Ask HN: How to negotiate continuing to work remotely?

370 points by megasquid ↗ HN
Hi HN. Like many of you I am working remotely due to COVID.

I want to continue working remotely, but my job wants me in the office next month.

How would you negotiate this with your employer?

Have any of you already had this conversation? How did it go?

289 comments

[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 300 ms ] thread
I would like to know as well. Depending on the size of the company it may be easier to get special treatment. We’ve heard from top-down that we need to be back in the office and there’s been no special treatment given other than some allusions to a hybrid workweek compromise. The only way I think it would be possible at a large company would be to engage in some sort of wfh soft-strike collectively. With enough employees, leadership will listen. I think that if you don’t organize you’ll have to go along with the rest of the company. This is of course something dangerous to even discuss if you value your job.

On an individual level, JP Morgan will not let even their top employees wfh just because it will weaken their stance.

> This is of course something dangerous to even discuss if you value your job.

If you cannot even talk about your work environment, that must be quite the dystopian workplace. Most decent places I've worked, that is one of the most common topics when talking to your boss. Maybe those talks don't go anywhere, but if it is a taboo topic, it might be better to work elsewhere.

I think parent meant coordinating a labor strike, as far as dangerous topics of work discussion.
It’s almost like JP Morgan has a vested interest in the success of commercial real estate. HMMMMMMM
Sales and finance attracts extroverts. They are likely in favor of returning to the office like all the extroverts at my work currently are. They did company lunch today in person. All vaxed though.
No, it's just front office finance (particularly IBD and S&T) is more effective in person in ways that software development isn't. And if the front office guys need to come in, then so do the developers.
Thanks for making JP Morgan's stance on WFH. I am thinking of switching jobs and this is helpful information.
Do bear in mind that JPM is enormous - 250k people isn't a size you associate with a company, it's a small country! - and although the rhetoric from the top is that everyone should be in the office because teamwork synergy efficiency managementspeak, individual departments may have more flexibility than this; although certainly fully remote is a very very unlikely option to say the least, arrangements where one works from home some of the time on a regular basis were possible even before covid.
> although the rhetoric from the top is that everyone should be in the office...

In a software org, employees who don't code are always against Work From Home. Especially Middle Managers. If the top management is not pro remote work, there is less hope.

Threaten to leave and leave if they force the issue.
You can negotiate if you have leverage. Are you really good at what you do ? Are you able to show that wfh doesn't impact your performance and you are doing same or even better since wfh ? Are you trustworthy who knows how to get shit done and doesn't need to be supervised all the time ? If yes to most of these, you could talk to management and see what's possible. Otherwise, tough.
"Since we're not requiring vaccinations, will the company be paying a 5 million dollar life insurance policy for my family as beneficiaries? I'm fine dying but I like to put a price on my own life"

This is what I would say if I worked at a place which actually wanted people to come back to the office.

So you're not vaccinated?
I am, but the organization isn't requiring it, so we can't guarantee herd immunity.

Edit: It's a moot point because the management are the ones driving the "safety above all, stay in your houses" strategy.

> will the company be paying a 5 million dollar life insurance policy for my family as beneficiaries?

Isn't life insurance a standard part of employment benefits?

So, yes, they will be.

Usually, but that's usually a 2x current yearly pay rate and it's usually capped at 100k.

A 5 million dollar life insurance is a "key person" policy... if it's some important to the business that I be on site during a health emergency, they can keep half of the max 10 million and my family can get the rest.

> it's usually capped at 100k

That's a pretty crappy life insurance policy. I wouldn't want my wife having to recreate an independent life on a runway of just 100k.

I'm not a big shot, but I'm set up so that if I die my wife won't have to worry about work for a very long time. These policies probably aren't as expensive as you think they are.

The company provided life insurance policies are usually group policies that will cover people regardless of condition--which is why they are so low in value.
A 10 mil life insurance policy would require underwriting and, assuming you are healthy, will run between $60k and $120k a year. As a faceless corporate board member, why not just let you flounder while instructing management to find an engineer that is not as expensive?

I think inflation is gonna bite a lotta people in the near future

> A 10 mil life insurance policy would require underwriting and, assuming you are healthy, will run between $60k and $120k a year.

That's bonkers - a £10 million policy was quoted to me at £4.5k a year.

No, that sounds about right - maybe you are looking at a different kind of life insurance. Just take the SSA yearly chance of dying (the real chance of dying is likely less if you are healthy, but on average this should be the price) from [0] and multiply by 10 million. Only 16k for a 25 year old but around 160k for an average 65 year old.

[0] https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

> Only 16k for a 25 year old but around 160k for an average 65 year old.

I mean you can just go on a price comparison site right now for yourself and see that this isn't even remotely the price quoted for multiple providers and a wide range of levels of cover - nothing is even remotely close to even 16k.

I think those quoting huge costs are looking at whole life whereas the rest are looking at term life. Looking at one place, if you're 30 years old, and getting only 100K for whole life, the premium is over $1400/yr. Multiply that by 10 for 1M and it's 14K/yr.

People often get these expensive plans because they can treat it as a retirement fund, and can borrow against it at any time with no penalties, etc. With term life your premiums are wasted if you cancel at 65. With whole life, you get back your premiums, and their growth (you may be able to control the investment vehicle as well).

Isn’t that life assurance not life insurance?
Wow I’m paying 500/year for $1M 20 year term. That’s where I estimated my numbers from.

From my perspective term makes more sense. I will have a net worth over $1m in 20 years and that’s more than enough for my family to survive on. The insurance is mainly for my family in case something happens to me in the near term.

A term policy is more, I’m not sure what the rates are for non-term but I wouldn’t buy a non term policy. That’s literally throwing away money, but I guess from a business perspective it’s just a cost so you may be “more” right :)
Do you carry a normal $5,000,000 life insurance policy?
We carry a standard 2x Yearly Pay Rate but it's capped at 100k.
(comment deleted)
Good luck proving you caught sars in the office and not going to the super market or in your own home.
Wouldn’t life insurance cover disease no matter where you caught it? I thought they only exclude suicide, war, committing crimes, and maybe dangerous sports.
Workplace life insurance generally covers you when you die on the job
You should make a decision tree.

eg is hybrid something you would be willing to do? Your boss? Your employer?

You're pretty junior, however, so I'm not sure you really have a strong position if you can't come to an agreement.

The best negotiating tactic is a job offer, though you don't need to threaten. just be prepared for them to say ok.

I will be starting that conversation with my boss later this week. At the end of the day, I think the key thing is you need to be fully prepared to move on if negotiations fail and the current job doesn't deliver what you are after.

For myself, I have enough buffer and leads that I am confident I can get somewhere fully remote or at least closer to home before the savings get uncomfortably low, and so that's my red line now - one way or another, I'm not doing the two-hour commute again, it's simply not worth it; I'd rather take a pay cut to keep the life I've become used to over lockdown.

YMMV, but IMO if you're not prepared to move on and your boss senses this, the negotiation will end right there.

Absolutely, people talk about mindset, and this is it. You should be prepared to walk away from a bad deal: going back into the office.

However, don't reveal things like "youre willing to compromise on salary to work from home". I've made a lot of concessions when I really want something, and thinking back, I didn't need to in many cases. In fact, ask for a raise in the same conversation. Be mentally prepared to ask for more, because you have done a lot more this year working from home than you have working in the office.

Never offer to be paid less for X. Even a shorter work week. Let them say you get paid less first (they may not) and then counter. I’m mainly writing this comment for me later on :-)

It’s simply the case not everyone wants to screw you down on cost. Don’t assume they will. If you have every purchased a Mac when a pc is cheaper (or similar buying the brand when generic is cheaper) or paid more for the pizza from the restaurant you love, you’ll know what I mean.

In fact if the pizza place says “sorry delivery only due to COVID so pizzas are half price” I’d think “huh... what’s wrong with their pizza?”

I mean, to be clear, I'm not intending to explicitly offer to be paid less, but the reality is that jobs in my town pay rather less than jobs in the capital, and so if my fallback position is to quit my job in the capital for a job in the science park across the road, I need to privately plan for a pay cut.
Good answers in your favor for following would help:

1. Are you / your team demonstrably as / more productive working remotely, compared to going into the office?

2. Does your company have a difficult time finding / retaining talent due to their policy against WFH?

I've watched several people go through this conversation after a company made this demand. For this to succeed it seems that you need to be indispensable, or be part of an organized group that is indispensable, to the highest person in your management chain who is demanding a return to the office (probably the CEO). If that person isn't aware you're indispensable, you will have to try to convince them.

Best of luck.

There are a ton of companies hiring right now that are allowing ongoing remote work. If your company won't let you find one that will.
My company went from freezing remote hiring 2 years prior to COVID 19 (because they spent tens of millions on a new HQ) to "Hey if you want to work remote, do what's best for you - obviously we've proven it can work." Companies may become more flexible - especially if your line of work is in demand.

Just have a conversation with your manager "It's important to me that I can work remotely. What can you do?" If he/she says "Nothing, you have to come into the office" find another job.

1. the developer market is super hot right now, there are lots of jobs.

2. you seem a capable developer (i checked your personal website).

i would approach the relevant contact at the company and ask if you are needed at the office 100% or if there is room for another arrangement, perhaps coming in for key meetings or a few times a month.

if not, i would highly recommend looking for a job that supports you working as you’d like to work. if you can, take some holiday to look for and apply to job openings that allow remote work.

you are working in one of the best paid professions, there should be little need for you to stay and work somewhere that doesn’t support you working the best way for you.

trust your gut.

happy to help if i can.

> the developer market is super hot right now, there are lots of jobs.

Really? Doing that? Webshit?

Well for developers that don't negatively refer to others specialities as "webshit" then yes there's a lot of jobs available.
(comment deleted)
It seems like nearly all tech companies these days are moving to fully remote hiring. Tell your manager that you’re staying remote indefinitely or you’ll be beginning the search for a new job. You’ve already had the last year to prove how productive of a remote worker you are. Bonus for you: tech industry salaries are on a massive upswing at the moment - if you do get a shiny new remote job, chances are you’ll also be able to grab a pretty sweet raise as well.
Not my experience at all. I've been having trouble finding remote jobs, much less remote jobs offering anything in the same universe as the 20 year Silicon Valley career I left behind.
Key to a negotiation is understanding what the other party wants (and what you want, of course).

WHY do they want you to work on premise? Wanting your presence is just a means to an end. There could be many reasons, like:

* They think it's easier to control how much somebody works if it's on premise

* it might be easier to manage

* it might be inertia

* they think it's more efficient

* somebody is trying to exert control, or demonstrate to a higher-up that they can do so

... and so on. You should first try to understand where they are coming from, and then you can try to argue your case, framing it in a way that they can get most of their underlying motivation.

Also, it helps to know in advance what you are willing to give up and what not (are you willing to walk away if you don't reach an agreement? what compromises would be acceptable to you?)

I think this is a significant part of the problem that has prompted the question.

It would be really helpful to have some insight into what is driving the move back to the office from people on HN.

> It would be really helpful to have some insight into what is driving the move back to the office from people on HN.

I've posted about one of the reasons that some employers are itching to get their employers back in the office here[1].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27011439

HR proudly proclaims, "we work best when we're all together"
So they agree we should wfh?

I'm kinda being facetious, but everyone is a couple of clicks away at the moment; whilst when we were in the office and video chat wasn't normalised then it would be a case of 'walk for a few minutes, find a meeting room (due to open plan offices) then chat and then a couple more minutes walking back to your own desk space' for lots of daily interactions.

I prefer the later (in a large part for the exercise, change of scenery, chance for incidental meeting of people in the corridors, etc.), but the former seems like we're more together in some ways.

I guess if anyone is wfh then we're "closer" if everyone is wfh (or behaving as if they were).

You aren’t going to get that if people that want to believe there are no downsides to companies from wfh, and so do believe it, downvote everyone that disagrees. That’s how you get a bubble and a poor model of the world.
Helpful comment. So for instance, if OP can address in some way what their issue is, i.e., if it's an "easy to manage" question, maybe there's a fig leaf to address it. (E.g., I'll be present on slack or whatever with a short reaction time during business hours, or whatever.)

Here's another viewpoint: sure, the company may be "giving something up" letting you WFH. But, there are also positives for you and them in terms of productivity, health, etc. Clarify that it's a change, but change happens, and that the positives will outweigh the negatives.

This. Knowing why they want you to work in the office is the first step. Get clarity on that (and that might mean reading between the lines - the boss might be lonely and just want everyone back in the office, but they'll never admit that).

Once you have clarity about why they want you in the office, then you can begin to work out how you can craft a deal.

Playing devil's advocate: as a business/employer why would I continue to pay you your current first-world salary rather than find someone top-notch for 1/3 your salary in India, or any other English speaking country with a lower cost of living?
Time zone differences are bad.
There are software engs in Mexico etc.
I'm a remote contractor, and my policy is to essentially work my clients time zone. Right now I'm 11am-7pm (I'm in NZ, they're mostly in Sydney, Australia).

For a while my team was all in Malaysia, so I did 2pm-10pm.

Hell for the right contract I'd work as far east as texas, mon-fri 10am-6pm for them, tues-sat 5am-1pm for me.

No one asks me to do this, but it just makes life easier, and clients like knowing that I'm working normal hours and will pick up the phone.

How do you get work in such diverse places?
I'm in a pretty small niche (agtech), which I think definitely helps me standout from other devs.
There are high quality workers everywhere in the world, but they are also expensive. You generally get what you pay for - the skilled developers in others countries are also smart enough to find a better deal if they are underpaid. The 1/3 price workers are not at the same level, and quite frankly often overpaid compared to their relative productivity.
There are many advantages to remote/home office for employers. Even if you just hire in your country, you can save a lot on office space, costs for niceties in the office (coffee, food, etc).
To play devil's advocate to your devil's advocate: why haven't you been doing this already for the past 5 years?
Presumably because they feel it’s not worth the downsides of working remotely.

Put another way: if they won’t do a remote workforce for a 66% discount, why would they go for it at a smaller discount?

> Presumably because they feel it’s not worth the downsides of working remotely.

I've worked remotely for several employers and clients, and they all seem to hire domestically. A few had stories about their experiences with hiring foreign remote workers, and they came to to the conclusions that doing so isn't always worth the labor discounts versus just hiring domestically.

I don't think remote work is the issue here for workers in the US, because the same employers have no problem underpaying visa workers who live in the US that can't complain because getting fired means being deported.

H1B is a higher wage and much more bureaucratic hassle than hiring the same workers in their home countries, suggesting again that the employer is strongly averse to remote.
Because you get what you pay for in India.
You get what you pay for everywhere. You can definitely find high quality talent in India but it isn’t going to come at the “outsource to India” price people who have never done it think it will. Great talent is expensive regardless of where it is because the global market determines it more than the locale.

That being said, I expect some discount to come with the challenge of differing time zones. Also depending on which country you are working with, speaking fluently and clearly is a huge factor too. India and the US have a vast range of low to extremely high talented people with varying communication skills. You get what you pay for (not an India thing)

You don't "get what you pay for" in that you can pay a lot and still get shit results but you can't pay shit and get good results.
If I accepted a (negotiable) pay cut and/or agreed to forfeit some of the company benefits, would you allow me to WFH instead of hiring a cheaper engineer?
I'd tell them that if people were fungible, my non-first world counterpart makes as much money as I do :)
Because clear communication is the #1 skill for 99% of employees. If they could have outsourced the role, they already would have.
If you think you can, then go for it.

I feel like if the only reason you're hiring in the US is because you think there's a 3x productivity boost meeting in person... I mean, to me it's pretty obvious that in-person development does not bring that substantial of a gain. So maybe there are other questions you should be asking if you're in that position.

Abandoning the position of an employee entirely, just speaking as a bystander, I feel like an employer asking that question off the cuff has probably not thought very deeply about their company makeup and hiring processes if they think that sharing an office is the only reason not to outsource development. And I don't mean that to be dismissive, if you're right and you could be outsourcing development, but you're paying 3x more to develop something in-house... maybe you should think more about how your company is structured. Why are you developing your software in-house in the first place?

I've heard manager-types make this argument before, and it's just very alien to me that someone would think the single biggest difference between hiring locally and hiring outside of the US is whether or not the worker sits at a specific desk. Having worked in both a local and an multi-national office, I consider them to be two very different styles of organization, each with their own pros and cons. If you think adapting to an international development team just boils down to using Slack more, I suspect you're in for a shock.

Go right ahead. I double dog dare you infact. Then in 5 years, when your product can't scale, you're being audited for security issues or your customers leave because the quality is now a third of what it once was; then you'll be in a lot worse shape then keeping a couple of people around for 3x the price.
You would need to hire a 3rd party contractor and offshore the work to them, otherwise there's tax implications in hiring outside your US state, let alone another country (unless you're in the EU). As others have said, if you could do this you already would have.

If you're a large multinational with offices all over the world and the accounting and HR staff to manage that kind of setup, then that might be an option - but even those hire domestic US workers for a lot of remote/wfh roles.

> as a business/employer why would I continue to pay you your current first-world salary rather than find someone top-notch for 1/3 your salary in India, or any other English speaking country with a lower cost of living?

The company I work has hired a lot of personnel based in India over the last several years. While some of the hires are reasonably competent, many of them need a lot of hand holding to get through tasks that most locally hired people would not.

In other words, they don't seem to be getting up to speed in a reasonable period of time based on past experience hiring new university graduates with no prior professional experience. That, in turn, increases costs because they're not accomplishing nearly as much in the time alloted.

In my prior experience there just isn’t much of a discount to be had when you find people of the same caliber regardless of where they live. Someone who performs at the same level as someone local, and there are plenty of them, has usually figured out what people are willing to pay for their services.
Those people in India who are qualified to do the job, already have one. You would be competing for them with all other companies who offer remote job
I work for a very small company so when they start talking about coming back I give them some form of "not gonna happen from me" in a joking and light-hearted manner.

I've done this specifically to "anchor" my position. I've heard that others are saying "2-3 days at home" which seems foolish since that will be instantly whittled down to 2 days, and then fridays only, and then fridays only unless there is a big project (and there will always be a big project).

If we ever get to a serious "why aren't you coming back" then we can discuss the reasons:

1. I dont like the commute and you dont like it when i am late

2. I'm working more hours since I'm not taking an hour lunch each day. I'm also not watching the clock trying to beat the evening rush. (you should have the numbers to back this up)

3. "butts in seats" is dumb. You aren't dumb and I'm not done. We accomplished everything we set out to do in the last year with 0 butts in seat

4. The office has a ton of non-work related distractions. While I do enjoy the social aspects, I have a distraction free environment here which has allowed me to focus on some larger tasks such as completing project x and y.

5. Customers are never at our site. The only visitors we have are paper salesmen and dental hygienists (see #4) and i am tired of telling them, politely, to go fuck themselves

Unfortunately if they make employment conditional on in office you have to be willing to walk away. They might counter but you should be ready to leave if it gets to this point.

Good Luck

All these months that you’ve been working remotely has your efficiency/amount of work/evaluation remained the same? If yes then you can use this as a valid and measurable point for your discussion with your manager. Try to collect actual data (emails, messages, deadlines, quality...) clearly showing that while you were WFH. As others have suggested, have a plan B during the discussion/negotiations. Can you offer a few days every month? Are you willing to loose any benefits or raises for a couple of years? What about equipment? You have to give something to the “stubborn” employers that don’t see the benefits of remote working, especially for specific jobs that can be performed from a computer anywhere on earth :-) Hope you succeed!
>How would you negotiate this with your employer?

Quit.

I transitioned to remote a few years ago when I moved. It helped that my employer really liked me, and considered me indispensable.

In my case, I started the conversation very early, almost a year in advance. "I just married someone who might make me move." Even though we didn't dwell on the discussion, the fact that I brought it up regularly made sure that it wasn't a surprise when I announced that, "I am moving and will need to work remotely."

If you've already discussed how much you like working remotely with your manager, then it shouldn't come as a surprise that you're asking to remain remote.

In your case, maybe consider stating that you will be in the office day a week? Then, when "life happens," just don't show up for 2-3 weeks and see what happens.

When I moved, my employer set up an office for me with a group that I was physically close to. I showed up once a week, then due to a bad winter, I just didn't go in for 6 weeks. No one noticed. (Heck, no one noticed when I was there.) Then, the office situation changed and I asked to be remote full time.

If you get a firm "no," then everything depends on how much leverage you have. If there is some major project due in the near future, point out that the job market is very healthy for remote employees and imply that you might quit without finishing your project. See if you can get some kind of severance package or retention bonus if you stay through the project as a remote employee. Otherwise, just quit when you have a new job.

IMO employers have an irrational fear that people that work from home don't work at all and say its "the office culture" and being a team. If their opinion is already set on this, try negotiating half the week at the office and the other half from home. So both of you get the best of both worlds.
I've done this before, and I'd argue its more the worst of both worlds. With people who are kind of but not really remote the company never actually adjusts in the ways needed to properly accommodate it - you just end up with people saving things up for "when you're in the office", with connotations that if you'd just be like everyone else that wouldn't be needed.

If you're going to work remotely, work somewhere that's already set up to handle that and where everyone gets it, otherwise you're doomed to a career of being given the annoying jobs that don't require much collaboration because people don't understand how to make that work if you can't sit round a table.

I'm about to move out before vaccination levels are high enough to enforce returning to the office. I have enough savings-cushion, I'd collect unemployment, and there are plenty of remote offers.

I'm very stubborn on it, because to me it's very easy. Home vs Office is a very hot and polarized topic. It's easy enough to please both type of workers, at least in IT. If C-level management is incapable of compromising on this, then that's not my problem, fortunately.

You normally can't collect unemployment if you quit.
You can if they fire you though...
> You can if they fire you though...

As far as I know, that's if you're fired without cause. Who do you think the state contacts to find out why you were let go? Be careful going down that route.

> State law determines whether a fired employee can collect unemployment. Generally speaking, an employee who is fired for serious misconduct is ineligible for benefits, either entirely or for a certain period of time (often called a "disqualification period"). But the definition of misconduct varies from state to state. In many states, an employee's misconduct has to be pretty bad to render the employee ineligible for unemployment benefits. An employee who is fired for being a poor fit for the job, lacking the necessary skills for the position, or failing to perform up to expected standards will likely be able to collect unemployment. But an employee who acts intentionally or recklessly against the employer's interests will likely be ineligible for unemployment benefits. Other states take a harder line, finding that employees who are fired for violating a workplace policy or rule won't be eligible for unemployment benefits, at least for a period of time.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/unemployment-benefit...

Like anything, it depends

My guess is that in most states, "He refused to show up for work" would be considered "for cause". Don't really know, though.
I'm in Europe. The government passed a somewhat vague law that basically "recommends facilitating working from home if possible" during the pandemic.

Still as I said, either way I'm prepared to get fired with or without case.

Here's what I'm thinking.

1. Have value - the market is hot, you have 1-2 years+ at your job and know the codebase. Replacing you would cost them a good amount, they'd have to train a new person, etc.

2. Have respect - they know you get the job done and stick to your word.

3. Truly don't give a f*k - have savings and know that you could get another job in a few months if you needed to.

If you have those, I seriously don't know how you can fail. Unless it's like a 300k+/year hedge fund job where they want everybody there for the culture etc.

Make yourself indispensable. Crank out quality code at a rate above your pay level. Or offer to work on call hours that no one else wants to that really don't cost you much to commit to.
You can't negotiate without options. You have to be willing to walk away, and the only way to do that is to gather options.
My 5k+ person tech employer has basically said anyone who wants to work remote will be able to. The argument seems to be that it won't be possible to competitively hire/retain if remote is not an option.
> The argument seems to be that it won't be possible to competitively hire/retain if remote is not an option.

This is the key. Companies that don't understand this soon will understand it later.

The 100K+ person bank that I work at also offered new flexible working arrangements. Pretty much comes down to your team and manager, but I ended up with a full-time work from home position. Others do a few days in office, then the rest WFH. I think they acknowledged that most people were more happier when working from home, and that productivity didn't go down over the last year.

But then I also read a news article about how my company was giving up 3 floors in their Asia HQ, which ended up being close to US$ 1 million a month. So money is definitely involved as well.