Comment by mrweasel

Comment by mrweasel 3 days ago

199 replies

> Eliminating 2 hours a day of driving and train rides left me with more energy I can expend on my work!

Companies forget this. I have had coworkers quit because they couldn't deal with transport. One got stressed out of his mind because our office was close to motorway which frequently has accidents and if that happened he might not be able to pick up the kids on time. Others had to leave clients hanging because they had to leave, "daycare closes at 16:30 and it's now 16:00". Working from home it was much more frequent that clients in the late afternoon would get "Sure, give me ten minutes to pick up the kids and we'll finish this today".

kwanbix 3 days ago

I know this might be an "unpopular opinion," but after working fully remote for three years, I found myself feeling really down. I felt like a prisoner in my own home. So, three months ago, I started a new job with an office that’s 45 minutes away, and I’ve been going in every day—and I couldn't be happier! I do have the option to work from home all days if I want, but honestly, I prefer going to the office. Now, I get to see people, move around more, and when I’m at home, it truly feels different from being at work. It’s been a game-changer for me.

  • marricks 3 days ago

    I went remote a few years before Covid and I felt a bit isolated, but then I realized I had too much of my social life tied up in my job. Having hobbies and interests outside of work is so much better for my mental health and I wouldn’t swap it for anything, especially a 40 min commute.

    I also wouldn’t force anyone to go back to office so I could see the humm of their work. If you need that there’s co working spaces for that reason, or places which have in office options.

    Large companies mandating everyone work in office is purely a flex for control and probably to save their property investments.

    • marcosdumay 3 days ago

      > Large companies mandating everyone work in office is purely a flex for control and probably to save their property investments.

      It's a hidden layoff.

      • deweller 3 days ago

        As a layoff strategy, I would expect it to be counterproductive. The people most likely to quit skew toward high-performing individuals who feel confident in their ability to get a remote job elsewhere. And vice versa.

    • Malidir 2 days ago

      > but then I realized I had too much of my social life tied up in my job.

      Yup! Remote workers need to realise this, and build up a local social life.

  • netsharc 3 days ago

    Sheesh, why should it be unpopular. It's called having a preference/choice. Companies telling everyone to be in the office 5 days a week 9-5 (or whatever) is removing that choice. Some like you may not mind, but for others it might be hell...

    • consteval 3 days ago

      It's unpopular because the positions aren't on equal footing. In order to achieve the in-office scenario you HAVE to force people into the office. Because the office itself has no value - it's a building. The value is the people there.

      That's not the case with WFH setups. WFH scenarios do not care where people are. They could be in the office, in a stairwell, or on the beach.

      So one position is inherently one of control, and the other is one of freedom. Maybe that's controversial to say, but to me it's plainly true.

      • ssl-3 3 days ago

        I parsed that as:

        "If anyone has an office in a building, then everyone must have an office in that building and must be forced to work there."

        And I just don't follow that. Why must it be this way? So that the office is full?

        If so, then: If having the office full every day is an important metric and WfH interferes with that metric, then the problem is not that the people make choices.

        Instead, it is that the office is larger than it should be.

      • nostrademons 3 days ago

        You don't necessarily. Optional WFH or coworking arrangements let you come into the office if you prefer to, but let people who would rather WFH do so if they prefer to. They were pretty common even during the pandemic, eg. in my time in the startup scene probably 70-80% of founders worked out of a coworking office instead of their home.

    • treis 3 days ago

      Because it's really hard for a company to do both. Even if it's a remote first and the office is just a place to do zoom calls. Human nature will divide it into two camps with social bonds being stronger within the remote/on office groups than across.

      Speaking as someone who would have to be dragged back to an office, it's obvious that the in office group would win out. Bonds are weaker in the remote group and your type A ladder climbers will be overrepresented in the in office group.

      So hybrid office is probably going to lead to all in office. Especially in these difficult economic times as workforces stagnate or shrink in these companies.

      • ghaff 3 days ago

        Teams that are relatively co-located geographically can coordinate to come into a location regularly on the same days. That really didn't happen where I worked and, as far as I know, the company continues to shed real estate. I'm not sure the execs especially liked the shift but, starting from the base of a fairly remote-friendly company, COVID just largely shredded whatever in-office culture there was for better or worse.

        So, yeah, I think there was some pre-COVID middle ground but you probably have a fairly large percent of people mostly coming into an office and a fairly small percent doing so--which of course tends to reinforce both behaviors. (And it grew a lot in a distributed manner as well which probably made getting everyone together physically all the time less relevant.)

      • cryptonector 3 days ago

        Some coordinated office presence + some WFH is a good mix that reduces commute times, increases WFH productivity (because in-office interactions lead to pressure to deliver), and maintains face-to-face access.

    • ljm 3 days ago

      totally depends on the job, team, and culture as well I think.

      I thought I'd enjoy going back to the office, until 5 days a week was enforced and I was frequently getting interrupted.

      As another commenter said, nurturing a social life is more difficult when working from home, you have to be deliberate about it. I felt the office just made it more convenient to hang out, but it never really happened because I was too burned out by the work.

      • mezzie2 3 days ago

        I find nurturing a social life much easier when I'm WFH because I don't end each day dead on my feet from being overstimulated all day, being in uncomfortable clothes, etc. It also means I don't have to choose between chores and going out after work/on weekends. (A lot of my job is being available for issues and/or requires waiting on SMEs so I have downtime). And it means my social battery isn't drained by the 40 conversations about coworkers' kids that I don't care about (I participate to create a good social environment, but it's just not an enjoyable conversation topic for me) so I can spend my social energy on people and topics that actually fill my cup.

      • Insanity 3 days ago

        The office makes it convenient to hang out with people who aren’t friends and unlikely to become so.

        In my 10+ years working in offices, I made exactly one friend (someone who I see outside of work).

        I would rather not commute and spend that time with actual friends, more quality social interaction over quantity.

        (YMMV of course)

      • vladvasiliu 3 days ago

        > As another commenter said, nurturing a social life is more difficult when working from home

        If you're happy with token interactions, sure. Your colleagues are right there (even talking to you while you try to work!). But IME, and from what I hear others say on HN and elsewhere, those aren't really "friends". The relationships are very superficial. How many of these people would help you move? With how many do you keep in contact when one of you changes jobs? I know exceptions exist, but those seem to be rather rare.

        So, if you actually want a deeper relationship, you still have to look for it deliberately. Only now, you have even less time to do it, since you're stuck in the office for 8 hours a day and possibly a few more depending on your commute. Whereas if you're at home, if it's not practical to go have lunch with a buddy or something, at least you can deal with some of your chores that can be time-consuming, while not requiring you to interact with them continuously, like laundry, waiting for a delivery, slow cooking something, etc.

    • jfranche 3 days ago

      Even more unpopular, you have a choice to work. To work at Amazon.

      We haven't really hit a true recession yet, esp for the laptop class. I think you will see more of this.

      • saghm 3 days ago

        > Even more unpopular, you have a choice to work. To work at Amazon.

        I had coworkers at Amazon who never lived near any office and were hired with the understanding that they'd always be remote. After several years, they were told to "return" to an office that they never worked in before hundreds or thousands miles away or to resign (without severance of course, since it's "voluntary", and of course refusing to quit or move would lead to firing "for cause"). Are you saying that this is okay because it's Amazon, and their employees don't need to be treated as fairly as anywhere else, or are you arguing that this should be allowed anywhere? I can't imagine why this would be reasonable at any company, but I can't tell if this is an anti-Amazon sentiment or just a consistent opinion that seems crazy to me.

        • rescbr 2 days ago

          Ex-Amazonian here, but outside the US. How come refusing to quit would lead to firing “for cause”?

          Wouldn’t that be some constructive dismissal, or am I misunderstanding the US labor law?

          When I was laid off through the PIP’s way just before the 2022 official layoffs, the first thing I questioned was if they were firing me for no cause, and I collected both Amazon’s severance and the government mandated severance for non-cause dismissals.

      • sandworm101 3 days ago

        Correct. Every job that can be done remotely can equally be done very remotely. At home tech workers compete in a global marketplace. My job requires me to be in the office, not by anyone's choice. It's a legal requirement. That offers me protection should cuts ever come.

      • shanusmagnus 3 days ago

        At the risk of caricature, it seems like there are two camps:

        1. WFH is amazing and just as good for productivity and back-to-office is just a flex by evil managers.

        2. WFH is bad for global productivity and so we need back-to-office.

        Seems pretty straightforward that if #1 is right, then full-remote companies will have a massive competitive advantage, and the issue should be adjudicated decisively once more companies implement b-t-o.

    • dspillett 3 days ago

      > Sheesh, why should it be unpopular.

      It shouldn't be, but it is for many.

      Most times I mention online preferring to not work remote I get people calling me some sort of corporate shill, or worse.

      (Or the posts just get downvoted to oblivion by people who can't articulate their objection more meaningfully than that!)

      > Companies telling everyone to be in the office 5 days a week 9-5 (or whatever) is removing that choice.

      The problem is that it is genuinely hard for a company to support both (and/or flexible mixes) well, and if you ask for a little of the old way it becomes a tribal binary us-vs-them thing. I work in the office most of the time because I prefer to keep work and home separate, and I find I work better that way, but I'm still working on a remote team because practically everyone else is remote. We have a day-per-week policy (well, more of a string suggestion) but most people ignore that.

      > It's called having a preference/choice.

      Unfortunately while people are usually all for being flexible when being flexible means doing things the way they prefer, being flexible in both directions is rarer than it should be. For instance: I dislike phone calls and video calls, to the point of significant anxiety, but trying to get people to just send me an email or IM instead has been an uphill struggle with some. Of course I'll clench my arse and take part in a call when it is the best way to deal with a situation (as it sometimes really is) or because there is no choice (perhaps it is dictated by a client, or those up high), or the dailies and other regulars (calls that are habit/routine are less of a problem) but otherwise I much prefer to communicate in person (“in person” in person, not virtual in person) or by text mediums.

      If I leave this tech job, or lose it for any reason, I think I'll have to retrain for a different industry, even if that means taking a hefty pay cut, heck even if that means mind-numbing minimum wage work. Working on a remote team is not great for my mental health, and it very much seems to have become the norm. Luckily in current DayJob we have found some sort of balance that works well enough, and I've been here long enough (and I'm sufficiently good at what I do) to be inconvenient to dispose of, and the people who wouldn't take the hint about not wanting to take a call for a chit-chat are no longer here, but at some point that might all change.

  • mrsilencedogood 3 days ago

    The whole "us vs them" being manufactured in "remote vs onsite" is really suspicious to me. I have never actually heard from a single person who wanted to force remote people in, or a remote person who wanted to force onsite people out of the office. It feels like the owner class is trying to build a fox-and-the-grapes narratives around the people they've forcibly RTO'd to try to get some kind of grassroots-shaped support for their forced RTO policies.

    It's all about choice. I have 3 young kids. The youngest will be in school next year. At that point, I may find myself actually going to a coworking space from time to time (and if my company had an office near me, I'd go into that sometimes). I certainly don't mind the amenities and the company of my coworkers (all 2 of them that are actually physically located within a 4-hour-drive radius of me).

    But for right now, being able to be full-time remote with a fully flexibly work schedule is ridiculously important and useful to me. My wife has a dentist appointment? I can sit here in the basement and pull up the kid's camera while he naps and she can just go. I can eat lunch with my kid. I can do morning drop-off when my wife needs a break from the morning kid-prep grind. It's absolutely vital and our lives would've been a mess the last 4 years without it.

    Plus, besides the work-lifestyle thing, there's a question of equality of opportunity. As you can probably guess based on my above remarks, I live in BFE (five generations of my family live here, so I can't leave) and there's literally nothing that San Francisco-type SWE's would recognize as a "tech job" until you get up to Lake Michigan. My options, were I to work locally, would be to work in a place that specializes in government/enterprise contracting and "staff augmentation". If your nose is wrinkling and your brow furrowing upon reading that phrase, yes that's the correct facial expression to be making. And yes it pays what you'd expect.

    But thanks to remote work, I'm working for a startup and actually getting to program an actual software product and engage with its product development and all that.

    • Phrodo_00 3 days ago

      > I have never actually heard from a single person who wanted to force remote people in

      I have. lots of people get a lot of their social interaction from work.

      • youngNed 3 days ago

        An englishman, a scotsman and an irishman are marooned on a desert island. Afer a long year one of them finds a lamp, and when cleaning it up a genie appears.

        The genie offers them one wish each

        The Irishman says 'sure i'd give anything to be back in galway, stuck in a snug, with a pint of porter' and <poof> he's gone.

        The scotsman is amazed and roars 'take me back tae glasgae!' and in a similar puff of smoke is gone.

        The englishman, looks around and says 'I say, its going to be awfully lonely around here without those chaps around, can you bring them back please?'

      • indoordin0saur 3 days ago

        Yeah, I'm not sure what the OP is talking about. There's definitely a sense of irritation at my office when you've got 4/5 people in office for a meeting and we have to dial in to talk to the 5th who is remote, especially when they could have come in.

    • KoolKat23 3 days ago

      You underestimate just how many nosey/bossy busybodies there are.

  • mrweasel 3 days ago

    > I know this might be an "unpopular opinion,"

    It should not be. I work from home 100% now, but feeling alone is a very real issue for many of us. I have friends I talk to during the day via IRC or one the phone, regular chats and video calls with colleagues and managers, family is right around the corner and I try to get out every day and talk to people.

    For some the isolation is wonderful. For others, like me, it's amazing for doing focused work, but I also need people in my life. For some problem arises when their sole social circle is people they work with. If you struggle to talk to people you don't know then coworkers quickly be an "outlet" for socializing.

    • fhd2 3 days ago

      I've been working primarily from home for 12 years now, and I can absolutely understand these feelings.

      I don't think I'd enjoy it at all if I didn't have so much family and loved ones around, just sitting in an apartment all day by myself. What interaction you have with co workers with so much fewer social cues can hurt more than it helps, really.

      I'll bet you many managers in favour of RTO feel exactly like this when they work from home, and base their decisions on the way they feel.

    • seadan83 3 days ago

      In office is a mixed bag. Sometimes there are genuine people there who could become true friends. On the other hand, there are those that talk through their smiles. The two are sometimes indistinguishable and it can be hard to determine whether those office relationships were hollow or not. In a best case, they are not hollow. In a worst case, you think you have a support network and friends and don't spend as much effort to find genuine community connection. Then when it comes time to leave, or change team - the relationship evaporates leaving you worse off than before (still isolated, but now also older and missed opportunity). It is a spectrum, true friends I believe are somewhat rare in the workplace.

      Another dimension to that spectrum is a development of a working cohort. Essentially a half dozen people or more that hire each other at new jobs and move together from company to company. A true best case there us to meet a potential co-founder.

      Though, I have had a remote colleague whome we spent days on video calls together working on a problem. I am not sure remote is in-office is actually mutually exclusive. The people willing to spend 5 hours on a call peer coding with you might be the same that you actually become friends with in office

  • longnt80 3 days ago

    > get to see people > move around more > feels different from being at work

    I'm not sure why one couldn't do this working remotely? Maybe these people can only socialise through work? Being passive about getting out of the house? Unable to create boundaries between work and personal life?

    Working "remote" doesn't mean one has to stay at home all the time. We all have laptops and can go any where to work.

    • dlisboa 3 days ago

      While I prefer remote it’s undeniable the vast majority of an adult’s socializing is done at work. Can you do it outside of it? Maybe, but probably not. Most of your friends will also work or they’ll have families and not be able to come out often.

      Unless you have dozens of friends already the likelihood is you’ll often be alone after work.

      Thankfully I’ve made my friends and have a family but if I was just starting out I don’t think I’d even have met the people that are close to me. My friends are mostly from work or work friends of my college friends.

      People often say to that “just get hobbies”. Well, hobbies are often done with friends or are introduced to by friends.

      • consteval 3 days ago

        People are right, you should just get hobbies.

        I think this WFH epidemic was an opportunity to enlighten a lot of people. There are many, many people (myself included), who were husks of human beings. Alive, technically, but not living.

        We work, we eat, we sleep. We had money, but at the end of the day we were losers. I knew this to be the case when I realized what I looked forward to what dinner. Eating a meal was the highlight of my day, and the highlight of every day. And then the weekends I stayed in, exhausted from work.

        When people lost the office, it was an opportunity for them to realize they had absolutely no life. No friends, no socialization, no passions, no desires. Some realized that and took control of their life, and others took offense to that realization and demanded the office back.

        It was very much a matrix red pill versus blue pill situation. Live in lalaland on autopilot? It's tempting.

      • mrguyorama 3 days ago

        >People often say to that “just get hobbies”. Well, hobbies are often done with friends or are introduced to by friends.

        Not even close. Hobbies are done in groups, which can be stood up in your local area. This shit was figured out in the 1700s FFS, with no internet, with no online message boards to coordinate preferences, with no real choice in WHO they interacted with.

        We invented "third places" like coffee shops, where average people could show up, buy a coffee, and chat with literal strangers, where you would often get into discussions about philosophy, politics, this newfangled "science" stuff, and all sorts of topics, usually involving people guessing about things they didn't even have a right answer to. But that didn't matter because the point was to interact with strangers.

        The scientific method was literally a bunch of wealthy people exploring a brand new hobby by finding each other in "journals" (basically hobby magazines), sending each other snail mail, and chatting about their different experiments.

        Companies have decided they can just stop supporting an open environment, and charge you for the right to exist, and now we don't have a third place in the US, because nobody has the time or money or energy to socialize after work, because work takes so goddamned much out of us.

        So no, please do not force me, who has a perfectly functional social life and several great friend groups for life, just because you don't know any other way to meet people. That's not my problem and forcing me into the office so you can take advantage of the requirement that I am there to socialize with me is not an okay solution.

        Work doesn't pay me to be your friend.

    • Attrecomet 3 days ago

      > We all have laptops and can go any where to work.

      Well, anywhere I can be sure no external person can see what I'm doing on screen. So a cafe will work if I can sit in a corner with my back to a wall. And even then, I'm giving up my tooling to make work easier on myself and more productive, like a nice, large monitor. Coworking spaces let me alleviate the second part, but the first problem is even more pressing there: now, everyone around me must be expected to understand what I'm doing, and thus is a bigger danger to my companies data security.

      • gmueckl 3 days ago

        I certainly understand your restrictions, but not all companies or jobs require policies that are this strict. I had jobs where that kind of over the shoulder snooping wasn't a concern at all. When you're coding something that doesn't process personal data, I don't see why anyone should care that much. A casual observer can't realistically figure out what you're working on, let alone any "secret sauce" from glancing over your shoulder occasionally. Listening in on a meeting would be far more enlightening.

        • Attrecomet 2 days ago

          That is true, and don't get me wrong, I'm happy if that works for you -- people should make use of that possibility far more often.

          It's not for possible for everyone, though, and the bar is not "is any IP loss realistic" but rather "what are the policies my employer demands", independent of if they are sensible or not. Make sure you're not getting caught breaking company policy, kids :P

    • richardlblair 3 days ago

      I had the same take when I lived in a large city where each area had a healthy community. People there were friendly, eager to engage in conversation, the city had a lot of recreational sports, clubs, and places where people congregated. It was lovely. I worked from home the last year I was there and I was just as social as I was in the office, just with different people. I even had a rule - I had to see at least one stranger a day, and it was never a problem.

      Now I live on the other side of the province, and holy shit is it hard. I've been here for over 6 years and I haven't been able to maintain a single friendship. I could try harder, for sure, but that's my point. It was effortless before, and now it feels like being social takes serious work.

      I still work from home, and I've settled into a quieter way of life. It's nice, I enjoy it. That said, I'm not surprised others don't.

  • tikkabhuna 3 days ago

    I think its having the option and being able to choose. I like going into the office. I talk to people I wouldn't normally reach out to. But I also like being able to be home for deliveries and I know my friends with kids would struggle without it.

    I also like the commute. I get in early to miss the rush. I end up walking more. I have the ability to switch from work to home on the way back. After work drinks also help.

    That's all based on one 30 minute train that is extremely reliable, air conditioned, and getting a seat. I couldn't do it if I had to drive or take 3+ trains.

    • vladvasiliu 3 days ago

      I think the main point is flexibility. And that's why many people on both sides of the issue (those with a hard preference for WFH as well as those for RTO) tend to break out the pitchforks: every decision from up high seems to strongly favor either position.

      Maybe there are many companies who do allow for flexibility, in which case everybody is happy, so you don't hear about them, since they have better things to do than "not-complain" about their situation.

      I'm lucky to work for such a company, and the main issue of discussion these days is whether we like or not the new office decoration. Managers are free to decide how often their teams have to come in, and, from what I hear, their underlings did have their word to say. Some people like coming in often, others less so. But basically, it all depends on who you're working with right now, and whether it makes sense to meet in person. This seems to work great for pretty much everybody.

  • martinohansen 3 days ago

    One does not exclude the other.

    I work for a remote-only company but use a workspace almost every day. I get to chose my own “office” and the people in it, I also pick the commute I want, this one is just 5 minutes away.

  • Malcolmlisk 3 days ago

    I have a 100% remote job. But my team have decided to go at least every tuesday to the office. We are not obligued, but almost everyone comes to the office once a week just to socialize and talk about our projects and sometimes even to take a beer or two after work.

    To me, feels super refreshing to talk to people when Im at the office, and to be fair Im much much less productive in the office. But makes me appreciate when Im at home and when I dont need to be in the car for 1 to arrive my home, take everything and go to the gym.

    It feels like, going from time to time to the office when almost everyone is there, gives to the remote working more sense and value. And viceversa.

    • htrp 3 days ago

      "There are wealthy gentlemen in England who drive four-horse passenger-coaches twenty or thirty miles on a daily line in the summer because the privilege costs them considerable money; but if they were offered wages for the service, that would turn it into work, and then they would resign." -- Mark Twain

      You can come in every so often (weekly) without issue (or by choice).

      When you're forced to come in every day, that becomes different.

    • Sebb767 3 days ago

      I work in a similar setup, but we only have 2 office days a month. I still like this very much; you get to meet and socialize with all your colleagues, but you have basically all the advantages of home office and traveling for two days a month is easy.

  • ktzar 3 days ago

    I think you have touch on an interesting point here... When working remotely you really need to put an effort into keeping a healthy social life balance, otherwise you end up feeling exactly as you describe. It's easy for days to go on with no "change of landscape", and that can send anyone straight to depression.

    • flkiwi 3 days ago

      "It's easy for days to go on with no 'change of landscape', and that can send anyone straight to depression."

      Counterpoint: That's an exact description of how I felt working in an office.

    • brightball 3 days ago

      Yea, I’ve been working remote for 12 years and that was the first thing I had to solve.

      There’s a local tech Slack in my area that I keep up and I have a text group that I’ve built up over the years that sometimes grabs lunch or hits the gym. Keeps me balanced.

    • philote 3 days ago

      I think employers with remote employees can also do a better job in many cases with getting people to socialize. It's definitely easier to socialize when in the office, but several remote jobs I've had didn't really do much for this even though everyone was remote. I feel managers of remote employees need to do more online social events, have a water cooler chat, etc. in order to get team members to talk to each other. I'm currently on a team that doesn't do this well, and it's very isolating to barely know and talk to your teammates.

  • RHSeeger 3 days ago

    > I know this might be an "unpopular opinion,"

    That's the thing, though; it's important to remember that it very much _is_ an opinion/preference. For some people, working from the office is better, for others, it's working from home, and for others it's a combination of both. There are positives and negatives to each, for both the employee and the employer.

    That being said, a company limiting itself to _only_ people willing to work in the office is doing just that; limiting itself. I expect the reverse is also true; but the pool of workers to choose from for "everyone remote" is a _LOT_ bigger than the pool of workers for "everyone in the office".

  • sqren a day ago

    @kwanbix: do you have kids? I feel that's one of the primary deciding factors for working from home. People without kids are much more flexible with their time, whereas people with (small) kids are severely more limited. Freeing up commute time and being able to do small chores like starting the washing machine creates significant happiness, which totally offsets the downsides of not seeing your co-workers (that) often.

    Before kids I would also become depressed if I worked remotely full time. But today my "alone time" is already pretty much gone outside work hours so I don't mind being by myself during the day.

  • wkat4242 3 days ago

    It's not a matter of popularity. Some people need the interaction. Others like me hate it.

    This is why making it flexible is so great. You could be in the office with other people who enjoy it, while people like me don't have to.

    Even before the pandemic I would often hang at the office until 10pm because I could only get work done after the others left. I would get so stressed from all the distractions around me.

    • lazide 3 days ago

      The issue is that folks like newbies on the team end up left out, and when everyone is off doing their own thing there is often no actual team - which shows up in a lot of non-obvious ways.

      • cebert 3 days ago

        Nothing prevents them from making meetings to connect with / meet their peers. When you work remotely, you need to change your habits a bit. You have the same type of interactions, it just takes some initiative.

        • lazide 2 days ago

          Sure, but sitting next to someone and being able to ask them questions is easy, quick, and natural. And often helps build relationships.

          As is sitting in an area and seeing who everyone goes to ask questions, and even overhearing the discussions.

          So someone can learn how to phrase questions, what are useful types of questions to ask, what types of questions get someone told to ‘do their own research’ vs gets in-depth help, etc.

          For a junior, that is very valuable because they often literally don’t even know where to start.

          For someone with more experience, they often either already know all these things, or know how to find them out pretty quickly even without the help of watching what is happening, yeah?

      • SamoyedFurFluff 3 days ago

        That’s a fault of the existing teammates. I always prioritize 1:1 with new members in my team or my sister teams and make myself available for any onboarding or technical questions.

      • wkat4242 3 days ago

        Yeah I'm just totally not a team player anyway. I would avoid such interactions in the office too, by picking another floor. I'm not a mother hen. Other people are and they like to be that, so it's much better that they do it. They also do this over Teams by the way.

        I always maneuver myself into such a place that I have something to work on for myself.

  • yoyohello13 3 days ago

    90 min commute time is insane to me. That is a massive amount of time to give to your company for free. If companies want people to come back to the office, they should pay for commute time.

  • jhbadger 3 days ago

    Before the pandemic it used to be commonly believed that even remote work shouldn't be done at home and you used to see coffee shops filled with people on laptops (and frustrating people who just wanted a table to drink their coffee and eat a pastry). Obviously during the pandemic we got used to working from home but as you say a big downside is that it removes all distinction between your work and home environment.

  • w0m 3 days ago

    It's legit. Fully Remote can be seriously isolating/depressing.

    Hybrid is probably the ideal; but even so I live 15m from the office and when I go in it's empty 90% of the time anyway. I don't know if I'd take a 45m commute until the kids can get themselves home from school (daily pickup/dropoff) - but I do miss 2h beer lunches on a Tuesday after closing a ticket to blow off stress.

  • Meganet 3 days ago

    I also enjoy the office when i'm there.

    My problem is that i really hate flex desks and now you don't get your own office anymore.

    But my problem is more with my home: I'm now buying a farm and i don't think it will feel the same way as it does at my flat. Its surprisingly hard to 'get out' to not feel annoyed by my flat. But i don't have a good outdoor view only a small window and i do not have a extra office space.

  • collyw 2 days ago

    Same. I can't stand working in my home office at this stage. Somethings are easier when you don't have the distraction of a busy office, but many things are a lot easier / more efficient. On-boarding new staff is so much better in person.

    Similarly, in the old days when I had jobs where I was expected to wear a shirt and dress reasonably smart to the office, I enjoyed getting changed into other clothes afterwards. It marked a real change between work and personal time. That gets very blurred with working from home.

    • dagw 2 days ago

      It marked a real change between work and personal time. That gets very blurred with working from home.

      I actually try to dress 'properly' even when working from home. I know most people find it silly, but I feel I work better when wearing 'work' clothes.

  • indoordin0saur 3 days ago

    It really depends on your commute. For me I take a 20 minute subway ride but could also choose an hour walk or a 30 minute bike ride. I definitely prefer my situation to working from home 5 days a week. But if I were driving an hour in traffic I'm sure I'd prefer to be remote.

  • ekianjo 3 days ago

    if you want to see people you can work in a coworking space near where you live without the commute. I dont understand people who want to commute more than one hour a day if they have the choice not to. And even more so if you consider the environmental impact and all the stress that goes with it.

    • bluedino 3 days ago

      Co-working spaces aren't everywhere, and the people there aren't your co-workers so it's really not the same relationship.

  • zellyn 3 days ago

    I'm lucky in that my company closed the office far from me, and consolidated on an office about 15 minutes' drive / 25 minutes' bike ride from my house.

    Now, when I weigh 30 minutes of commute versus being cooped up in the same room I was in for the whole pandemic and almost lost my mind, it's easy: office whenever I can.

    That said, I'd be very loathe to _have_ to come in to the office. There are whole weeks where it just doesn't work out logistically, and it's nice to be able to work from home.

  • RIMR 3 days ago

    There is a nice feeling that can come from having a new job, but if I suddenly had to be on the road 7-8 hours a week, I would find that very stressful.

  • ghostpepper 3 days ago

    I also enjoy a certain level of in-office face to face interaction but 90 minutes by car per day would be too much for me.

  • jon-wood 3 days ago

    I think this is completely fine. Some people like working remotely, other people don't. I fully expect to see a gradual trend of companies going on way or the other over time, because hybrid really is the worst of both worlds with nobody really being happy.

  • bluedino 3 days ago

    At first I enjoyed going into the office a day or two a week...but nobody else goes in, and it's even weirder being in a giant office building with just a couple people on each floor than it is staying at home.

  • ChumpGPT 3 days ago

    It's probably because you don't have much to do outside of work and that is where you get your only human interaction. People who have families and friends typically do better in a remote environment.

  • mihaaly 3 days ago

    This is nice!

    When everyone can choose what work best for them! We are not the same - and face to face meetings have their huge benefits from time to time anyway.

    Except for those poor souls working for Amazon.

  • croes 3 days ago

    The point is having a choice

  • kalleboo 3 days ago

    I also get depressed being in my home all day every day which is why I go to coworking spaces, cafes and parks. There is endless variation that still doesn’t have to chained to a certain commute.

    • ThatMedicIsASpy 3 days ago

      Reset. Start work with a 30m walk 'going to work' and end it with a 30m walk. Free one hour exercise when you sit/stand all day.

      • blindluck 3 days ago

        Grab a local dog or two and you have a side hussle or at least can help a neighbor

  • bmitc 3 days ago

    I experience that as well. But the way I see to combat it is that working from home gives me more energy to go out on my own terms like taking classes, volunteering, etc.

  • rlpb 3 days ago

    I understand the need for human contact and to get out of the house. But you can achieve that working "from home", too, albeit with some consideration for confidentiality requirements[1]. Usually the place you must work from isn't defined. I work "from home", but once a week I work in the same room as a bunch of locals who also work from home.

    A few advantages: 1) you have a wider pool of people to choose to co-work with, since they can have other employers, too; 2) you can choose who you want to co-work with; 3) you get to (mostly) choose which and how many hours you wish to co-work; 4) no stress about being late due to a commute or childcare commitments, since co-working hours are optional.

    [1] I deliberately arrange to work on things that aren't confidential on co-working days.

  • michaelcampbell 3 days ago

    So in office is better for you. What irks so many of us is that companies point to people like you and mandate EVERYONE be like that, because the C suite, whose entire lives and career have been built around having people around them assumes or decries that everyone either is, or should be, like them.

    Or worse, the middle management is given authority to give these mandates, and are in their highest level of incompetence and use it as a "power move".

  • nswest23 3 days ago

    huh. it's almost like there isn't a one size fits all solution and people should have options that fit their lifestyle.

  • Wheaties466 3 days ago

    you're not alone in this. I thought i would love WFH but it turns out I need some social interaction even though i dread it.

    • mrguyorama 3 days ago

      But this is not an acceptable reason to chain people like me, who have functional social lives, to your needs.

      You need social interaction, so go out and get social interaction.

      I don't. So why should employment cater to you rather than me?

  • torginus 3 days ago

    Imagine working all your life, and your crowning achievement being:

    - buying a house you never see the inside of while the sun is up

    - buying a car whose purpose is making the two hours every day you spend commuting a bit less miserable

  • m3kw9 3 days ago

    human nature in action, you have a nice thing for so long, you'd get bored of it

  • highcountess 3 days ago

    [flagged]

    • sensanaty 3 days ago

      I find it crazy that this isn't the case in the US every time I see this topic come up. You always hear about all the benefits of working for a FAANG, but they're too cheap to even cover cost of transport?

      In the Netherlands, and probably a lot of other EU countries, transport to work has to be compensated by your employer. If you live within biking distance this means providing you a bike (usually via a service like Swapfiets these days), and otherwise you get your train/public transport costs or fuel costs if you drive a car completely covered. It's even tax-deductible I think, though I've never bothered looking into that option since I just take my own bike to work.

      • screcth 3 days ago

        FAANG pays very well, and money can be exchanged for goods and services.

        I know that having benefits like a free bike feels good, but the total compensation you are getting is much lower than that of people that work for big tech and pay for their own transportation.

      • systemtest 3 days ago

        The Netherlands does not have transport cost compensation by law. Various unions have negotiated it for their members and a lot of people have it as part of their compensation package, but it's not mandated by law that a company should pay you for your travel cost.

        A company is also not mandated by law to provide you with a bicycle.

        You also do not get your cost fully covered if you drive by car. Currently it's capped at 23 cents per kilometer which is not enough for most cars.

        It's not a tax deductible, it's just (income) tax free.

        • sensanaty 3 days ago

          That's my mistake then, since I've never worked at a company here that didn't compensate you and assumed it was a given! I can no longer edit my comment unfortunately, otherwise I'd point this out there as well.

      • ptero 3 days ago

        I am pretty sure the poster you reply to talks about time not money.

        Most tech companies compensate for costs. My current employer doesn't blink paying ~$60 per day for my parking and lunch on days I come to the office, but that still means I spend 50 min each way getting there. My 2c.

      • lazide 3 days ago

        It’s all relative. FAANGs have been very high compensation (and good work environments) by US standards, and frankly in comparison to most global standards.

        But they aren’t perfect, and they’ve been good relative to other employers.

        Having transportation covered is an extremely rare benefit in the US.

jmyeet 3 days ago

> Companies forget this.

No, they don't. It's intentional.

Someone quitting over an RTO mandate is cheaper than a layoff. And if someone doesn't quit, they're likely to put up with a whole lot of other grief too. Unpaid extra work (to cover the people who quit), not asking for raises, etc. It's purely money-saving and to instill fear.

In the 20th century, IBM and the Welch era brought in a lot of tools to extract the most from employees like the "up or out" mentality or simply firing the bottom 5-10% of employees every year.

Tech has simply reached that point. You are a replaceable cog. Tech is now in permanent layoffs culture to suppress wages. Laying off 5% of the workforce every year is now a permanent fixture of your company.

Personally, I think engaging in layoffs means you, as an employer, have demonstrated there is insufficient need and you are ineligible to sponsor a work visa in any broadly related area for 24 months. "Broadly related" here means if you layoff a software engineer, you can't sponsor another software engineer. I don't care if one does C++ and the other does Python. I guess you'll have to train somebody.

  • mrweasel 3 days ago

    > Someone quitting over an RTO mandate is cheaper than a layoff.

    That might be a thing, but I can only speak from personal experience, and I'm an area of the world where there's still a pretty big shortage of IT workers, so it doesn't make sense to drive them away.

    • jmyeet 3 days ago

      In hiring threads there's disconnect people have because the employer's goals and the potential employee's goals are different. Candidates often think the employer wants the best employee so will bemoan things like whiteboard coding because some people don't do well in that situation. They're correct about that but wrong about the employer's goals.

      The employer is simply filling a role. They're looking for someone sufficient. They don't need to be perfect in this process.

      It's the same here. You are replaceable. Never forget that. You may be thinking the company is losing a good employee. And they might be. But it doesn't matter because keeping particular employees is almost the goal. There are very few people who are truly irreplaceable.

      If out of 20 employees, one quits over the RTO mandate then their work gets spread around the other 19 who now do 5% more work for less money because they're not asking for raises and there's no severance to pay. It's win-win-win.

      The company would rather understaff and underpay to any other outcome.

mihaaly 3 days ago

Also 2 x 60m commuting + 15-45m (depending on circumstances) of preparation for the office before leaving. So much waste of one's life!

I was steering myself towards remote work since it was technically unfeasible. I worked from home in the late 90's setting up a removable hard drive with data and two computers taking that (office + home), but that WFH was beyond the 40h / week, I had to go in 9 to 5 still. I liked the tasks, so it was exciting.

Then technology improved, chose a position where the pay was only acceptable but I had the chance of working from different places, city, country, so no chance of going in to the office! This was the 2010's.

Then chose an on-site work in a rich country so after getting to know and trust each other I'd have the theoretical possibility of working from a cheap country remotely on a very good salary (or something between the two for mutual benefit). Unluckily I had a stoneheaded and actually very incompetent COO coming from decades of secretarial position in a uni unable to comprehend working elsewhere than in an allocated (rubbish) chair at a particular (rubbish) desk in a cheap office (being cold in winter so my poor female colleagues sat in coats) far from amenities, from 9 to 5. This was her sole understanding what work is, the poor soul. So after some time trying (suffering, fighting) for remote dominant settings I handed in my resignation (they headed a wall anyway with that poor incompetent COO) into the nothing. Having some months of rest before picking up something new. That was 2019 December. Oi! : )

Now I work with colleagues - working on the very same codebase - from 3 continents spanning 18h of time zones, most of them never met. This is nice!

camillomiller 3 days ago

Ok, so why is that. I can't seem to find any reasonable explanation as to why they forget it. Especially considering that data absolutely does not seem on the side of RTO. What's your theory?

  • mrweasel 3 days ago

    Because they measure the wrong things or is completely driven by sentiment.

    Sort of similar, a friend of mine was fired. Ostensibly for not bringing in enough revenue/profit in a consulting business. Very few of his hours where billable, so he looked unprofitable. The issue: He was working on internal tooling, building systems that everyone else rely on to do their jobs effectively. His value was hidden in the work of others, but that's not measured.

    When looking a "work from home", you rarely see companies measure job satisfaction, stress levels or even do proper exit interviews. The sort of things you need to keep on top of the keep people long term. Many customers won't report back to your boss that because you sat a your desk at home you where able to help them after your normal working hours, saving time the next day. In consulting tracking billable hours is normal, but if you don't track when and where those hours are worked, you're not going to see that some work better at the office, while others have a skyrocketing productivity boost at home.

    Other times you have bosses that wants "butts in seat" because they don't trust their employees. Hell, we had a sister company where the employees sat in a fucking horseshoe configuration at the office, on the "inside" of the horseshoe, so the owner could sit at the open end at check that people where working at all times. Do you think that fucker is going to let people work from home?

    • riskable 3 days ago

      I knew someone that didn't trust their employees (small business). In the past they ran a different small business where their own employees would steal from them (not money; inventory) and this lead this person into a life-long distrust of people in general.

      The problem though is their new small business employed mostly office-type workers yet they still had that hourly/retail employee mindset. Treated their employees very poorly and had high turnover as a result. Then COVID happened and suddenly everything got better for everyone.

      He was forced to trust his employees working from home and they loved it. He, of course, was high anxiety all the time worried that his employees were slacking off. I asked him, "are they not getting all the work done?" and he was very adamant that was completely irrelevant. From his perspective, if an employee was doing anything other than "work" while on-the-clock they were stealing from him. It was a pretty clear message.

      As soon as COVID was over he forced everyone to come back into the office... And shortly thereafter he had to sell his business because he couldn't find anyone to work for him anymore. No idea what he's doing now but I still see people with his attitude everywhere (in varying degrees from mild to extreme).

      On the plus side that guy would never ever bother his employees after work hours. Which is quite a step above employers that treat their employees as always-available serfs.

  • advael 3 days ago

    I think the most compelling explanation is that control over workers is more important than productivity to the leadership of many of these companies

    Perhaps especially in the case of larger companies, sunk costs on office space may be a factor

    • graemep 3 days ago

      The latter means you are positing management incompetent enough that they do not understand that sunk costs should be ignored? I am not saying you are wrong, BTW.

      Even worse, in many cases the costs are not entirely sunk. You might be able to get out of a lease with a penalty, if you own the buildings you can sell them. In either case its cheaper to keep a building unused than to run it as an office.

      • advael 3 days ago

        In fact I used the key phrase "sunk cost" directly to imply that, since that's entered the lexicon as a common reasoning error

        While business leaders want to think of and portray themselves as these hyper-rational actors whose every choice is either made from ingenuity or total necessity, this is obviously false and I think the prestige and optics of office spaces heavily play into the priorities of managers, especially as compared to people who do any other kind of work

      • marcosdumay 3 days ago

        > you are positing management incompetent enough...

        Those people are world-class politicians or born super-rich. When you put a selection filter that exclusive in a population, you force every other attribute extremely close to the median.

        And the median of competence on any field is much smaller than the mean.

      • gosub100 3 days ago

        >if you own the buildings

        This opens a new avenue I'd never considered: that some of the RTO pressure is perhaps due to keeping real estate prices up. Maybe there is somehow pressure from commercial landlords towards the tenants to keep the building occupied, or as you stated places that own the building don't want it to be devalued by appearing (or actually being) abandoned for years.

  • jasode 3 days ago

    >I can't seem to find any reasonable explanation as to why they forget it.

    The companies already know all about the positive time savings from not sitting in traffic commuting. But they believe that benefit is negated by employees getting less work done at home. My previous comment about employees "saving time" by working from home isn't seen that way by companies mandating RTO : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34929902

    • mrweasel 3 days ago

      One colleague, years back, got somewhat famous by negotiating that work would pay for his commute one way. His argument was: "I don't stop thinking about work just because I leave the office and I frequently solve issues on my way home and that's not free".

      For some regions, where salaries don't match housing cost, I don't think it's unfair to ask your employer to pay half of your commute. Either you pay a salary that allows relocation, or you pay at least some of the commute time. Again it's not as if work stops just because you leave the office, if you're a developer at least.

    • swiftcoder 3 days ago

      And yet all the studies suggest that remote workers tend to work longer hours (presumably guilt over those commute time savings cause them to get rolled into working hours), and can find at best marginal declines in productivity...

      • marcosdumay 3 days ago

        Nah, if you give people more free hours in a day, they will be less conscious of how they spend those.

  • malermeister 3 days ago

    I think there's a few factors at play:

    1) Ego/Power trip reasons: It just makes you feel like the big man to be physically lording over your minions and they miss it.

    2) Class Warfare: Workers need to be kept miserable enough so they turn to mindless consumption and don't start asking any inconvenient questions.

    3) Financial Conflicts of Interest: Higher Management is likely to have some real estate investments, maybe even in commercial real estate. They might be worried more about that part of their portfolio than about the company stock part.

  • lazide 3 days ago

    Not the parent poster, but companies want people who will deal and cater to their needs, not people who will whine and complain about (even very real) issues.

    And employees will typically want companies that will cater to their every whim and pay them very well to be catered too.

    Where the two meet is the labor market.

    Conditions are changing, and ‘hard’ force is being applied again.

    • riskable 3 days ago

      The employee demands are usually simpler: They want their employer to pay the most and inconvenience them as little as possible. "cater to their every whim" is nonsense. Nobody expects that.

      Employees know what the job will entail 99% of the time because it's their career focus. For that reason they don't really need much from their employer other than the tools necessary to do their jobs (e.g. a computer).

      • lazide 3 days ago

        ‘Cater to their every whim’ - have you not seen FAANG benefits and benefit culture?

        If you think employees in tech have just been asking for computers and money - for well over a decade and a half - then you’re living in a completely different industry than I have been.

tbomb 3 days ago

> Companies forget this.

they don't care about your commute at all. "if [c-level exec] can make it to the office every day, so can you" not to mention that, said exec does not in fact make it to the office every day

michaelcampbell 3 days ago

> Companies forget this.

More that they assume (or demand) the worker is going to pay this cost on their behalf.

pavel_lishin 3 days ago

When my employer tried to make us come back to the office, I flat out told them - school dropoff is at 8:30, the next train is at 8:50, so the earliest I can be in the office is 10, if every train arrival is precisely synchronized, which it never is.

And since pick-up is at 4:30, it means I have to leave the office at 3:00 at the absolute latest, lest I incur significant monetary penalties - as well as the ire of the people who care for my child - for late pick-up.

So sure, if you want me in the office for five hours a day - one of which is going to be taken up by going to lunch with my coworkers, since face-time is so important - I'll be there.

Unless there are significant delays, which there usually are, in which case I'll be there for maybe four hours a day, because I'll also have to leave early since delays in the morning frequently mean delays in the evening.

  • ncruces 3 days ago

    The people who care for your child should themselves tell their employer, in ire, that the earliest they can be at the office is 10, and that they have to leave by 3 at the absolute latest, since they have train commutes themselves.

    • pavel_lishin 2 days ago

      The people who care for my child cannot do their jobs remotely; I can.

      • ncruces 2 days ago

        Then maybe don't use their plight to boast about how tough your are.

        Or to complain about the significant monetary penalties you'd have to pay, when it's surely easier to pay those on your salary than theirs.