Ask HN: Are companies preparing to end Remote?

102 points by mouzogu ↗ HN
Today we got an email that our entire global staff would be getting a long weekend, just because.

I also happened to see that tweet about Tesla staff and WFH.

My gut is telling me that a lot of companies will seek to leverage this economic downturn and layoffs to threaten staff into returning.

The dialogue until now has been fairly conciliatory, but we will start to see more come or go type of ultimatums...I am convinced.

What do you think?

https://nitter.net/elonmusk/status/1531867103854317568#m

184 comments

[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 220 ms ] thread
I mean this is Capitalism 101. The Pandemic provided leverage to Employees and they heavily utilized it (some even abused). Now, the leverage may shift back to employers and they can decide. If enough employees quit, then companies will have no choice. Supply and Demand.
Employees can also attempt to unionize to keep remote work as a benefit. Organizing efforts are protected by US labor law. They can also lobby their state governments (because, real talk, Congress is a joke and it isn't going to happen there) to legislate that employers must offer remote work when the job can be performed remotely (just as state by state, employers must provide salary information in job listings or upon request). Democracy and all that jazz.
Employees can unionize but particularly the HN cohort never will.
Hard agree, but the HN cohort is not a majority of any class of worker.
Agreed.

I don't see why there is so much uproar about going into the office. If you were hired with the expectation that you go in, it's not unreasonable for your employer to ask you to return, regardless of productivity gain/loss.

Have a talk with your manager, and if it doesn't go the way you want it to, stay and commute or quit.

Leverage has not, in fact, shifted back. Every single person I've interviewed in the past two months for roles at my company has declared that they were forced to go back to the office by their employer and do not want to commute anymore. Companies are experiencing brain drain and their executives are too stupid to recognize that a permanent shift has occurred.

You don't get to (a) keep wages low for existing employees in a market where wages have been increasing by 10% a year for years and (b) make demands of them that they almost universally disapprove of.

I definitely hope so.
Why?
Many reasons but to give you one that I haven't seen mentioned before: After going permanently mixed remote our company has reduced the office space. This means that we now have flex seating. It sucks and I really miss having my own desk.

My point is that even if I can choose it's just not as nice as before so I certainly hope some companies will revert. Remote work is simply not for me and I want to work at a company that doesn't have these drawbacks. I want to come into work, have my desk and know who I will meet there every day.

I think there are mainly two camps of people. Those who prefer remote and those who prefer onsite. Both perspectives are perfectly valid. Ideally, companies would put more focus on what their employees actually want instead of just creating policies. Work life would be easier if there were teams of remote enthusiasts and teams of onsite enthusiasts (and maybe teams of mixed mode enthusiasts), rather than teams where about 50% don't like the current mode.
I fully agree with that. Some companies should go fully remote, some mixed and some onsite. It would however need to evolve over time with employees moving to the type of company they want once things have settled down after the remote chock of the pandemic.

I just hope that there will be companies that are fully onsite and proud of it. Now they are getting shamed for it even when there are people like me who wants to a work at such a company.

I expect you'll get downvoted by the vocal cohort on HN that hates working in-person, but FWIW I agree with you. 9/12 years of my career have been remote, and increasingly it's difficult to even find a job that has an office. But the time I was in the same building with the whole team I was working with were the most productive and enjoyable years of my career. I really wish I could get that back.
As someone who has been WFH for ~5 years now, I 100% agree. I very much miss being in an office, WFH is not nearly as fun as it's made out to be, especially when my "from office" years were still very flexible, no "butts in chairs" attitude, just "here's a place to get work done and talk to your coworkers", which IMO is how you should treat any adult with a digital job.

The key is "and talk to your coworkers" though. Video calls just don't do it for me.

I have been working exclusively remotely for over a decade as well. I also occasionally reminisce about working from the office. There were some really great aspects of it. At the same time, there are lots of great things about working from home

Recently I tried to see how those tradeoffs stack up against each other. I had an insight. A lot of what I missed about working from the office had nothing to do with working from the office. It had a lot to do with me being younger, without so many family commitments, and a lot of free time and flexibility. Concretely, in my 20's and early 30's, I would have preferred working from an office. But later on, I vastly prefer working from home. The tradeoffs get weighed differently depending on what stage in life I am at.

I worked remote for 12/16 (the 4 years being somewhere in the middle). Working from the office was surely fun.

Jokes, ping pong, lunches, going to the gym, coffee breaks, beers, useless meetings, company parties.

Most of my time in the office wasn't productive but I was sure happier about the company.

Working remote it's easier not to give a crap about your employer. Still, at least you have time to get stuff done without anyone bothering you and then have some extra free time.

Last time I ran the script I made to analyze the "Who's hiring" threads here (this weekend), remote offers on HN were above 80 %. Doesn't look likely. https://rinzewind.org/blog-en/2021/percentage-of-hacker-news...
Companies that advertise roles on HN are not representative of the economy.
But they may be representative of the companies HN users have access to. So this 80% may be similar to the testimonials people will leave in the comments here.
The same could be said of anything you see on HN. (for example, the obsession with SF real estate, or the use of Javascript stacks)
In Europe, I personally know a bunch of friends and coworkers who are ready to quit immediately if asked back to the office permanently. Most people want a hybrid setup it seems with 1 or 2 office days a week maximum.

Personally, I like the freedom of choosing every day and I have bursts of office weeks when I feel social and burts of home office weeks when I feel anti-social. I have colleagues who haven't seen the office since February 2020, others come in every single day... it varies a lot.

Would these friends/coworkers be those who have no or few commitments such as dependent children? This is an honest question, not sarcasm.
The company I work for has a commercial lease that is up for renewal in December, and (AFAIK) they have zero intention of renewing it. So that's one data point in the "no" column.
Here's a second data point: the office I work out of has its lease up for renewal in November (I think). There are so few people left working out of that office (less than 10, from a high of 30 a few years ago) that the company has decided not to renew it, and we no longer have to go to the office at all.

A third data point: Every other office our company has is now open, and employees have to (or are strongly encouraged to cough cough) return.

The cost benefit analysis has to indicate what companies would do. Many companies think offices are costly; employees are happy and still very productive working remote.

If Elon thinks great products can be shipped only from the office, it's fine. We continue to ship "subpar" stuff from wherever. Our products are still useful to a lot of people, get the job done and is profitable and making lots of money.

Modern tech and knowledge work seems like it would happen in a hybrid of office and home (or wherever).

I don't feel that the realities of rent/utilities/snacks get nearly enough attention in conversations like this. If you have more than a handful of employees with office space in a major metro area, rent is easily equal to (or more) than the cost of multiple people. If you are looking to trim costs in a bad economy, or on the flip side - grow your company efficiently, rent seems like an easy spot to compromise on.

The FAANGs have spent millions of dollars building or leasing their current offices, it's not hard to see the Finance/Accounting folks escalating that those investments should to be utilized. (Not saying that it's a primary driver here - but surely it's a factor.)

(comment deleted)
No this is just Elon being Elon (seeking attention at any cost). There are always parts of companies that need people on site to do x or y job but for the most part the pandemic has forever changed how work is done. If you've got the skills that are in demand you can always quit and go work somewhere else where remote is still an option.
No, this is just going back to normality. This is how it was in 2019.

IMO certain professions may be ok with remote but for the most part, the kind of work Tesla does, remote work is suboptimal.

We are going to see a bifurcation of companies that adopt either strategies. Time will tell.

> the kind of work Tesla does, remote work is suboptimal.

What's _the kind of work Tesla does_? Sure, remote assembly may be suboptimal. What about software development? Operations? Etc.

You don't need face to face all the time. But sure, be a dick and give a one week deadline for people to adjust again and see how it goes.

> What's the kind of work Tesla does?

I am having trouble thinking of a job that requires a minimum of 40 hours in the office plus untold many hours that can be done either remotely or in the office.

I sense a bit of frustration and rudeness in your response, not sure why. I've worked as a engineer (not software) and most of the things get done in person, in the lab and in cubicles. Brainstorm on physical objects, looking at CAD models and comparing geometry, reviewing drawings, troubleshooting manufacturing problems, etc. Even operations requires interfacing with manufacturing leads which are in the factory.

If you have an axe to grind about WFH, probably should work as a non-software engineer or talk to someone who does and have a sense that perhaps your view is biased towards a particular type of personality that you may have.

Even amongst software engineers, there is a debate about how well WFH works.

> The kind of work Tesla does

The factory workers are already in the factories. The ones remote are the ones who can do their work remote and the company has only broken records since the pandemic started with remote work.

Elon himself says, you can do remote work, after you’ve been in the office for 40 hours, implying, that remote work is totally possible

> Elon himself says, you can do remote work, after you’ve been in the office for 40 hours, implying, that remote work is totally possible

You took that seriously? It was clearly a joke.

> If you've got the skills that are in demand you can always quit and go work somewhere else where remote is still an option.

You could say this about any shitty part of tech work though. Software devs won't be put on 24/7 on-call rotations because they can just quit and work somewhere else. Software devs won't be forced to put together a quick hack because they can just quit and work somewhere else. Software devs won't be forced to work nights and weekends to meet an arbitrary deadline because they can just quit and work somewhere else.

For whatever reason, it doesn't end up being that simple.

The cost of switching is pretty high. Interviews, background checks, filling out your W4, coming up to speed on a new team with new processes, etc. It ain't free or 0 stress. To get around the interviews, I think this is why some people always have interview processes going on in the background, even if they're not looking for a job. Then when they want to rage quit to make a point, they can easily land on their feet. (It is annoying when you interview people that don't accept your offer, but what can you do.)

A lot of what makes people want to leave companies is the simple nature of working with other people in a for-profit enterprise. That is not going to change by moving to another for-profit enterprise. So those people probably feel pretty stuck regardless of how good the market is.

That was 2010 thinking, in the twenties, you have 2-3 FTE jobs going at once and drop the worst one periodically as you bring on additional employers.
I still don't understand how people find time to do this. The overhead from switching all the time would kill my productivity and take a bunch of time away from what I actually want to be doing, which is not working.
The point is not to be productive, the point is to shamelessly do the bare minimum you need to in order to get more money.
Right, sure. Just as there's no ethics in capitalism I don't think there's any room for shame in capitalism either.

Personally, when I was consulting I really wanted to want multiple clients at once but I actually found myself most happy with just one.

Maybe they don't. I've heard this story a few times, but never in a way that could be verified. It's a bit of an urban legend equivalent for me. Maybe there's even someone who pulled it off for a while. But just as likely it's a joke that became a "true story". Same as the manager throwing the CVs in the air to choose the lucky ones.
Honestly I posted that as a joke. But I am intrigued if it actually can be done. Take the easy jobs, apply a 10x/4 for a two x effort at all your jobs. Be careful to only accept jobs that are low on meeting expectations.
IMO the people that can actually succeed while overemployed could be just as successful, if not more so, as an above-the-board consultant or freelancer. It just seems like inventing a way to do something that already exists and many people do.
(comment deleted)
I probably agree after careful consideration. Finding a low tax jurisdiction to consult remotely from is probably the best move for someone capable and experienced.
How can people constanly like like that? I mean, they must constantly cover up the reason why they couldn't join a call or couldn't answer on chat at the moment etc.. Not to mention outright lies during interviews. I guess they also have to stop maintaining their Linkedin.
I agree, i don't think this narrative of "just move" applies to 90% of developers. And most people are not in a position to just leave...
It's not like you can build rockets or cars at home.
You sort of can! I work in hw for an av company and we make it work. There are some people who are required to come in, but a lot of hw development is data analysis and/or done in cad. You don't need to go into the office for that.
This this this. I've been at plenty of gigs where everyone is all around the world. It's too late to go back, and good riddance! :D
It's not just Elon. A few other prominent and less prominent CEOs are pushing the same agenda. My former employer went the other direction and opted to not renew any leases on office space. So I think this is going to be a point of friction for a while and we'll see some varied approaches but I also think remote work is definitely going to win.
(comment deleted)
I don't think anyone on HN has a crystal ball, but...

My guess is yes, the tech industry will largely be back in offices by the end of 2022, for a very simple reason: most of the tech giants have returned to working in-office or announced that they will be returning in the near future. Twitter is the notable exception, but of course if Elon's takeover goes through, they will no longer be. The rest of the tech industry largely copies whatever MANGA does, for better or for worse. Remote jobs and fully-remote companies will still exist, but they will be notable because they're unusual.

Apple delayed their corporate return to office, for like the fourth time in a row now: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/17/technology/apple-delays-r...

I don't think Amazon is entirely back to the office for corporate workers either.

AFAIK Microsoft is one of the few that dove head first into back to office.

Sure but those returns have been delayed, not canceled in favour of a perma-remote policy. I don't think moving to Sioux Falls as an Amazon or Apple employee would work out 6-12 months from now.
At Amazon return to office is now up to middlemanagement some entire orgs are officially ok with full remote indefinitely. Outside these orgs some individuals can work from different locations on the same team. It's not quite clear what the average steady state will look like, but with a lot of internal hiring at Amazon, I would imagine things would gradually tend towards being fairly flexible
meta seems committed to remote work
It seems Meta and Amazon in particular are moving even further in the direction of remote.

I think Apple and Google will follow.

Some will, especially at places where leadership felt like they individually weren't as productive during covid than when they could meet people in person.

But there are many other companies who found themselves just as productive (if not more so) during covid and are happy to embrace the lower costs associated with not needing so much office space and hiring workers from areas with lower cost of living

(comment deleted)
I think we'll see different companies discover different levels of efficiency.

Some will feel compelled to move, others much less so.

No. The company I work at (roughly 20 countries, 2000 employees -- blurred to avoid doxing myself) is embracing WFH and this allowed us to merge the knowledge and skills of the all our departments across the world. This also allowed us to hire people from all over the countries. Instead of hiring only people local to each branch we get to hire the best workers from all cities. This also allowed the company to hire where there are no offices.

I cannot see it going back any time soon. The advantages are too numerous.

We still have offices and are encourage to use them like any other resources. They have became hubs where we meet when needed to increase productivity instead of obligatory energy drains. New hubs were recently purchased and customized to our needs. Some even have private cafés and bars in them.

This requires trust from the management team, which we have proved over and over for decades.

If anything, people are working slightly longer hours now. The 2 hours people would use to do commute are no longer existent so a lot of people are willing to throw extra hours.

It's common for people to voluntarily stay in chatrooms while cooking diner and using the time to do teambuilding and also casually talk about work related issues. Similar to how people used to gather in common spaces after work. We even had events where the company would send us ingredients so that we could all cook the same recipes together and enjoy a remote lunch (on paid time).

Some of my coworkers are even living the digital nomad lifestyle where they travel across the world yet work their full time. Meetings where people have a beach or forest behind them are common -- and they are not static image backgrounds.

I do not miss the previous model and would never go back to it willingly.

I cannot imagine the company going back either as they would now need to fire all the new hires who are not close to the offices... and those offices have been converted into hubs with meetings rooms and a small amount of workstations. Even if the entire company wanted to go back tomorrow, there would not be enough workstations.

> Today we got an email that our entire global staff would be getting a long weekend, just because.

How is this related to companies ending remote?

(btw this week the UK has a 4-day weekend starting tomorrow)

Monday is a public holiday in many places in Europe.
Smart companies will see what's happening with the airline industry--execs pushing for end to restrictions, having a full return to normal, etc.--and it backfiring with huge swaths of staff out sick constantly, etc. and re-evaluate plans to return to full in-person normal. It really seems like it should be a team-by-team choice if and how they integrate in person into their workflow.

edit: Also if your company is in manufacturing, typically a 'pause' of operations is a big warning sign that orders are down and layoffs are coming soon.

Yes exactly the people pushing to end restrictions want to use us back into the office too.

Can't require masking or the vax but if you want to keep working from home, you're being selfish.

I was just forced to go on-site for team building.

It was fun! I had to fly into SF. We had a nice time.

Came home. Covid positive. Me and my partner. Hooray.

What’s your point? Are you saying you wish you just stayed home forever instead?
Well, I have been going out and doing stuff for months and months, but i didn't catch covid until I was forced to go to an airport.

So yeah, I think there is a balance.

I am not one of those "we need to stay inside forever" people. All activity has an inherent risk, and we are not robots that do everything perfectly every day. However, in retrospect I think having us fly in without a working vaccine was reckless.

So I guess my point is that covid is still out there and forcing people to congregate on a regular basis isn't the move yet. People are still getting sick.

For me, it was a very mild sickness. My poor partner is MISERABLE today.

We ended our lease in May 2020 and saved tens of thousands of dollars since even with the cost of outfitting people's remote work spaces. Productivity stayed the same or increased and we could hire more easily outside the city. People felt more comfortable having kids because they'd be around for them more. Why would anyone go back?
It's not about whether anyone would go back, it's about a blind C-suite (Elon & Bezos as a start) deciding that everyone needs to go back.
Stay away from any company holding over 100 million in real estate. They need to force you back.
Downturn means less money.

Less money means pressure to lower salaries.

That creates a pressure to hire outside the US, thus remote.

So, given that we understood that remote is possible, the downturn will make remote more likely.

I cant get over the fact that American employees are using a soon to be ending once in a lifetime opportunity where they have significant power over their employers to push for policies that make them easier to be replaced by people who will live much better lives at a quarter of their salaries.
Depends what you mean by ending remote. Thoughts below only apply to tech companies:

* I think that relatively few companies will return to "back to office = 5d / week"

* I think that many companies will return to "back to office = 1-4 days / week" or "back to office = everyone is in the office for a full work-week every month"

But I think that some amount of essentially 100% remote roles will endure, just as they existed pre-pandemic. If I were guessing 5-15% of the workforce will settle into that state.

Companies are practical. If 5d / week in office means a lot of employee retention issues, and you aren't ok with that, rational actors aren't going to intentionally floor the car off a bridge.

As a CEO I'll echo this, we're at 2+ days across locations where we have offices, and we try to hire in markets where we have an office or can build to an office of 10+.

WFH 100% roles don't do innovation and collaboration the same way that happens in person and even flying folks together for planning sessions is subpar for our goal to impact the communities we operate in positively. With a critical mass volunteering for causes the local team cares about, getting involved with schools, setting up internship programs, etc. are all much easier to achieve.

My long-term belief is we'll see a sorting of companies deciding on how they want to operate, then advertising that in recruiting, and finding people who are also passionate about the same. While we go through the changes it will be turbulent for both employee and employer.

I understand that in person collaboration can be extremely helpful when you're trying to increase the pace of innovation, pivot, respond to market stresses, etc.

But why 2+ days per week? It feels like you're really limiting your pool of candidates when you insist that people come into the office multiple days a week. Why not try an "innovation week" once per quarter to get that work done, and ad-hoc team meetups instead? With the expenses you'd save from ditching the office lease, you could run a lot of social events for employees that serve a similar purpose.

Not trying to criticize or change your mind -- I'm just curious how you came to the conclusion that hybrid is the answer, since it sort of feels like the worst of both worlds to me.

High level...

...one of the 2 days teams are all in together, they focus on internal team activities.

...the other of the 2 days team members spread out across the week, they focus on collaboration with other teams.

It does limit our prospective candidates to being in specific geographies or being willing to move to them, the trade-off is we're seeing many people who voluntarily are in more than 2 days per week, they really missed the separation of home/work, the getting to meet and know new people (WFH video/phone/chat is works for getting work done with each other, it isn't great at really getting to build relationships, it happens much more slowly).

This is an area where we're still innovating on overall as a company and we will continue to do so, also what works for us may not work for others, there isn't a global monoculture. One of our [4] core values is, "People First -- We provide an opportunity for people to do meaningful work with people they love to work with", and as we live the value, we find people enjoy being at the office because they enjoy being around their team members.

My office started going hybrid recently (two days / week right now, three eventually).

I'm introverted and used to be bullish on remote work, but I did a mix of remote and in-person collaboration in grad school and observed first-hand that there really is no comparison. Consequently, starting my job during COVID I was skeptical about remote work and was gratified to seemingly find that it at least kind-of worked. Things got done, the ball kept moving...

But now that we have in-person days there's no question. The level of engagement, collaboration, ideas, 'hallway conversations' that crop up is massively higher...to the point that it feels like a waste of time. I'm so distracted from my main focus of making widgets to talk about hypothetical futures that it feels like I'm falling behind my main 'assigned' duties, but already the fruits of this are starting to be born out and we're probably avoiding mishaps and more fully sucking talent out of everyone due to lower barrier of participatory entry.

I understand not everyone feels this way, but I will note that some of our team is still (and will forever be) remote. In mixed meetings they're the same as they ever were, which is to say, mostly silent. The in-person people are much more engaged.

Bottom-line: if your work is well-defined or scoped at the individual or perhaps small-team level, remote might work. If you're pushing boundaries I'm skeptical--not that remote work can't work, but that it works best.

>With a critical mass volunteering

Is it really volunteering then?

I'm not programming to 'get involved with the community'.

Our experience is different folks want to get involved with different things and they're much more likely to do so with another coworker or two than they would be to do so alone.

We understand this isn't what all folks want and don't mandate involvement.

Small company data point here, but we're going more remote, not less.

Previously, remote was basically for people that had been with the company before and left the area, but that we wanted to keep.

The pandemic finally wore down the last bit of resistance to embracing remote fully. We still have our (scaled down) office location, but new hires need not have ever set foot in the area.

Exact same story here. Previously we had a few remote employees because the option was to let them go remote or lose them. ~3 months into the pandemic, when it became impossible to hire engineers, we said "fuck it" and accepted that we'd become a remote company even once the pandemic was over, just so that we could access the wider talent market.
There's sort of a tipping point where enough companies being remote heavily dilutes the talent you can find in a city now. It probably means any one city after the pandemic has at most 50% of the talent it had before.
Some of us were already remote before the pandemic, of all the industries software is among the best suited for WFH
There are problems with remote work. An employee of a California company is working remotely in, say, Illinois. He sits on his chair in the morning to do his regular work at his desk at home. The chair collapses; he is injured. He files for worker's compensation. His company paid no premiums in Illinois, no coverage. Will California cover an out of state injury? I don't know.

Second scenario. The California employee decides to work in Mumbai. Why not? Cost of living is lower and relatives are near. The employer then gets a tax bill because it is "doing business" in India. Or the ED VA. Or anywhere the employee decides to rent an apartment.

These issues have been put aside during the force majeure pandemic {in war and plagues the laws are silent, or at least, temporarily shut up} but a return to normalcy now means there is no more force majeure excuse.

> There are problems with remote work. An employee of a California company is working remotely in, say, Illinois. He sits on his chair in the morning to do his regular work at his desk at home. The chair collapses; he is injured. He files for worker's compensation. His company paid no premiums in Illinois, no coverage. Will California cover an out of state injury? I don't know.

It's almost as if no company ever in existence of the universe has had regional sales employees.

They do. And they have branch offices as well, even in other countries. They make the choice to establish such offices, form local companies to do so, qualify to do business in foreign jurisdictions, pay taxes, etc. The point is that it is the company making the business decision to do so, not random employees who decide they'd like to live in Kerala while earning US salaries.
Random employees don't get to make that decision in a WFH scenario either. They're hired while residing at a specific location. If they decide to move, they need to clear it with company HR first.
> The chair collapses; he is injured. He files for worker's compensation. His company paid no premiums in Illinois, no coverage. Will California cover an out of state injury?

This sounds so American: Insurance and litigation for every little thing.

Haha true. I thought the commenter was exaggerating first. But maybe commenter is really serious and literally means it.

So to his second point, does the employer get a tax bill because a worker is in a region? The employee might get an income tax bill in the region, and that seems to be the accepted norm. Maybe the company does get a bill.

If you have an hr dept that isn't worthless, they're already in compliance with whatever local state laws they need to in order to operate in that state, including workman's comp.
Remote work =/= work anywhere.

Companies can easily set policies to only allow work in jurisdictions they have tax and legal infrastructure to handle.

This isn't the same as requiring all your employees to come in the office.

This is definitely an issue, but I don't think it's a serious concern for larger companies with good HR departments. When covid first hit HR at my employer was interested in where employees were located, there was a list of allowed work locations. But they got it figured out and physical location is less of an issue for tax and insurance.
(comment deleted)
I'd love to hear from someone that works at GitLab on how things work internally. My understanding is that they have hundreds of employees and are 100% remote. Seems amazing from my outsider's perspective.
I looked into it but pay is location based based on a formula so it's pretty meh.

Unknown companies doing remotes will pay more if you're decent at negotiating and selling yourself.

Buffer has better salaries, I may explore that at the next switch.

Many companies experienced a brain drain with all of the people leaving for other options. It's known that a return to onsite will lose more headcount and companies still aren't prepared for more losses yet.

It'll probably take another 2-3 years before most companies have processes in place that can sustain a mass exodus. In the meantime they're going to allow remote and keep future plans as ambiguous and non-committal as possible...

It will be on case by case basis - purely software/intellectual products companies I guess will continue to work remotely especially those with nimble teams. Those with physical products will move to hybrid or office work.

Tesla makes cars. I think it helps to be as close to the cars as possible if your goal is to put out the best products.

But to be fair I do think that commute should be paid at some rate.

I think people at Tesla should call his bluff and leave. That goes for any company that puts out ultimatums.

Believe it or not, I don't say that in a spiteful way. I respect that the people who own companies have the right to declare rules for their company. But at the same time, we get to set our own rules for our own lives. If those sets of rules do not match... then do not work there. There is enough variety in this world to find a place that works for you. There might not be enough variety for people like Musk to find all the workers they need.... but that is their problem. I'm just going to find a good place for myself and enjoy my work.

(comment deleted)
Or continue to work remotely. They can demand you be back in the office but just tell them you have COVID so are self-isolating.
Agree. Maybe it's me, but everyone is starved for employees, from coffee shops to data science companies. Good time to switch