied.
Why tf do out of touch executives and managers always think that we want to make friends at work? I don't really care to know any of my coworkers, I just want to do my job in a professional manner, get paid well for it, and then either go home or close the laptop and leave my home office.
Also the only creativity that the office gives me is how to creatively get around the Internet restrictions they place on us, or how to creatively appear to be working when there's nothing to do.
If I wanted to make friends I'd go to a bar or something else that adults do together in groups, like bowling leagues.
Because it's the type of people they are, and they think everyone is just like them. I worked a corporate job for 10 years and saw a lot of people who made the company their whole identity. Their whole friend group was their co-workers.
That's a great point, these people's who lives revolve around their jobs, it makes perfect sense.
I bet their real goal is to shed employees without having to do layoffs. They know some of these people will refuse to come back (or moved far away) and therefore can be fired with little press or blowback.
Because the #1 reason why employees will stay at a job that underpays them is because they like the people they work with. And you can’t form those bonds remotely.
I agree with the first part, disagree with the second part. You absolutely can form bond remotely, some of my closest friends are online-only. I've even met some of my online-only friends IRL once or twice. I've become close with online-only coworkers too, honestly closer than I was with a lot of people in the office.
Remote work does work. Return to office is just a power grab by companies and real estate sunken cost fallacy.
Except that you absolutely can if the company has a good remote culture.
The company I was at prior to the pandemic and all throughout the height of the pandemic had such a culture. Even before the pandemic our work chat had rooms for different teams, different products/projects, and general subjects including non-work-related ones. And the chats were active and lively. And during the pandemic it only got more so. There was a very strong bond between coworkers, including new people first onboarded as WFH.
After we got bought out by a new company and they mandated 100% from the office, I left (as did over 50% of the years of experience in the dev teams). My new company is actually still hybrid/remote, with most people working from the office occasionally but anything including 100% remote being allowed at least after initial onboarding.
But I actually think this company is really bad at remote culture. There are a handful of public chat rooms but they almost never get used, and there's nothing off-topic at all. It creates a feeling that reaching out to someone is a bigger hurdle than it was at my last place, and greatly reduces collaboration.
At my last place, working collaboratively was the norm and it translated extremely well to remote work. Here everyone is much more siloed and I don't think it works as well. Especially if your goal is to create interpersonal bonds.
I think that any study you find over the past 30 years will show that while online relationships can be meaningful in some cases, the average person will not form as strong a connection as they would in person.
The term for this is parasocial relationships, and you have truth to your claims
Huh, weird. The Twitch chats I hang out with and I tend to use "parasocial" as a term in which people develop a relationship with others that people haven't really seen or spoken to. I've seen them and myself use the term to talk about how chats have relationships with streamers themselves, which aligns with your definition, but I've also seen it used between Internet users that have minimal interaction with others aside from texting.
I've made friends online via Xbox that I have on other social media and that know my face/voice/background, but I try to secure more of my anonymity these days. I wouldn't consider those relationships as parasocial, but in some ways, depending on how the relationship evolves and grows or decays over time, I'd say they dip in and out of being parasocial and tangible.
Perhaps parasocial might be better thought of as a class of relationships people share that are digital and that don't manifest IRL in any meaningful ways (excluding face/voice/identity).
Maybe the idea I'm getting at here has a term coined for it already. I'd be willing to change my vocabulary if you suggest something!
Because they aren't putting effort into it and neither is the company.
If you can talk to someone you can form a relationship with them. Period. This is not hard to figure out.
Remote culture requires putting effort into it. You have regular online events with the team just for fun and you ask people to stay after the scrum for an open floor once a week or so, etc. You invest in the social aspect of remote work.
Studies can say important things but they can't contradict lived experience and their methodology can also be flawed or biased.
I’m not limiting this to work.
And of course you can have a relationship with someone remotely.
But overall, for the average person, in-person relationships are going to be stronger. Friends, family, romantic relationships, hobbies, work, you name it.
Yes you can, what on earth are you talking about? I've been remote for 5 years now and I have close relationships with most of the people I work with, especially the devs on my team. Sometimes we'll debug an issue or discuss something and then afterwards bullshit for a while on the phone.
Are people really this inept? You can have remote relationships especially if you make time for it.
But it doesn’t make sense. If I would have people which I like so much in the office would, you know, go to the office. If I don’t wonna go well… then I don’t like those people enough and there can’t be bonds anyway. We will just come, say hi, do job, go home. What a great creativity boost
Been remote for years, number two is just flat out bull shit.
Definitely disagree on this one. Worked a job across the pandemic that was completely virtual and I never met my coworkers in person. A number of us left about 6 months ago due to layoffs but we all flew out to meet up with each other last week and hang out. That’s almost an entire department of folk that now work in different companies taking the time and personal expense to travel and hang out with each other so I’d say a meaningful bond was built. It absolutely can happen, managers just need to be informed on how to do it. If any org should be prepared for this it’s Zoom. This is just being super lazy on the part of Zoom and having a lack of confidence in their own product.
Depends on the type of work. Workshops and strategy sessions are definitely better in person than online for me.
Okay so what are you getting from either of those that you can't get from attending the same on Teams/Zoom etc.?
Workshops also just feel like school and the presenters always talk too fast, quiet, or accented for my hearing and ADHD to make it worth me going to one, some dedicated study time always was the better route for me.
Meanwhile strategy sesh's are just conversations with an end goal, nothing difficult about that at all.
One thing people who are against work from home have to realize is that not everybody functions the same, some people do better remotely, others need the office.
I just wish we could be treated like adults and work in the way we feel most comfortable and efficiently without being mistreated over it and without being astroturfed against it by entities like the Wall St. journal and Bloomberg, sorry rich people but I just don't give a fuck about your corporate property values.
I don't get the "Bill, we can't hear you; you're on mute" twenty times per hour. Or the guy who doesn't realize he should be muted but isn't, and the chat is flooded with his background noise. I don't get to whisper snarky comments about the presenter to my coworker whom I'm sitting next to. I don't get to spontaneously engage people hanging around the coffee stand between sessions.
There are tangible differences between remote and in-person. As much of an introvert as I am, and as much as I love working remotely, I recognize that I do better collaborative work when I'm in-person. YMMV, but mine doesn't.
Does your company not do water cooler sessions for your team? Also you can message people during presentations online to gossip. I just did it yesterday to make fun of some idiotic desperation move our execs are getting ready to pull.
When people say "you can't do X remotely" what they actually mean is they either put no effort into it or they can do it, but it doesn't feel the same to them, which is a completely different statement.
I found that keeping up with people over video works better when you're in the same time zone. When I was managing teams at +8 hours and -12.5 relative hours, communication and trust just weakened steadily over time and creative collaboration stalled. Spending a week there in person usually got things unstuck.
I know people on split engineering teams between LA and Seattle who prefer all virtual and it's worked long term. LA to NY I think would be a heavier lift.
And, of course, this whole discussion is always dominated by software engineers; there are lots of jobs that involve actual manipulation of matter where in person collaboration is essential to communicate skills.
Oh definitely, timezones do throw a wrench in things a bit, but there are easy ways around that usually, splitting engineering teams like the way you described is a pretty good workaround.
I completely agree that jobs that just can't be done remotely obviously shouldn't be, but any job that can be should have the option available. I just feel like most of the work from home backlash comes from people who cannot do their jobs from home and managers/executives that just want someone to babysit, usually in order to justify their own professional existence. It just seems like a lot of "crabs in a bucket" behavior.
Firstly real human interaction. There is a lot of team building that can occur just from having lunch together. Second, just physically being able to put sticky notes or drawing lines and watching someone else do so without having to have someone try to point out where exactly they put something to you in a virtual whiteboard is way more efficient.
Firstly if you just have a presenter talking to you, then that doesn't sound like a collaborative workshop. Workshops might have someone who guides the discussion but never just presenters otherwise that's not really a workshop and more just a presentation that can be done online.
I am not sure what kind of strategy sessions you are having but when you are setting things like commercial STRAP for divisions of 20K or more employees, you need more than just a conversation. You need to draw out roadmaps, have working sessions, even the human interactions through lunches and dinners plays a big part.
It's not black or white. I am a remote worker who travels regularly. Would I ever give up being remote. No. More than half my job can be done from home and I am not wasting my time travelling to the office. But that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge when something is just better in person. Not everything is perfect remote and not everything needs to be done in the office. You can have a mix of both and choose based on the requirements of the task.
Additionally, the type of people who are in positions to set organizational strategy are usually the types of personalities that do function between in person because they are typically extroverted personalities. It's not like I am suggesting you bring a developer to an on site session. I am talking about leaders.
Even if that is the case I don't find myself caring enough to want to work in the office when going to work has such a huge impact on time and money wasted commuting, and plays such a huge role on where people can live. Its hard to care when it's such a drain on personal time and expenses.
I prefer working remote as well and not suggesting going back full time. I just think there are some things that are better in person. Fortunately my work provides a good balance where I am remote 50 - 80% of the time but can fly in to different locations for a F2F when necessary.
I think when I look at when it comes to remote is that as an employee what an employer sees as better in person is not better for me. But, I can see why an employer would see in person as better. As an employee I need to be paid even more to make it worth it, since it is overall a con in my time.
Because if your social life is tied to work you'll stick around longer during the day and potentially do more work. You'll also opt to stay at a job that pays less or has worse benefits because it means leaving your friends.
I feel personally attacked
I don't remember where this quote is from but i think it's useful.
Something like that. I'm all for having comradery and if you happen to be friends then that's great. But often times, and i know I've fallen victim to this, we work too much and dont have social lives that exist outside of work.
I like my coworkers well enough but there is not a single person in that office whom I would choose to be around socially.
I know it's very popular online to brag about being an asocial shut-in, but believe it or not some people like their jobs and like the social aspect of the office. The problem is the bigwigs applying the same rule for everyone either due to being out-of-touch with normal humans or just through greed, but don't assume your experience is universal!
Glad I'm not a stockholder, since the CEO basically says their only product, remote connectivity, stifles innovation and connection. What a world.
They should try using Teams, should solve the problem.
Better upgrade them* networks dawg
The only problem teams solves is "why are people too happy with remote work", and it's very effective at fixing that.
I actually charge a teams tax on my wage requirements if I find out they're using broken last-gen weak shit like teams, Ansible, or vro.
A role I worked had this holy trinity. Moving to teams was nail in the coffin for me. Out of interest, what is "broken and last gen" about Ansible? And what's newer and better than it? I find it to be okay for infra patching tasks...
What's wrong with Ansible?
I dunno man, that's what I was trying to find out.... I thought I was out of the loop on something here.
Tribalism will affect how this is received, like cursing out vi or apple in a crowded room, but it's important to see what else is out there and what they offer. Hint: If Ansible is bolting things onto the side of itself like event-driven triggers and connecting to AWX, then you have a good idea of what Ansible needs crutches to do and keep up to last-gen tech. One can only bolt so many bags on the side before the entirety falls apart, and IBM no longer has the goodwill to keep enthusiasts doing the heavy-lifting -- even if IBM is repeating what Canonical did a decade or more ago without repercussion.
Patching shouldn't need an automation scaffolding. I'll leave that there, that it's entirely possible to patch your systems in a very automated, patchset-promoted fashion and not need to touch what we currently call Automation. I've seen and done it 20+ years, but to be fair that's only how long I've been in the Enterprise space where that was the focus vs the relaxed tolerances of the soho/robo market.
This-gen tech is responsive and self-organizing from the ground up, and responds in real-time to changes. Comically, it's usually a collection of well-established components like consul that powers the this-gen stuff.
I joined a job with this holy trinity, but they pay the tax every paycheque. I "dead sea" left a toxic mess with failing puppet managers a FIN coup had installed but with good tooling, to a great environment with known faces and good management left behind after their arrogant toxicity couldn't cope with remote-first workers and bailed. The fact the tooling is complete shite is just a feature we cope with in this awesome environment, and while the environment stays excellent we'll solve that technical challenge or we'll bail if the environment gets toxic again first.
CEO can't even eat its own dog food. How pathetic
Why would you expect Zoom to push for 100% working remotely over Zoom? So if my company makes mobility scooters, I'm not allowed to walk?
I’d push for WFH and say that if work sucks over Zoom, “innovate” until it doesn’t. Kind of our bread and butter.
No, the argument is that instead of improving the product by dog-fooding, he just gave up and told people to go back to the office.
The fact his product is not solving all the collaboration needs should be a business opportunity, but his underlying message is that he doesn't know how to leverage it, and will not try anymore.
You can walk whenever the fk you want. But why force other people to walk like you when they prefer the scooter?
People that use Zoom are disabled confirmed.
The fact of the matter is when your company revolves around you being able to communicate and work from anywhere, it is a bad look for you tell people you can’t communicate effectively over the product you make. Anyone who knows business should know this and should know to keep their mouth shut and their policies focused on trying to destroy business.
Makes me feel like someone is paying to or making them do this. If it's best for 'THE' WFH company to WFO, then every company can say it's best their employees WFO.
I think he has a point. So many great ideas at my company were birthed sitting around the table while eating breakfast or drinking coffee.
People ask me stuff they they wouldn't have sent a ticket about because "it's not a big issue" and by looking into some of it we find way better methods of dealing with types of workflows.
It's not the meetings where we find the best ideas. It's during the coffee breaks. But you need you coworkers to have coffee breaks with so you have something to talk about.
That being said. I'm not American and we don't have the American office landscapes or office politics.
My company is complete work from home. The issue is that people can't imagine coworkers talking to each other and being friends while working remotely.
I spend half of most days in spontaneous voice chats with coworkers where we have these exact same moments. Spontaneous discussions leading to ideas that change the way we do things.
It's not exclusive to being in an office. You just need to adapt to a new work style.
3/4 of the team I am on work from home, 2 of us full time, We have weekly scheduled meetings with no agenda other than to catch up and this is where ideas can come up, We haven't all been in an office together since before the lockdown yet we continue to thrive. I also have most of each Friday blocked out to work with one of the team on whatever he happens to be working on that day. We just jump in a meeting and do stuff. And like you we are all open to just spontaneous chats at any time either by text or call. It works perfectly well.
I guess you also have those chats where you pull other people in during the conversation, Oh, Suchandsuch will have input, send them an invite to this meeting etc :)
I love it, I get peace and quite when needed to code, and all the interaction I need to make the job work.
We have a daily SUM which is supposed to last 15 minutes. It is usually over an hour, but work makes up at best 20 minutes. The rest is just us chatting.
We also have regular calls with other teams which follow a similar pattern.
It is easy to have "water-cooler" chats while working remotely.
I've spent 2 years in WFH during COVID and haven't seen this working in any of the teams (even though there were attempts).
One problem is just that remote calls suck a lot, especially if you have latency and audio issues. People talking over each other, then saying "sorry" and waiting 20 seconds, audio too high or low or just poor quality etc. A lot of it could be solved with technology, but weirdly it hasn't happened yet.
It's crazy how people have been talking on the phone for like a hundred years and talking over each other was something that was easy to work out.
But put the same technology on a computer and suddenly people forgot how to talk on the phone.
Phone has usually lower latency than internet. Consequence of circuit vs. packet switching.
But otherwise I hate phone as well. Miserable audio quality.
Group calls weren’t the norm until recently. I fucking despise group zoom calls. I normally will just not contribute at all because it’s impossible to be heard. Someone else will always talk over you. This is the 3rd team I’ve worked remote on, and it hasn’t worked on any of them so far.
I've spent longer than that and I'm not sure where the issue is. It works fine for us. Perhaps it's a US thing with poor internet quality?
I'm in the US and haven't had any issues with being remote and calling a coworker to chat for a bit. It's not any different than using a phone.
Nah I'm in the US. Garbage internet provider. No issues.
The thing is I spent a LOT of time in voice chats playing games as a kid. It always worked well then. It hasn't changed at all. I don't need to be on a video call. I jump into a voice chat channel and hang out. People come and go, and are quiet for the most part.
Having come from an office environment where everyone worked in cubes, it truly is no different. I don't need to be face to face with coworkers, because I wasn't face to face for most of the conversations we had in the office. We'd stare at our screens and talk over the walls.
When we were looking at each other's faces, it was in the conference room. Those formal meetings are effectively replaced with video calls - and more often are effectively replaced with emails like they should be.
This probably largely depends on your field. But for me, my productivity is higher working from home, because at least at home I can choose when to tune out the noise. In the office, management was personally offended by me listening to music while working alone. I was told to focus on my paycheck if I needed help focusing.
Idk, I leverage Slack huddles regularly and have absolutely no issues with multiple people hanging out and having casual conversations while working. We do these spontaneously throughout the day.
How old are your coworkers generally? My company is mostly on the younger side of things. We grew up with team speak, steam voice chat, and now are often in discord. This is not unfamiliar territory and has always worked well outside of the office.
Same here. What I hear from people who can't innovate, collaborate, insert-activity-here, etc. while working remotely is that they have competency issues in their workforce.
Companies building great things creatively and remotely are not exceptional, and antisocial behaviours when working remotely are a problem with the person, not the technology. But it's easier to blame the tech than admit your colleagues or team are dysfunctional so "back to the office!" It is for most. I'll pass though.
But that means the great idea moments are during unproductive times. People at the office must be allowed to be unproductive. If there is strict no talking and no coffee breaks allowed and strict clocking in because time is money there isn't much innovative benefit to being in the office.
Sounds like a small company you work at with tight nit group.
In the states, a good portion of jobs out there are soulless corporate jobs with predefined work. It’s just a grind.
Let’s be honest. If I discovered good ideas at a soulless corp, I wouldn’t be using those ideas at soulless corp.
Bone apple tea!
I miss coffee breaks.
But the kind of bad managers who insist on a RTO are also the kind who don't understand it's the break time, stupid.
All the people I'd want to talk with over coffee left before I did.
I only ever had 'coffee breaks' when I was working in a restaurant. Never in the office.
I have tons of spontaneous calls all day on teams when remote. These moments still happen and don't require an office. These companies that fail to adapt will be left in the dust.
The same thing happens in IM. It's just a different set of personalities doing it. There are people that actively chat and bring up ideas to teams all the time. The bonus point about IM is that it can be referenced later on.
I mean, people shit talk on discord all the time
I agree, but wouldn't underestimate meetings. People say that you're losing productivity, but IME the largest losses of productivity are caused by working on the wrong things, because of too little communication. Sometimes it's things that are not needed anymore, sometimes it's just aspects of the feature which are not important (e.g. overengineering) because of lack of context.
I'm not saying all meetings are always needed, but in larger organizations the sync between people and teams is very important.
That said, working from home has so far saved me a lot of both time and money. This is a thing to consider as an employee when considering who to work for (or if your boss takes it away, if you still want to work there after essentially having a benefit revoked unilateraly).
Public transit pass. Actual time for transit which for me was around 90 minutes a day (7.5 hours a week!), more complex lunch logistics (time or money), etc.
A quieter workplace, no need to book rarely available rooms to take calls/meetings. There were upsides.
My first remote job had almost no issues at all. We already knew each other and we still took time to discuss issues via calls. New job not so much. We tend to be pressed for time so only focus on obvious "work" and then works suffers because of a lack of communication/common vision.
Ideas don't come from a coffee break, that's superstitious nonsense.
You're not going to sit there, and tell me what my own experience is at my own place of work. Fuck off.
Because the innovation is done by engineers and artists, not MBAs.
Some person in WorkReform was defending mandatory RTO because an office environment was supposedly more secure. I called bullshit on their claims. Apparently a “cybersecurity expert” lol
I don’t care if companies want to waste resources on buying commercial properties. But don’t force people to go back to the stupid office. It worked for the past 3 years. Profits are higher than ever. People got to spend more time with their families since hours were no longer wasted commuting and sitting in traffic.
Also seems like many companies use this culture bullshit as a reason to force RTO. Motherfucker. I produce output. You generate capital. You pay me. That’s our fucking relationship. Fuck your “cUlTuRe”.
My current shop has an office for people who choose to use office space, because it's not about pushing people into one group or another but more facilitating their best environment.
Anyway, it was broken into and burgled along with other ground floor tenants. They threw a big fuckoff boulder through an exterior glass door and kept going from unit to unit. Laptops taken. Important shit.
My home office requires someone to fob past 4 separate doors to get to me. Instead of the ground floor it's more than 100 feet up in concrete. My location has me at an advantage for power and the feed is underground. Fibre comes up the middle.
They're not breaking in.
Did you have a counter argument for calling bullshit? Because he probably had a point, there is definitely a niche for that level of security. It just generally involves state secrets.
Certain classifications of documents require access only from physically secure locations, called SCIFs, where all access is monitored and logged. Things like phones and cameras aren't allowed to prevent any data leakage.
That's not too say you can't be secure remotely, but really only against outsiders. Good luck stopping an employee from taking a picture with their personal phone of classified blueprints off their monitor at home. Good luck even knowing they did it before the data is gone.
When you factor in social engineering being the most successful type of "hacking", an office setting is undeniably more secure. However, most offices don't need that level of security, because data breaches aren't a matter of national security, so remote is an acceptable risk.
Well that was an impressive way to destroy your entire business model
LoL right?
I mean the company clearly benefited from the pandemic and people working from home. Why would they want that to stop??
Control. They don't feel like they have enough control of their plebe workers
I swear, sometimes it feels as though companies are run by a bunch of power hungry psychopaths. The system is really rigged in their favor, too. Their kind of behaviour seems rewarded all the time.
They'll have much less when they lose all their customers and have to downsize lol
Money. This guy is getting leaned on to send the message that wfh is a mistake. There is about 2.5 trillion in corporate real estate debt floating around and when contracts are negotiated conditions are made. Government and invested business are shitting bricks and doing everything they can to force occupation of otherwise obsolete buildings.
Ya, this guy is toast. He just told the world he thinks his product sucks - the sane know he's wrong at least.
Doing a "Ratner" https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/aug/22/gerald-ratner-jewellery-total-crap-1992-archive
The product sucks for work and productivity purposes. It can still be useful for meetings where productivity is not a factor (social, medical, many other situations.)
I don't really care which teleconferencing software I use but without zoom I would lose access to several medical providers and need to travel a couple hours to them which is untenable.
I gotta say I'm shocked that Zoom is secure enough for use in patient care given how heavily regulated the industry is
(It's definitely not.)
Do you really think any doctors gave a second of thought to patient privacy when they made those decisions?
Everybody was in a tizzy because of COVID so everyone just said "I've heard of zoom! Let's use that! Other people are using it so it must be fine!" And nobody gave a split fucking second of thought to computer security.
They have a HIPAA-compliant version although not sure how secure it really is. In general, companies seem to care more about companies' privacy than individuals.
From a security perspective, the product has sucked for many years now, but it never halted their popularity. If he can survive Apple needing to intervent to remove a web server they installed on people's machines, he'll survive this.
I don't get corporate blokes.
They spend their whole working hours finding ways to increase profits by reducing costs everywhere, to the detriment of the company even. Then we finally give them an easy way to reduce costs that make the employees happy, by removing the need for real estate. And they do a complete 180° to not do so?
Even if they have a lease of multiple years, not having to heat/cool the building nor pay the electricity is still cheaper.
Is it really about micromanagement?
The number of jobs I've missed out on and lost exclusively because I'm not normative enough to tell milquetoast jokes around a water cooler with a bunch of people I know two facts about but treat like my best friend numbers in the 100s.
Fuck all these people trying to force the old ways forever just so they can exercise their social capital upon the rest of us.
Socialization is always brought up as an excuse not to allow WFH. The thing is though, replacing real socialization with work fucking blows. Talking to a coworker to get the latest TPS report isn't socialization. It's work. The only time you do any real socialization is after work ends. And there's nothing stopping you from going out to dinner with coworkers when you work from home.
Arguably you're worse off if most of your socialization is from work. It just leaves you lonely and tired back home.
Yup, which is what they want.
I don't know, the fact that 4 of the 5 other members on my team live at least 2 time zones away from me keeps me from socializing with them after work ends.
(I do not want to leave this job, fwiw.)
Very fair. That said, going into the office isn't going to help that.
I never socialized with work people before COVID.
So true. But personally it feels like an extension of work when I go out with coworkers. Some of them we have nothing in common, different age groups, and even different generations. The only thing in common is: work.
I like to keep it separate. Have my own friends outside of work for socialization. Work people likely never to meet my circle of personal friends.
Valid. I'm not huge on going out with coworkers either unless we click on mutual interests.
Depends on the workplace and the job in general.
I don't want to 'get to know' my coworkers. I'm not there for friendships, or a pseudo family. I'm there to do a job and be paid for it.
But, this might just be my introvert side.
It's not about improving productivity, increasing innovation or 'sharing best practice', as a former workplace put it. Corporations are forcing a return to office work in an attempt to curb a post-COVID real estate crash - which we honestly need since we have far too many luxury offices being built and not enough homes.
For one place where I used to work, RTO drove down staff morale to an all-time low (already low due to high workloads and bad wages) and pushed the staff turnover rate in my department to 95%. They ended up having to outsource the function to an overseas firm.
Geez sure sounds like this real estate market should be like. Heavily controlled and limited by the government. So that objectively good things, like less daily commuting and therefore less greenhouse emissions, can happen without toppling society.
I will never work in an office again. I literally couldn't afford my rent and my food costs if I also had to afford a daily gas expense. I am very much not alone in this.
This is a stupid question maybe, but how does a real-estate crash topple anything?
There's over $1.5 trillion in commercial real estate value that's spiraling in value due to numerous factors, but so many offices going fully remote has definitely contributed to an non-insignificant degree. Additionally, many cities/counties get a shit ton of their tax revenue from the property taxes on that same commercial real estate. If the value of those properties plummet, then tax revenue also plummets. Then you also have a lot of commercial real estate investor that foolishly over extended themselves over the pandemic by buying up a lot of shit when some loan rates were almost 0% at one point. Now, those investments don't look so hot and they're massively in debt and at risk for faulting on those properties.
Tldr; from on my understanding, it's sorta like the 2008 subprime crash, but with commercial real estate and different circumstances.
That being said, fuck those investors and fuck cities heavily relying on property taxes for the bulk of their revenue. Teach them all a lesson, just like they'd unsympathetically teach us common folk a lesson when we fuck up
the same local governments that just raised my property tax by $190/mo?
Go to elec. If there are no good candidates - be good candidate.
I've got a full time job and kids. Don't have time to also get into politics.
I've been to the city council meetings and I vote. Nothing seems to change
The real estate market is in shit because it is already heavily regulated.
Yes... heavily regulated... thats why an entire generation of people live with their parents because housing costs are many orders of magnitude too expensive for them to afford. Yup. That's a clear sign that the government is putting heavy regulations on the cost and distribution of real estate.
I'm sorry, but the very premise that in our present society real estate is even lightly regulated is utterly ridiculous on its face value. As is the concept that deregulation will make housing affordable. Letting landlords and capitalists do whatever they want with all property will somehow make property cheaper? People motivated solely by profit will make everything cheaper? No, they will continue to sell property at increased costs so they can increase their profits as they always have.
You have no clue what zoning does to buildability, do you.
Hint: insane ass zoning rules are government regulations. You really want revised government regulations.
Zoning is not federal in US
And way up this thread was referring to localized laws. And you can force certain changes at higher levels, just gotta be prepared for the lawsuit that follows. State of NJ having a huge issue with affordable housing, and Fair Share basically taking a court ruling and running with it and essentially forcing towns to build, or else.
Or Newsom just flat out removing zoning restrictions via state law in Cali.
What a Chad.
All people who think more gov controlling everything should do is look at places like Europe where it's basically impossible to build and family homes are generational things handed down and you live with your parents until they die and hand over the home to you
"look at places like Europe" is the clearest signifier of someone who has never left the States ever in their life.
In Europe, there are 50 countries, over 150 distinct cultures, wildly different economies and styles of government representing each country, and over 746 million people living within European borders. Of those 746 million, 70% own their own home, compared to 65% of US Americans. Your generalization is absolute nonsense and you should probably not respond so confidently with your opinion.
ROFL, my family is from multiple countries in Europe. I've lived in there for multiple years and my wife is from there. I know all about it because I've lived it. You're a fool if you think people can just own homes or build houses there easily. The home ownership is handed down and most live with parents.
Hell it's not hard to even find this shit out:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/24/dependent-generation-half-young-european-adults-live-parents
"Europe" isn't just London and Paris. I did some research on real estate in France and Spain recently and it's significantly cheaper over there if you aren't living in a major city. Even cheaper than the rural area in the US I currently live in.
No shit...this happens in small towns as well. I would know my family is from multiple countries in Europe.
They're cheaper sure, but you also make far less than in the USA.
That's absolutely not true where I live, so maybe be careful with the generalizations.
Where do you live, because a huge number of families do live in multiple generation houses.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/mar/24/dependent-generation-half-young-european-adults-live-parents
Regulation doesn’t automatically mean better.
You can make regulations that benefit large real estate corporations and that’s still regulation.
We have a lot of that in the parts of US. There are rules encouraging landlords to keep high rental rates bc if they lowered it, they’d have to offer that to other renters as well. Many landlords choose to have empty rooms and keep that high rental rate.
This is literally why housing is so expensive. Local governments (or worse, federal), pass stifling legislation that prevents building, almost always due to localized pressure.
Meanwhile in Russia there is opposite problem: too much housing. And there are a lot of regulations.
And all of those regulations are extractive, but in the opposite direction
Well, I don't know where you live and maybe in your country nothing is regulated, but I live in Europe and in most European countries there are excessive building regulations which prohibit new developments. This results in severe stock shortage. And shortage drives the prices up. That's just a fact.
The whole problem is created by the government and they're the only ones responsible.
I live in Copenhagen, and there are new developments going up every day.
Well, good for you.
The point being that Denmark also has regulations...
"Stock shortage", lol. Not enough paper being printed causes prices to go up?
I think he meant it as inventory
Ah. Well, we live on different planets. On my planet new appartment costs less than on secondary market. And there is oversupply of housing nobody knows what to do with it.
Dear god you are the poster child for "confidently incorrect"
Are you really that ignorant of the housing market? Zoning regulations are the #1 blocker for new housing being built. More regulation = less housing. Just think about it for half a second.
Also, more housing = lower cost. Supply and demand, dude.
I'd argue it's more the homeowners themselves. They don't want high density housing built near them because it drives down the value of their house, so it doesn't get built. Voting records tell that story extremely well.
You'd be wrong. Local homeowners don't vote on new construction. That's not how any of that works.
Homeowners absolutely have a say in their local elections, and there are many cases where they've directly prevented projects from moving towards.
Local homeowners vote on zoning policy tho so he's basically being correct, just not about the mechanism.
You’re not wrong, but I feel like this is an over generalization. You’re right that the current housing shortage has been caused largely by local regulations. On the other hand, many state legislatures are realizing this fact and working to craft new regulations that loosen and supersede the local ones. E.G Oregon passed a law a few years ago that requires residential areas to be zoned for multi family units in cities over a certain size. I think that kind of law is going to be pretty important to getting the housing situation under control.
That happens only in US. Well, you can say that US is more regulated that EU. And then think about it.
US is actually over regulated in general. It's just that their regulations are a result of corruption (they call it lobbying) and are tailored towards protecting monopolies and not consumers or competitors.
Why would companies that generally avoid owning real estate act against its own self interest for the profits of real estate companies?? I don’t see the connection.
I agree with this, the theory doesn't track very well unless the executives locked themselves into expensive long term leases for their offices and don't want to feel embarrassed that it's a wasted cost.
I think the more likely explanation is that the companies want to drive people into quitting so they can reduce payroll without being on the hook for unemployment insurance.
This is exactly what happened at Alphabet.
That’s false. They were not locked. They publicly announced they paid the fines to end those leases early. I think people are just sharing feelings and not facts here.
If they paid fines to cancel, then they were locked in. But they were sensible enough to not fall for sunken cost fallacy and formed up the extra money for the fines to break the lease. Most companies aren't so forward thinking.
That’s a semantic distinction that makes no difference for their incentives. They are not feeling any pressure that affects their decision making in this regard anymore. That was the original argument.
Lots of companies and executives invest in real estate. They see their holdings dwindling and decide its time for the unwashed masses to get their asses back in the office
there might be exceptions. but as a rule tech companies AVOID investing in real estate.
Corporations are pushing RTO because their senior leadership doesn't know how to lead in a modern system.
I won't argue some amount of "responding to waste" isn't there, but this "problem" only exists when the culture isn't healthy enough to be properly managed remotely, which frankly is not that hard.
"Oh no, how terrible"
This has always been the method. I've worked in startups for years, and there's always a game-changing pivot that causes a staff exodus. They replace the with contractors until the company succeeds in the pivot or crashes and burns.
Return to office is just a pivot. If the talent leaves and gets replaced, hopefully their leadership can right the ship. Otherwise it's those who departed who made the right call.
Sounds like their reason behind implementing the RTO plan was successful then.
People keep bringing up real estate because everyone thinks the rich are evil and this move must be money related somehow.
Now, I too think they're pretty rotten for the most part.
But returning to office is not about real estate.
Companies are ruthless and if they can increase profits at all, they will do pretty much anything to do so. Firing long-time workers, destroying the planet, etc. So if they had to destroy the real estate market to make more money, they would.
My point here is that if it was just about money, everyone would remain WFH. They could downsize the office, or even lease out the space to the companies that are returning to the office.
So then why are they doing it? It's their preference. They prefer having their underlings in the building and enjoy seeing everyone from their corner office. They like feeling powerful which is harder to do when everyone who works for them is at home.
They might also have the kind of personality where they get more work done with others around, and they can't imagine it being different for other people. Many high-up executives only got that far because they have very extroverted personalities.
Not everything a rich person does is strictly about money. Otherwise they wouldn't buy mansions, supercars, private planes, etc. Apple wouldn't have built the billion dollar donut office. They do these things because they're powerful and want others to know.
Or, it's a combination of numerous factors, including commercial real estate. There's no one single explanation that fits for every company reverting WFH.
It's not commercial real estate. There's no reason for a CEO to care about real estate. This is just the reason given by people who believe all companies only ever do things for the money. So they've made up a reason they think fits.
It's a combination of factors with real estate being a key I've. Don't be so naive.
Why would a company care about the real estate market when it can make more money having its staff work from home? Have you ever seen a company care about something that doesn't benefit them in the short term?
Ya know, I'm not super happy with my salary (they're really bad at keeping up with inflation), but ... the promise of permanent WFH (we are actively getting rid of our last office, and hiring fully remote) with ability to live in ~half of the states without salary adjustment is basically keeping me complacent for now.
That's one reason I've been toughing out my job situation, but it's driving me crazy so I've been working on my resume and looking for more fully remote options. It's getting harder to find interesting stuff without office commitments :(
At first, I thought this was an Onion story
I've been working remotely for over 10 years. Even without Zoom, it's never been a problem. I've met people and developed many relationships with just Slack. Heck I'm sure I'd manage that even with just email.
When I finally met everyone in person at the company retreat, everyone was super happy to know me in person. I was about exactly as they imagined.
Company culture is how you develop it. At every company I've worked with, I introduced social channels and established a continuous background chatter that's for people to share memes or whatever they want, to help establish a personnality that goes beyond "I just deployed X which puts project Y live on production". I have DMs with all sorts of people from all departments, just idle occasional chatter. It makes connections with other departments when you need their help. It works. I always somehow become the guy to reach out to for anything that doesn't necessarily fit a Jira ticket, or sometimes just need help making sure they file the right kind of ticket.
If it doesn't work, then either you have hermits that wouldn't be much more active in an office anyway, or the company is holding it back by discouraging or forbidding any sort of unprofessional or otherwise non-work related activity and the only way to socialize is in the break room in the office.
IMO idle chats on Slack are way less disruptive than in-person, it doesn't take you off your work stretch, you can send replies during Zoom meetings, you can even have textual side threads during a video meeting to go over details without holding the meeting for everyone. Sometimes I have hours long conversations going about projects on Slack, with everyone essentially just chiming in whenever they have new ideas or feedback. It gives people time to think and refine the specs without any "now or never" pressure.
Remote work works, if it doesn't work, it's a company culture problem not an office problem.
Honestly this so much. I'm not a forward enough person to be the one to create that background chatter in my workplace, but I will participate in it.
My last workplace had it and my current one doesn't, and the difference is night and day. Leaving my last company hit hard because among the developers we had such a great culture in spite of upper management's toxicity. I would leave my current role in a heartbeat because there's just no real culture. That's not something management should be aiming for, because higher churn is bad for the business.
Yeah, it really matters. It's the difference between a computer you turn on to do strictly business and a computer you turn on and look forward to engaging with other people and see what cool stuff people are working on. Look at people's delicious breakfasts and coffees in #breakfast, look at people's cats and dogs in #pets.
When done right, tools like Slack can also give you so much more visibility too and chime in. I'm a DevOps/platform engineer, but unless we talk secrets or implementation details we chat in a public channel so backend devs can see what we're doing. I can passively read the support team's channel and give them hints like oh this customer's CNAME points to the wrong site. I can see what the backend team runs into deploying their stuff and propose tooling changes to make their life better. It lets me be extremely proactive, without turning into a "you must keep up with everything everyone is doing". Half of them I have muted but still idle browse every now and then. I've had other teams pop on our public channel and ask details about how it works, so they can better understand how their code will run. I've had other devs chime in and say hey, our app works better in that kind of environment. It's a constant informal feedback loop on top of the usual formal Jira tickets. Saves everyone time, makes everyone happier.
It continuously reinforces the importance of my role, why my team do the things we do, who it's for. It's not soulless work anymore, because you know and see the impact of your work on other people. Even sales is less annoying because you can see them chat about how it's the 50th customer that asks if we can do X, instead of just hearing that sales sold feature X that we don't hace and now it's due next week, because you have context on why.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190625005362/en/Zoom-Expands-Its-Lease-at-KBS%E2%80%99-The-Almaden-to-More-than-87000-Square-Feet
Hey, I need to expand my lease.
it is X amount of money
What if I commit 10 years
it is X/2
Deal!
Oh, he reduced costs and increased footprint. He is a genius!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/zoom-offices-hybrid-remote-work-11661977375
Older than life. A situation changes and somebody whose personal interests are over the groups interests.
Typical corporate.
Upper manager goal is Y (not using the letter before it anymore thanks to dippy boy). But we're Y -3% this quarter
Solution? Treat workers like shit until it's Y. Doesn't matter if it makes them unhappy, they leave, or next year's results suck. Now now now
You missed the point tho. This is actively costing them a lot of money. They're just doing it to save face and maintain control.
It's purely about control. WFH is cheaper and more efficient.
WFH being taken from folks is just about real estate. Yet another reason why capitalism is gonna kill us all. You know how you get a bunch of cars off of the road? WFH.
There are three other options:
Those things are fine, but don't negate the problem of pointlessly being required to travel to a pointless office.
I don't negate, but this also solves how to travel to relatives.
You’re not wrong but all those things require costly infrastructure changes whereas many jobs can be wfh right now with no upfront cost required.
Both would be cool though
Third option does not require new infrastructure even if you don't have PT. Just make city-wide limit in 30 km/h, then maybe ban cars.
Control or real estate. ¿Por qué no los dos?
Capitalism is gonna save us.
Doesn't matter what you think, Big techs ceos are laughing their ass off every time their products gets mentioned and reach the frontpage. Purge their ads and remove their visibility
Maybe people can just use a different video calling program if the CEO of the company doesn't like people using it.
maybe they should use teams
If my work told me i needed to be on the office even a day a week, i would be searching for another job immediately
They want even your time off
2010 is the year we started going full "remote work" and we sold our office building in 2012. Since then we have somehow managed to thrive and innovate like crazy. I am pretty sure these guys know that what they are saying is bullshit, at least as it relates to tech. Creatives, maybe, but in tech it is far easier to screenshare and discuss than it is to lean over some dude's shoulder to look at their screen...in dark mode...with nano fonts.
I mean, the guy that heads Teams literally said meetings and subsequent overuse of Teams due to ease of making and doing meetings, is a productivity killer.
I agree. The problem is meetings.
The meetings I'm forced to go to at work almost always have nothing to do with my actual job, but do include the owner telling us how much money the company is making in chart and graph form for 20 minutes, which helpfully reminds me that I'm being severely underpaid.
Yes, I am preparing my resume.
My manager just told us our department is under budget on salary by $250k, because we were short staffed and everyone picked up the slack, but has been slow rolling cost of living increases.
Dude's fucked around, now he's going to find out.
Every position cut/not filled should mean an equivalent pay increase for everyone who has to pick up that slack, or that that slack is left where it is.
And the idiots who schedule many of them...
I just get scheduled into meetings without my involvement or knowledge. Sometimes minutes before they're due to start.
I have a meeting scheduled for Monday. Even though I'm away on Monday and they can see I'm away on Monday in my calendar. I'm just not going to tell them, and see if they noticed that I don't turn up.
Yeah in those situations I choose to not show up. They gonna not show me respect, I'm not gonna show them.
One of the advantages of working from home is you can have the meeting on in the background and get on with some real work. When it comes your time to speak you've lost maybe 5 minutes instead of an hour.
Sounds like to many meetings. Can't do work at a meeting.
I can. Have a meeting in Citrix and I happily work while people yabber on in the background.
The real killer is the face to face meetings. My group supervisor now demands anyone in the office on a particular day go into his office for the team meeting. That's a real time waster.
People online can't hear us properly standing around in his office. Can't get work done while standing in there.
Just let me work from home so I don't have a bunch of people wander over to me to ask stupid questions during the day.
If you want something send me an email and I'll get to it when I have time. Walking into my space, making me take my noise cancelling headphones off so you can yabber at me and break my concentration is so annoying.
I'm untouchable at home. I work until I need a break, then quickly sort questions and queries, then get back into my groove for another hour or two.
Dang, I just applied to a couple positions there. I'll go ahead and retract those :D
Someone is getting tired of paying for HVAC, electricity, and plumbing for a vacant office building 😢
That's how I understood it as well. Feels like most mandates have nothing to do with company culture and more to do with commercial property expenses/investments.
If only they could make a charitable donation to the city, with the expressed purpose that it be converted to affordable housing/homeless shelters for a profitable tax write-off instead.
Sometimes I wonder why these chucklefucks get to play with the big bucks. A good CEO allocates resources well. That's it. This just screams failure in that department, and soooo many better options exist.
They don't need to convert it, keep it as office space for a charity or multiple charities, use it as storage for charities, make workshop spaces for low income or unemployed, etc etc etc
Even better resource allocation. I think Zoom might need a new CEO soon. Send HR a link to this thread homie. One of us is sure to land the job.
In some countries you'd get tax breaks for leasing the building to a charity. It's win win win
When I was working in the office, I'd put the thermostat where I like it, drink 6 K-Cups worth of something a day, and use so much TP. I hated commuting and made sure I got my money's worth. They'll regret bringing people like me back.
He's not wrong, remote meetings do suck for getting to know your coworkers, but that's not a great reason for rtw
I mean, scientifically speaking, they're not wrong. Physical contact with another person causes trust to grow because it causes oxytocin secretion.
But it's still funny that the owner of a video calling company is telling people to go back to the office.
His argument is essentially that people are not toxic enough in online meetings to innovate.
Alanis Morissette perks up
I
Went to your house
Walked up the stairs
Joined a zoom meeting
Disabled my cam
"I can't be as innovative over zoom"
Fixed that for you
This fix is incomplete.
"I can't be innovative."
Don’t get high on your own supply? I guess?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Zoom CEO Eric Yuan told employees this month that the company was making the surprising decision to send some workers back to the office regularly because its flagship remote-work product didn't allow employees to build as much trust or be as innovative as in the office, according to a leaked meeting recording viewed by Insider.
The top reason for the mandate, Yuan said at the August 3 meeting, is that it's difficult for employees to get to know each other and build trust remotely.
The comments, much like the decision to return some employees to offices, are surprising given the role Zoom's technology plays in remote work.
The company's videoconferencing service became so ubiquitous early in the pandemic that its corporate name became a verb describing the act of firing up any video chat to connect with coworkers online.
Amazon recently asked employees to relocate to their teams' offices or find new jobs.
Zoom's return to office, at least from Yuan's comments, appears less strict, as he directed employees who have issues with the policy to apply for exceptions with the heads of their departments.
The original article contains 395 words, the summary contains 185 words. Saved 53%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Good bot.
Leadership realized they weren't getting the ego stroke they needed virtually. Time to go back to cube hell so this guy can justify his existence.
Point barrel at foot. Pull trigger
I want to start off by saying that I work from home and would like to continue doing so indefinitely. I also think these CEOs are chodes and aren't really thinking about the point I'll attempt to make next and typically do not care about such concerns.
Now, I do wonder what effect the loss of the "2nd place" (home, work, community being the "working definition" of places) for vast swathes of the American public will have in a country where the "3rd place" is already pretty non-existent.
In other words, we're already quite an isolated society. What will a large percentage of us also working in isolation have on the country and on mental health in the long run?
I think there's a potential that it could be a good effect or a bad one (or a mixture like most things), and I'm not sure which outcome is more likely.
We could become even more withdrawn from each other...or we could use the time we used to spend in traffic and with coworkers to build up local, community bonds instead. I suppose only time will tell, but I think it's an interesting discussion that I haven't seen talked about much yet.
I can say for certain that wfh has had a marked impact on my real world social interactions, but that's not entirely a bad thing. What it means is that any conversation I have with someone is sparked by genuine interest rather than obligation after having bumped into them at the water cooler.
I think it has effected me in mostly bad ways so far, but it's difficult to 100% decouple that from the awkwardness stemming from the pandemic that coincides with it. I worked remotely before the pandemic hit, but the lack of "office" + the lack of any social venue outside of zoom calls for many months exacerbated things.
Overall, I feel mostly these days like I'm going to have to get a hobby or a meetup or something going because even though I have a pretty low need for social interactions I'm finding myself barely scraping by these days.
What do you mean by this? Just about all of my hobbies are solo ventures, but I have heard many good things about meetups and user groups
I'm not a very social person but I find myself feeling like my social needs are barely being met nowadays.
Ah I see. You have any interests? As you mentioned, hobbies are always a good place to start, even if they're not strictly "social". If anything it gives you something to talk about, and maybe find some common ground with the people you meet.
Yeah, I'm into a bunch of different things. I had a friend group of sorts in this city but it frayed quite a bit during the pandemic and my wife and I are still kinda COVID weirdos (outdoor masklessness only, etc).
It'll be alright.
I also work from home for several extended periods of time, while during others I need to be on site one or two days a week (sometimes it's nice, sometimes it's a drag to be on site).
I have to say, while I can work a 100% of the time from home, the nice parts of being on site is to get to know more personally the people I meet. I don't deny the fact that this be successfully done remotely too, but I believe as humans we need social connections. Yes, we can make friends online (which can carry over IRL and I know that personally) and yes you can meet your partner online too, but it always felt (at least to me) that if you meet others in person, you accelerate the connection.
I mean, I had a fairly bad time in high school, but I had the time of my life on college and met most of my friends then. I'm not sure I'd have made as many friends if it had all been online.
Also, as someone wrote in another post today (but I can't remember where so I can't link it, sorry), sometimes people (perhaps new hires fresh out of college) are not experienced enough to know when to be vocal and object to flaws in a project and in person meeting can be a boon to acquire that skill.
It's a tricky subject, since it's not that WFH or doing things online prevents normal life evolutions, but perhaps can make them more scarce or slow, while in person events can precipitate them.
I agree that companies forcing things is not the way to go, but somehow it feels like doing things entirely online should happen more later in life, when you're settled and not before when you need to learn and make connections who you'll want to meet in person too.
Thanks for coming to my TED talk
It's a fair point, but I think the answer is to take action necessarily to reintroduce a proper third space, including moving to more medium density mixed use developments.
Eric, you need to un-moot
Ironic that the CEO of a company producing a product designed for remote online meetings telling their staff that remote online meetings don't work for his company goals.
Our product sucks, I don't want my employees using this crap.
I feel that they might change their logo to snake eating its own tail.
Clown 🤡
If you're in a tech job, working from home should be the default. If you're in a service job, working on-site is a requirement. This can have a negative impact on a company overall because you may have both in your workforce, and the ability to work from home breeds resentment and impacts morale.
Amidst COVID, our office workers were told to return to work. The reasoning was a perceived inequity held by the field workers toward those that sit at a desk all day. Nevermind that having everyone return up's everyone's chance for getting infected. Truth be told, those forced to come in would rather risk that than be left out.
They should turn off the AC too, if anybody has to sweat, everybody should have to sweat.
I hope people demanded an eye-watering raise, citing the inequity in remuneration between the workers and C-suite.
Oh - you don't care about equity after all? Why do we need to come back again?
Paywall can't read
Of course paywalls can't read. Paywalls don't have eyes.
They needed to pay for those
https://archive.is/rDQPO
sounds rapey
The article is behind a paywall for me. I have to admit that I don't like online meetings and much prefer the direct contact with people. However, I can be totally productive remotely via email and chat. It's just that I don't like online meetings. Remote work is absolutely fine. It's even better for days that I am working alone on my computer and desk. I avoid all the traffic and waste of time to make myself presentable for the outside world. I've just realised that I don't like meetings with too many people in general; neither live nor online. A huge waste of everyone's time.
Wow, just wow. I liked Zoom when it was an upstart company making good tools for remote work When it got big, ugh.
I've been doing a combination of working from home and working from the office since the start of COVID. I generally only go into work when there is something broken that needs me to physically repair it. I can honestly say that the times I'm working from home, my productivity is exceptionally higher than it would be otherwise. No distractions from coworkers, a more comfortable environment, better computers and desk ergonomics, no commute.
Employers need to realize that good employees work better from home, and the ones that don't are not worth keeping on the payroll.
Something something dogfooding
This is a weird debate for me. I do feel like I'm able to coordinate and communicate with my coworkers more effectively in person. Especially with people I don't already have a close working relationship with. On the other hand i hate being at an office when i could be making lunch and doing laundry while being on a call.
Fucking muppet...
Why tf is his personal fortune still 200b??? Deam what if he's sabotaging his fortune so that he can keep making way to much money in different projects. Without people freaking out cuz he has 500b, the only what to do that would be in fact to tank a couple of companies in a way that seems not accidental.
It's worth noting, and not mentioned in most of these articles, that the CEO is saying that Zoom employees that live near offices must return at least 2 days a week.
They have not demanded that all employees return 5 days a week, but other CEOs don't do their own research and just think "we need to! Look at Zoom!".
The other way around. They've invested in so much real estate they need to justify it.
Oops.
It seems like the vast majority of people are coming at this from the standpoint of "I know how to do my job, why do I need to be an office". This may be unpopular but you do it for the new people who need a Lot of company support to get on their feet. I remember starting out and how much easier it was to ask people questions in person over lunch etc. It's intimidating for a new person to sit in front of a computer and ask random people they've never met questions, really amps that imposter syndrome.
I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but the CEO is at least partially right. It is really hard to get to know people and build trust remotely.
I started my first post-college job in August of 2020. Most people were remote, but I was not due to the nature of my work. It is extremely hard to get to know people exclusively over email, phone calls, and video calls. It's frustrating not being able to get to know people even at the surface level. Knowing a little bit about your coworkers allows you to build rapport with them. Video and voice calls can be unreliable, and people can be very difficult to understand without in person cues and the ability to read lips. I say all of this as a very introverted person with social anxiety.
That may be true for some people individually, but I believe if no one at a company is able to build any connection (even on a professional level of base rapport ), that's much more an indicator of the company's failures to build a proper company culture that supports that.
People have been making close friends over the Internet with zero in-person interactions for decades now. And that's even without video chat being the primary way of doing it. I work 100% remote at a company with ~2500 employees. I'm pretty introverted, but I've managed to make a few friends mostly over slack that I would ask if they wanted to grab a drink or something if I were traveling through their area. There's no pressure or expectation of that from the company, there's no "we're family" nonsense, they've just created a company culture where that can happen.
I disagree completely. I love the word terroir. It's a good metaphor. A good wine comes from a grapes in a specific place, with specific soil conditions, with specific weather conditions that can't be predicted or replicated. Even if you could replicate the controllable variables again, the variables are too great to replicate. Sometimes terroir happens at work, and it requires all these things to come together in a place and time. I was lucky to have that in my career. But with remote work I don't think that will ever happen again and remote work will prohibit that. I love working from home 2 days a week. But I wish we could figure out a 3 days a week in office that makes sense.
I agree. In the old days I was coming in only 3 days a week. But for those 3 days everyone was there. And the weekly end of day knowledge share and training where buckets of beer were passed around that turned into happy hour were natural and organic team building. Also, being able to white board off the cuff when needed to train folks on random topics during on boarding when you discovered a knowledge gap or had to field an off the cuff question with a 20 minute mini lecture...
Video conferencing killed all of that or at best made it way more painfull than it should be.
Also remote work killed the office. Even if I was going in 3 days a week I'm still video conferencing 75% of the time and no conference room is available.
Not downvoted, appreciate you sharing your perspective.
I’ve been successful building trust in remote work settings but it’s a very much about building a narrative that’s much more explicit and communicated in an active way.
But ignoring that bullshit I just typed, I think “building trust” in a professional environment is largely a trap. Not because you can’t trust anyone but that, if you’re building a good team, trust should be implicit. I was hired to do a job, you were hired to do a job, let’s trust that each other to do it.
I think it’s also worth bearing in mind that high trust teams can still build trust, I’m simply advocating for not starting from zero.
Unfortunately so many of the tools and workflows are built explicitly for low trust teams.
I wish people would move away from the will be downvoted for this statement before saying something. It's just meaningless votes, and message is stronger without it than giving the impression of caring about karma or a willingness to stand by it regardless of reaction by not even acknowledging it.
Upvoted because you've definitely touched on a very real problem that needs to be addressed.
But you're completely wrong about the cause. The problem is companies with a bad culture. @[email protected] said it brilliantly in a comment further up the thread, and I did my best (less elegant) job of explaining it above that. The company needs to take steps to encourage a good relationships between people, for example with casual and non-work-related chats in the chat app of choice, or by having people frequently working on problems in pairs instead of solo, especially when first starting out.
I had better relationships with my coworkers fully remotely at my last job than I do at my current job despite being in the office frequently. And that's all down to how the company manages its culture.
I disagree. Good culture is sometimes an accident. And folks in charge like to take credit for that accident working out
Sure, that's absolutely the case.
But that wasn't my point. My point was that the experience with WFH comes down entirely to the culture, and if you're feeling isolated when WFH it's not a fault of WFH, it's a problem with your company's work culture.
Maybe if companies actually tried offering affordable employment housing so people aren't having to do long commute times or losing a chunk of their salary living closer people would not be against working in the office.
There's too much personal monetary and time inconveniences of working in the office over remote on an individual level that it's hard to care about wanting to get to know someone being enough of a draw to work in the office.
Tell me you are doing something illegal without telling me you are doing something illegal.
What do you mean?
Something against the law or something.
I honestly don't know why people use zoom or google meet when Jitsi exists.
Because they work at a job that requires them to.
I don't see anything ironic about this. Zoom is just a tool for making video calls, it's not even close to being a sufficient replacement for face-to-face interaction with people. A lot of people aren't motivated to get work done when they are at home by themselves. In isolation you can feel like the work you're doing is meaningless and not providing any value to anyone. When lockdowns affected my workplace productivity plummeted - we had people ostensibly 'working from home' that were answering a few emails here and there and then checking out without having done any actual valuable work at all.
If you hate your job, maybe it's the work/management/culture that is the problem. WFH isn't a solution to that, it's just hiding away from the causes of your misery.
Oh nooooo people have to come into the workplace and cant have 5 full time jobs!!! Think of those poor programmers who cant afford to retire by 27 by taking advantage of their colleagues anymore.