> I'm surprised they managed to keep half their staff.
Me too, but the default response was that those that stayed are already sending out feelers rather than shipping code; I think dating apps are an odd thing of my generation that, like social media, I never 'got' but the fact remains there are enough people using them to have market product fit and have had a modest but apparently useful work-force.
They just cut your work force in half with some short term gain(s) in the process, but to seriously think that others who didn't leave won't jump ship when they have the chance is absurd: the 'WFH = fired' mantra echoed by Amazon and Elon recently with X (see how well that's gone as he has driven that company into the ground entirely by himself) and Tesla etc... then this may be how these things lose market share.
I'm indifferent to the app's existance but I'm glad that worker solidarity made one half quit rather than be forced into an archaic modality that tech doesn't need to be in; but maybe these people go work on something other than a hook-up app and people go back to meeting in clubs/bars/library/park/party and these workers actually apply there skills to something of actual use.
> I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone under 40 who doesn't know at least one couple who met online.
What an off-the-mark conclusion, I like many other tech working millennials grew up on the internet and came of age when it became (reluctantly) what it is now; of course I know people who met online, I have spent way too much of my Life online so I personally refused to use them and don't see their allure; I still rely on social interactions to meet partners. I'm way too analog in that respect despite a majority of my life being spent online.
> These people lost their jobs. No need to ignorantly denigrate their work as well.
They didn't lose their jobs, so much as showed that RTO is so absurd that its not worth returning even if it meant being terminated to satisfy the managerial class, and that is what conviction looks like; and I'm not denigrating their work, so much as underscoring worker resentment will make them move on to something more worthy of their time.
Ultimately, I'm praising them as they have my full solidarity and exposing Grindr to be just as myopic as Amazon/X/Tesla run by imbeciles who are forcing them back to the office despite many studies showing that the metrics and performance are not decreasing and have offered people actual work life balance and have made many (but not all) more satisfied and productive. This mentality is wide spread in Corporate America, and apparently Grindr is complicit and willing to risk it's workforce to do it to, despite all it's branding of inclusiveness it clearly doesn't include respecting their workers preferences: ironic huh?
Almost like this narrative only holds water when its profitable and suits them.
Sure. But whether you spin it as "return to work" [as if you weren't doing something/somewhere that could be considered "work" before] or "return to office" is likely to be revealing as to your mindset about the whole thing.
Language has connotations that influence how we interpret others' arguments.
That's wild. I must have said "I am going back to the office" organically hundreds of times.
For example, if I went to lunch with a colleague and had to get back to the office for a meeting or to get back to my computer. Or if I was at an off-site meeting that just ended and I was going to trek back to the office.
I don't say it much anymore, as WFH has cut all this needless commuting from my life, but I use to say that constantly.
But here, where people are already working from home, saying these already-working people are violating the "return-to-work" order is just fundamentally disrespectful of the work people were already doing.
It makes sense why those workers would seek to form a union; it sounds like management is really belittling their work, even through the language they feed to the press.
Which is based from "work" predominantly being done in offices and factories and such.
In the era of increasing "working from home" and working remotely from cafes and elsewhere, mixing the two is an anachronism that should stop. It also diminishes WFH.
I'd say in this context distinction makes difference.
You also would not say "I am going back to work" when you were sales person visiting customer, you would say "I am going back to office".
You would say "I am going back to work" when you would be on a lunch break as much as you would say "I am going back to office".
In work-from-home situation I see only "I am going back to office" as correct statement. With all implications of "going back to work" pointing out you are not "working" at moment you are talking.
The correct wording however "return to office", even if we're smart enough to deduce the meaning from the dumb wording, and even if for historical reasons (work being outside the home predominantly) people just used the two terms interchangeably.
In the era of increased WFH (and during 2020-2021 even mandatory WFH) conflating the two terms is an anachronism - and in this case, it's also a subtle weasel wording to diminish WFH.
As a former homemaker, I generally find it offensive that "work" means paid work and "women's work" is routinely implicitly devalued as not really work.
I don't know what your point is, at all, though I'm not at all surprised that my observation above is being dismissed out of hand as not worth mentioning or something. In fact, I fully expected it, though not quite this fast.
Attempts to divert discussions into not related issues are usually met with people dismissing them.
We were discussing the "return to work" vs "return to office" thing. Nobody mentioned anything about house maintenance being "women's work" or dismissed its importance before you brought it up accusing us of that.
If anything, in your first comment you dimissed the protesting about the title's "return to work" muddying the waters to make even paid work as something that only happens in an office.
>Right. You being pedantic about your work-related concerns is valid. Me doing the same is "off topic."
Here's the whole history of the thread:
djur: title is wrong, it's about return-to-office, not return-to-work
u: no problem with it, "work" is a place, not an activity.
me: work as synonumous with office, is an anachronism from when work was mostly done in an office. TFA title also anti-WFH weaseling.
u: As a former homemaker, I generally find it offensive that "work" means paid work and "women's work" is routinely implicitly devalued as not really work.
In your first comment you found it OK for work to mean "office" in TFA title, as if WFH is not work.
But suddenly you find it offensive that work doesn't also include not just WFH but also home chores.
U-turn much? And based on "But you do you" am I wrong to take this as an ad-hominem because I dared to reply to you, based on something unrelated to the discussion, which nor I not anybody in this subthread touched upon anyway?
>Got it. Learned that a really long time ago, actually.
Former homemakers have issues it's nigh impossible to discuss at all anywhere. But I think that's a mistake that harms ongoing efforts to reform what work means to humans and when, where and how it can be validly performed.
Well, in the context of a company and WFH policies discussion, work means paid work. This is not some talk about men vs women work, it includes women working at Grindr or any company or business.
As for home-related tasks, those are not "women's work" either, as they can be performed by men or women or even robot assistants, they're not paid work. They're also of course performed by themselves by most people living alone, anyway, and they're usually still not considered work in the business sense unless they involve paid staff. Asking a person living alone "what you do for work" they aren't going to mention that they do the dishes and wipe the floor at home, they're going to mention their Uber gig or cubicle job.
People will vote with their feet. These aren’t wage slaves on poverty wages, these are tech professionals that can - if they are good - get another job within a few short months if not weeks. Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate.
People remain in bad situations for many reasons that have nothing to do with their skills, performance, or quality of work.
Maybe they have a medical condition and cannot risk disrupting their healthcare even for a short time, maybe their housing is at risk, maybe their partner was just laid off, etc.
What you used as an example is fully encapsulated by my use of the term “desperate”. Those chained to their job via the medical insurance it provides, or housing disruption, or family income stream, are indeed desperate for said insurance or housing stability or income stream. This is not insulting in the least, merely factual.
And when those who are talented enough with the ability to easily jump ship actually do so in droves, the company is indeed being “ hollowed out” of talent regardless of the talent remaining. When you remove 9 of your top 10 people, the company is still being “hollowed out” even if that 10th person is head and shoulders above the other 9. One person cannot shoulder the work of another 9 who have left, that is impossible. The company will decline regardless of how much of a superstar programmer that one remaining person is.
>This is not insulting in the least, merely factual.
it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate", yes. I don't know if this is a cultural divide or if English isn't your native language, but "desperate" carries a connotation of being shackled to an unusually low point. Not something that 90+% of the country relies on because the US lacks universal healthcare.
>the company is indeed being “ hollowed out” of talent regardless of the talent remaining.
that wasn't your original argument.
I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home.
Yes it was, there was absolutely no shift in subject matter between the two posts. “Hollowing out” is a thing that the company is doing to itself, and has (frequently) very little to do with its employees themselves. You have that equally as much with random mass layoffs as you do with intentional mass employee resignations. The company has done something intentional to cause an exodus which is largely random in nature, and is invariably along lines that has only a dimly vague association with an employee’s competence.
We saw that with some very prominent mass layoffs in Silicon Valley in early 2023, where employees of all kinds were sacked regardless of skill level, experience, and employability. It’s no different when employees as a whole reach a breaking point and initiate a wave of resignations - those with the means and resources to either immediately quit or be rapidly re-hired elsewhere will do so, those without those means will linger on and cling to the job.
> I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home.
Quit sticking additional meaning and intent where there is absolutely none. I never insinuated this, never had that as an objective, and took pains to keep the target on the company.
So let me re-iterate: Those remaining from Grinder’s mass loss of employees are most likely either people who would have difficulty getting rapidly hired elsewhere due to lower skill levels, or people who have been “locked into” their employment by whatever means and are therefore under a significant disadvantage of choice regardless of their actual skill level. Those that left would have seen the abusive and toxic behaviour of the company for what it is, and chose to execute their much more available options by seeking employment at a less hostile employer.
There just isn’t any other way to phrase this.
> it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate"
Capitalism as is implemented in America makes such desperation a key aspect of its existence. The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM: desperate employees will accept lower wages and more abusive employers, who will cut more corners and squeeze their workforce ever more tightly for concessions in order to maintain those obscenely fat profit margins flowing upward to the Parasite Class.
So, “tone deaf”?? To paper over such cruelty-based objectives of Capitalism so as to not offend, is to foster ignorance by omission and is an epithet flung in the faces of the desperate for their crime of being that desperate. I consider ignorance by far the greater offence, and will gladly be “tone deaf” all day long where this subject is concerned. I will gleefully ram such “tone deafness” down the throats of everyone who refuses to acknowledge such inequalities by making it viscerally uncomfortable for them to ignore those inequalities.
>I never insinuated this, never had that as an objective, and took pains to keep the target on the company.
you very much said so in words. Intentional or not, you explicitly said that only the worst or least competent employees remained:
>Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate.
If you want to clarify or correct, that is fine. But doubling down and acting like these words were never said doesn't make a good look for you.
>The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM
We're getting way off topic on a thread that was about WFH, so I'll make it brief: it's a side effect, but not the point. Capitalism is about profit and in a vacuum is simply about that. if long term capitalism determines that happier employees makes more money, it won't go out of its way to make them miserable in order to maintain control.
Going down that route to maxmize replacability or minimize employee satisfaction is incompetence at best and greed at worst. Because on system operated by humans will have benevolent nor even competent actors.
> you very much said so in words. Intentional or not, you explicitly said that only the worst or least competent employees remained:
>>Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate.
So the word “desperate” does not exist in that sentence? Because it is a valid word, separate and distinct from “sub-par”.
Plus, “desperate” does not equal “sub-par”. A simple dictionary can teach you that. The word “and” between then indicates that each type of person is present in the group that remains, it is not an either-or group that consists of only one type of person or another. Some will be sub-par. Others will be desperate.
I strongly recommend you brush up on your comprehension of the English language, as it appears to not be your native tongue.
Any news worth its salt will have a source in the article vouching to the story:
>The CWA filed a new labor complaint against the company on Wednesday, the second such complaint in about a month.
>“These decisions have left Grindr dangerously understaffed and raises questions about the safety, security and stability of the app for users,” Erick Cortez, a member of the organizing group, said in the statement. “It is clear Grindr wants workers to be silenced and deterred from exercising our right to organize, regardless of the expense.”
In this case, the forming union group reported it, likely after getting info from some manager who talked about it. Or perhaps estimating based on some internal metrics.
If you would be forced to relocate to meet this mandate, I completely understand resigning, and I would likely do the same.
But I feel a bit out of place among my peers because assuming I lived within reasonable commuting distance from the office ... I personally wouldn't mind this. Not the commuting/scheduling inconvenience it would mean for me or others, but working in person a couple days a week, for me, makes my personal experience of work more enjoyable overall. I prefer that it be voluntary/opt-in though, obviously.
Hopefully the equilibrium we'll eventually reach is some set of companies for those that prefer full remote, and another set for those that prefer hybrid. The real pain is caused by companies switching modalities with mandates.
>But I feel a bit out of place among my peers because assuming I lived within reasonable commuting distance from the office.
But what is a reasonable commuting distance? Is it half an hour by car in medium traffic that turns to one hour one way in heavy traffic? Is it 15min combined walking and riding a train? There is a huge span of possibilities here.
When I used to live in a city I had a combined 15 min walking/riding a train/underground commute. I actually enjoyed it and my work. I enjoyed that I could get good coffee or eat breakfast in a cafe on my way to work. I didn't mind the 10min on public transport. But I also knew I could never afford to buy a nice property without a huge mortgage. I couldn't move out to the country if I wanted or I'd waste my life commuting at least 2h every day.
When comparing wfh with the office people often focus on all the time they get back in their life not having to commute. For me being able to live where I want is a much bigger deal. Also the fact what matters are actual results of my work not how busy and hardworking I can myself look like in the office. I'm definitely not a fan of all the video/voice meetings that happen. It's such a collosal waste of time 90% of the time, but I'll take virtual meetings any day over actual in person meetings. Anyone who came up with an idea of a daily "stand up" as a way to "update what we're working on" as opposed to just sharing blockers must have been an evil genius.
without planning and coordination, you are likely to sit alone in an office on a zoom call, because you came to the office on a day that no one you are interacting with came to the office.
unless it is about the office, but, wework didn’t go so hot.
Yes, I think teams would have to do some level of coordination for it to make sense. Driving into the office just to be on Zoom all day is obviously the worst of both worlds.
My start date at work is 2 months into the lockdowns, 2020. I would not have a job if it weren't for the pandemic.
When the recruiter contacted me and we were doing the initial negotiations, I was told about the prospective work site, and I understood it to be a few miles away and an easy commute. But I also had reason to suspect that it was all the way across town, with a very difficult 3+ hour commute. The recruiter assured me that she'd work it out for the former, but that turned out not to be true. Except when the lockdowns hit, we all moved to virtual spaces, and so the physical location was taken completely out of consideration, and I was able to easily WFH for the next 6 months in the contract.
I found out later, that the commute home would have been actually impossible, because I wouldn't have finished until 10pm, and the buses stopped running before then.
Later, I was to be "rehired" for another role that is 100% remote. Now, my employer had satellite offices around these United States, and one of them really close by to me. I asked twice for a tour, but nobody was willing to oblige me. Earlier this year, employer closed all offices except two. So now for me and all my coworkers, there is literally noplace to RTO to. It's absolute bliss, I tell you, without that sword of Damocles.
53 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadMe too, but the default response was that those that stayed are already sending out feelers rather than shipping code; I think dating apps are an odd thing of my generation that, like social media, I never 'got' but the fact remains there are enough people using them to have market product fit and have had a modest but apparently useful work-force.
They just cut your work force in half with some short term gain(s) in the process, but to seriously think that others who didn't leave won't jump ship when they have the chance is absurd: the 'WFH = fired' mantra echoed by Amazon and Elon recently with X (see how well that's gone as he has driven that company into the ground entirely by himself) and Tesla etc... then this may be how these things lose market share.
I'm indifferent to the app's existance but I'm glad that worker solidarity made one half quit rather than be forced into an archaic modality that tech doesn't need to be in; but maybe these people go work on something other than a hook-up app and people go back to meeting in clubs/bars/library/park/party and these workers actually apply there skills to something of actual use.
It's a win-win in my book.
What a bizarre thing to say in 2023.
I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone under 40 who doesn't know at least one couple who met online.
These people lost their jobs. No need to ignorantly denigrate their work as well.
What an off-the-mark conclusion, I like many other tech working millennials grew up on the internet and came of age when it became (reluctantly) what it is now; of course I know people who met online, I have spent way too much of my Life online so I personally refused to use them and don't see their allure; I still rely on social interactions to meet partners. I'm way too analog in that respect despite a majority of my life being spent online.
> These people lost their jobs. No need to ignorantly denigrate their work as well.
They didn't lose their jobs, so much as showed that RTO is so absurd that its not worth returning even if it meant being terminated to satisfy the managerial class, and that is what conviction looks like; and I'm not denigrating their work, so much as underscoring worker resentment will make them move on to something more worthy of their time.
Ultimately, I'm praising them as they have my full solidarity and exposing Grindr to be just as myopic as Amazon/X/Tesla run by imbeciles who are forcing them back to the office despite many studies showing that the metrics and performance are not decreasing and have offered people actual work life balance and have made many (but not all) more satisfied and productive. This mentality is wide spread in Corporate America, and apparently Grindr is complicit and willing to risk it's workforce to do it to, despite all it's branding of inclusiveness it clearly doesn't include respecting their workers preferences: ironic huh?
Almost like this narrative only holds water when its profitable and suits them.
Yeah, I hear those are safe, inclusive and readily available all over the world for people that use Grindr.
Incidentally, isn't HN not of actual use on the same token? Shouldn't you be telling someone in a bar about this instead?
I couldn’t imagine some interpreting it that literally. A quick google search between the two, they’re virtually synonymous.
Language has connotations that influence how we interpret others' arguments.
For example, if I went to lunch with a colleague and had to get back to the office for a meeting or to get back to my computer. Or if I was at an off-site meeting that just ended and I was going to trek back to the office.
I don't say it much anymore, as WFH has cut all this needless commuting from my life, but I use to say that constantly.
It makes sense why those workers would seek to form a union; it sounds like management is really belittling their work, even through the language they feed to the press.
In the era of increasing "working from home" and working remotely from cafes and elsewhere, mixing the two is an anachronism that should stop. It also diminishes WFH.
You also would not say "I am going back to work" when you were sales person visiting customer, you would say "I am going back to office".
You would say "I am going back to work" when you would be on a lunch break as much as you would say "I am going back to office".
In work-from-home situation I see only "I am going back to office" as correct statement. With all implications of "going back to work" pointing out you are not "working" at moment you are talking.
it works better if you don’t stop and think about it. definitely works better if you don’t search about it.
In the era of increased WFH (and during 2020-2021 even mandatory WFH) conflating the two terms is an anachronism - and in this case, it's also a subtle weasel wording to diminish WFH.
But you do you. We all have our bugaboos.
We were discussing the "return to work" vs "return to office" thing. Nobody mentioned anything about house maintenance being "women's work" or dismissed its importance before you brought it up accusing us of that.
If anything, in your first comment you dimissed the protesting about the title's "return to work" muddying the waters to make even paid work as something that only happens in an office.
Got it. Learned that a really long time ago, actually.
Here's the whole history of the thread:
djur: title is wrong, it's about return-to-office, not return-to-work
u: no problem with it, "work" is a place, not an activity.
me: work as synonumous with office, is an anachronism from when work was mostly done in an office. TFA title also anti-WFH weaseling.
u: As a former homemaker, I generally find it offensive that "work" means paid work and "women's work" is routinely implicitly devalued as not really work.
In your first comment you found it OK for work to mean "office" in TFA title, as if WFH is not work.
But suddenly you find it offensive that work doesn't also include not just WFH but also home chores.
U-turn much? And based on "But you do you" am I wrong to take this as an ad-hominem because I dared to reply to you, based on something unrelated to the discussion, which nor I not anybody in this subthread touched upon anyway?
>Got it. Learned that a really long time ago, actually.
Yes, it's all about you.
Former homemakers have issues it's nigh impossible to discuss at all anywhere. But I think that's a mistake that harms ongoing efforts to reform what work means to humans and when, where and how it can be validly performed.
As for home-related tasks, those are not "women's work" either, as they can be performed by men or women or even robot assistants, they're not paid work. They're also of course performed by themselves by most people living alone, anyway, and they're usually still not considered work in the business sense unless they involve paid staff. Asking a person living alone "what you do for work" they aren't going to mention that they do the dishes and wipe the floor at home, they're going to mention their Uber gig or cubicle job.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421241
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37434293
* the CEO finds silver margins in reduced costs
* paying salaries is second to paying rent to platforms
At least they were transparent?
Maybe they have a medical condition and cannot risk disrupting their healthcare even for a short time, maybe their housing is at risk, maybe their partner was just laid off, etc.
Please do not insult those with fewer options.
And when those who are talented enough with the ability to easily jump ship actually do so in droves, the company is indeed being “ hollowed out” of talent regardless of the talent remaining. When you remove 9 of your top 10 people, the company is still being “hollowed out” even if that 10th person is head and shoulders above the other 9. One person cannot shoulder the work of another 9 who have left, that is impossible. The company will decline regardless of how much of a superstar programmer that one remaining person is.
it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate", yes. I don't know if this is a cultural divide or if English isn't your native language, but "desperate" carries a connotation of being shackled to an unusually low point. Not something that 90+% of the country relies on because the US lacks universal healthcare.
>the company is indeed being “ hollowed out” of talent regardless of the talent remaining.
that wasn't your original argument.
I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home.
Yes it was, there was absolutely no shift in subject matter between the two posts. “Hollowing out” is a thing that the company is doing to itself, and has (frequently) very little to do with its employees themselves. You have that equally as much with random mass layoffs as you do with intentional mass employee resignations. The company has done something intentional to cause an exodus which is largely random in nature, and is invariably along lines that has only a dimly vague association with an employee’s competence.
We saw that with some very prominent mass layoffs in Silicon Valley in early 2023, where employees of all kinds were sacked regardless of skill level, experience, and employability. It’s no different when employees as a whole reach a breaking point and initiate a wave of resignations - those with the means and resources to either immediately quit or be rapidly re-hired elsewhere will do so, those without those means will linger on and cling to the job.
> I wish we could simply respect the choices of an individual and not assume their aptitude because of their views on work from home.
Quit sticking additional meaning and intent where there is absolutely none. I never insinuated this, never had that as an objective, and took pains to keep the target on the company.
So let me re-iterate: Those remaining from Grinder’s mass loss of employees are most likely either people who would have difficulty getting rapidly hired elsewhere due to lower skill levels, or people who have been “locked into” their employment by whatever means and are therefore under a significant disadvantage of choice regardless of their actual skill level. Those that left would have seen the abusive and toxic behaviour of the company for what it is, and chose to execute their much more available options by seeking employment at a less hostile employer.
There just isn’t any other way to phrase this.
> it's certainly tonedeaf when you consider properly funding your kids as "desperate"
Capitalism as is implemented in America makes such desperation a key aspect of its existence. The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM: desperate employees will accept lower wages and more abusive employers, who will cut more corners and squeeze their workforce ever more tightly for concessions in order to maintain those obscenely fat profit margins flowing upward to the Parasite Class.
So, “tone deaf”?? To paper over such cruelty-based objectives of Capitalism so as to not offend, is to foster ignorance by omission and is an epithet flung in the faces of the desperate for their crime of being that desperate. I consider ignorance by far the greater offence, and will gladly be “tone deaf” all day long where this subject is concerned. I will gleefully ram such “tone deafness” down the throats of everyone who refuses to acknowledge such inequalities by making it viscerally uncomfortable for them to ignore those inequalities.
you very much said so in words. Intentional or not, you explicitly said that only the worst or least competent employees remained:
>Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate.
If you want to clarify or correct, that is fine. But doubling down and acting like these words were never said doesn't make a good look for you.
>The cruelty of such desperation IS THE POINT OF CAPITALISM
We're getting way off topic on a thread that was about WFH, so I'll make it brief: it's a side effect, but not the point. Capitalism is about profit and in a vacuum is simply about that. if long term capitalism determines that happier employees makes more money, it won't go out of its way to make them miserable in order to maintain control.
Going down that route to maxmize replacability or minimize employee satisfaction is incompetence at best and greed at worst. Because on system operated by humans will have benevolent nor even competent actors.
>>Grindr is hollowing itself out in terms of talent and it’s best employees, leaving only the sub-par and desperate.
So the word “desperate” does not exist in that sentence? Because it is a valid word, separate and distinct from “sub-par”.
Plus, “desperate” does not equal “sub-par”. A simple dictionary can teach you that. The word “and” between then indicates that each type of person is present in the group that remains, it is not an either-or group that consists of only one type of person or another. Some will be sub-par. Others will be desperate.
I strongly recommend you brush up on your comprehension of the English language, as it appears to not be your native tongue.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37421241
>The CWA filed a new labor complaint against the company on Wednesday, the second such complaint in about a month.
>“These decisions have left Grindr dangerously understaffed and raises questions about the safety, security and stability of the app for users,” Erick Cortez, a member of the organizing group, said in the statement. “It is clear Grindr wants workers to be silenced and deterred from exercising our right to organize, regardless of the expense.”
In this case, the forming union group reported it, likely after getting info from some manager who talked about it. Or perhaps estimating based on some internal metrics.
If you would be forced to relocate to meet this mandate, I completely understand resigning, and I would likely do the same.
But I feel a bit out of place among my peers because assuming I lived within reasonable commuting distance from the office ... I personally wouldn't mind this. Not the commuting/scheduling inconvenience it would mean for me or others, but working in person a couple days a week, for me, makes my personal experience of work more enjoyable overall. I prefer that it be voluntary/opt-in though, obviously.
Hopefully the equilibrium we'll eventually reach is some set of companies for those that prefer full remote, and another set for those that prefer hybrid. The real pain is caused by companies switching modalities with mandates.
But what is a reasonable commuting distance? Is it half an hour by car in medium traffic that turns to one hour one way in heavy traffic? Is it 15min combined walking and riding a train? There is a huge span of possibilities here.
When I used to live in a city I had a combined 15 min walking/riding a train/underground commute. I actually enjoyed it and my work. I enjoyed that I could get good coffee or eat breakfast in a cafe on my way to work. I didn't mind the 10min on public transport. But I also knew I could never afford to buy a nice property without a huge mortgage. I couldn't move out to the country if I wanted or I'd waste my life commuting at least 2h every day.
When comparing wfh with the office people often focus on all the time they get back in their life not having to commute. For me being able to live where I want is a much bigger deal. Also the fact what matters are actual results of my work not how busy and hardworking I can myself look like in the office. I'm definitely not a fan of all the video/voice meetings that happen. It's such a collosal waste of time 90% of the time, but I'll take virtual meetings any day over actual in person meetings. Anyone who came up with an idea of a daily "stand up" as a way to "update what we're working on" as opposed to just sharing blockers must have been an evil genius.
without planning and coordination, you are likely to sit alone in an office on a zoom call, because you came to the office on a day that no one you are interacting with came to the office.
unless it is about the office, but, wework didn’t go so hot.
When the recruiter contacted me and we were doing the initial negotiations, I was told about the prospective work site, and I understood it to be a few miles away and an easy commute. But I also had reason to suspect that it was all the way across town, with a very difficult 3+ hour commute. The recruiter assured me that she'd work it out for the former, but that turned out not to be true. Except when the lockdowns hit, we all moved to virtual spaces, and so the physical location was taken completely out of consideration, and I was able to easily WFH for the next 6 months in the contract.
I found out later, that the commute home would have been actually impossible, because I wouldn't have finished until 10pm, and the buses stopped running before then.
Later, I was to be "rehired" for another role that is 100% remote. Now, my employer had satellite offices around these United States, and one of them really close by to me. I asked twice for a tour, but nobody was willing to oblige me. Earlier this year, employer closed all offices except two. So now for me and all my coworkers, there is literally noplace to RTO to. It's absolute bliss, I tell you, without that sword of Damocles.