Show HN: Return To Office Mandates suck (returntoofficemandate.com)
Hi there, like many of you out here, I was affected by my company's return to office policy. When the policy came into effect, I lost a couple of hours every day commuting and my daily routine was disrupted. Imo, the company lost even more in terms of talent and in terms of trust from the employees.
I might sound like a spoilt brat complaining about my cushy dev job, but I think of my little project as a collective voice where we help improve the working culture of the world.
I made this site to track everything return to office and the silliness of it all. Thank you for checking out the site. It's a work in progress, do let me know if there are any suggestions etc
44 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 91.8 ms ] threadOn the other hand, if a company never built a culture and processes around remote work, I can see how it would be a bad experience for both the employer and employees. And while many thrive remotely, there is a subset of people that are poor candidates for remote work or just can't stay disciplined enough.
I think the best thing to do would be let folks work how they want to work. And if there is an imposition to be had, it should be against folks who “require” others to go out of their way to go into an office, since their need is quite unimportant in the face of the needs of the many many others who see a quality of life decline from RTO. There are ways to bring routine and socialization back into your life that don’t revolve around work. They need to explore those avenues before we consider the vastly negative imposition of _requiring_ people to RTO for their sole benefit.
Also, "Companies can do X and employees can decide if that works for them" is the basis of right-to-work, which is demonstrably Bad by just about any measure. I agree with the sentiment in principle, but it usually ends with some format of usury.
This anecdata is not realized in the actual data. So we can disregard this.
> An office job provided structure and meaningful daily contact
Of all the types of contact I had when I was in an office "meaningful" would not describe it. I have meaningful contact being able to go to my gym at a time that allows me to cook and relax afterwards. I have meaningful contact at the coffee shop I'll occasionally work from. I have meaningful contact going for a walk in the park over lunch. My health has improved because I'm not forced to go to company mandated fun-lunches or skip the gym because someone dropped by my cube and told me I'm working late. I'm healthier because I'm not driven to near suicide by the 2-3 hours I lose every day commuting. Let's not even talk about the risk adjusted lifespan I have driving every day to work and back vs. working at home.
This concept of "company culture" being an employee benefit is the pinnacle of narcissism. Everything I do and say is recorded at work. Coworkers will almost certainly rat me out to HR if I'm too honest and dont toe the line. If anything, the office is arguably the least "safe" space I have in my life and under RTO I'm forced under contract to spend 8 hours there. No thanks.
> Saying that return to office mandates are bad for all companies is just plain dumb.
Spoken like a non-developer. My job as a staff engineer does not require me to be physically present. Grow up. This is a power grab by people who want to gaslight employees under threat of their job. Same with "cameras always on" policies and all the other bullshit. A bunch of tin-pots with a modicum of manufactured power using it to make others miserable. Nothing new under the sun.
> An office job provided structure and meaningful daily contact that is not replicated in 30 minute zoom calls.
I'm a very friendly guy, and always get along with my coworkers, but I go to work to work. For meaningful daily contact, I have my friends and family.
The European idea of going to work, working systematically for eight hours, and then going home to your real life seems much healthier to me.
Another way to see it is this: the cost of keeping a worker in an office is at least 10% of their salary. Another 5% of the workers day is spent commuting.
I personally would rather have a 10% raise and another 250 hours of spare time every year. I think if you phrased it that way, most people would agree.
I've had a poke through their SEC filings -- without revealing too much, the quarterly spend on "facilities" is about 10% of what they spend on compensation. There's a hiring freeze, but they've committed to a long lease renewal with a significant office expansion plan.
My little theory is that they're personally invested in the local commercial real estate. Quite a few of the board members are involved with other companies in the same area, which seem to have similar RTO policies.
People who want to project power do that thing of "I don't care what reality is, things are what I say they are" and the cryptkeepers in charge here definitely have that vibe -- but that only works when you have actual power over things. Here, they're trying to browbeat a tsunami, and it's actually kind of pitiful to watch. I wish them the worst, from the bottom of my heart.
Tactically it is a stupid decision. Remote work is by-and-large one of the biggest boons to an employee who would otherwise be jockeying for a house to start a family in a place that is too expensive. Studies have shown time and time again that even under threat of pay reduction employees will STILL choose remote work. The "stupid" capitalist pays them just enough to rent locally but not enough to buy. Companies that remain remote-only will likely absorb a large chunk of the best talent in the next decade. All of the middling and new talent will be forced to bend the knee. The actual bet here is that 200 middling engineers will outperform 100 of the best. When you look at the macroeconomics the conclusion is obvious. Those 200 middling engineers will likely be 50 local engineers and 150 foreigners.
However, it is a rational decision. These rich capitalists, in your words, are deeply invested in real estate. If they aren't, whoever invested in them is. Follow that chain long enough and you'll almost surely find Blackrock and Vanguard who, in my pet theory, is driving this movement. We aren't talking about Google/Facebook/Apple who have amazing self-owned beautiful campuses. We are talking about mandates from 100 person just-barely-not-a-startup companies.
All this movement did is show what kind of fraud the SV startup scene has been committing for the last two decades. Naturally, when outed, the fraudster panics.
The bootlicker comment really sums up how I feel about this, but I'll comment anyway:
To glorify the rich is buying into a lie that you'll also become rich. And calling anyone on HN poor is a misnomer. Granted, I continued posting here when I was unable to find a job and had to take family loans to save me from ruin, but this audience is mostly educated and mostly white-collar. There are people on this board making far more than you who also don't want to return to the office. What a silly, trivial, small-minded comment.
I find this to be a nice balance. My last job was full time remote, and I was there during the pandemic when they transitioned to that model, and I'd say we lost something. But it's hard to say what it was that we'd lost and certainly not easy to quantify it!
There are certainly advantages to bringing everybody together and there are advantages to being heads-down and getting stuff done - which is easier to do remotely. I think people are banking on hybrid to balance out these approaches. We'll see.
It's almost like people are different and there's no one size fits all approach, and we should stop being stupid and let the people who want to work remote do so, while providing meeting space for people who want to be in person. It feels like the world is dictated by Type-A, "I can only be productive & wrap my head around things if I'm face to face" people, when they're only 1 type of worker.
Often, as a queer person, I feel my sense of isolation is only fully allieved by romantic relationships. When my gf broke up with me, I lost my will to live for a few weeks. So I went to the office every single day. I got out of my space, I spoke to some of the nice people there. I went to the pub after work and made some connections with colleagues around my age that helped me. If I was still at my previous more remote job, I think I would've stayed in bed, smoked weed until I was bordering on psychosis and lost my job. I don't know what you want from me.
Please drop your image that the only people that benefit from the office are tyrannical old white male middle managers.
I remember being lonelier in my 20's, but I never really socialized at work. I socialized outside work with my family, or found places I enjoyed being with people I enjoyed being around. "The office" is an antiquated system that's unnecessary. America definitely needs more public spaces, but building your relationships around work is a recipe for disaster. It takes time to build a community, but it's worth it. I don't want to be around people who are forced to be around me, pretend the don't look down on me, sabotage me behind my back.
Remote work makes those people forget to discriminate in my experience, I can stand on my merits without that guy who does my job (but sucks) joking about how they could replace me with a sombrero. (actual IRL interaction.)
EDIT: spelling
I think you proved my point that WFH benefits older people and people with strong family units. I don't have any of this tying me down or supporting me, and if I lived in a hostile conservative area I would move because why would I want to be miserable about my surroundings.
I'm not sure what part of 'I don't have strong family or friendship units' that you don't understand. If you hadn't had a strong family behind you on your 20s, maybe you'd understand me too. I don't feel like people at work look down on me, again, when I was in a job like that, I left. It's as simple as that. I want a workplace where I actually like the people and people are sociable. It's a priority.
This weekend once again I had a terrible experience. I was distraught all weekend by my own. Today, I got properly washed and dressed, got out of my house and into the office, had some nice conversations, talked it through with a colleague who i'm actually close to during a smoke break, she gave me a hug, I ate the healthy subsidised food, bought some sleep supplements during lunch break, and it all helped me. Otherwise, I'd still be rolling around crying in my flat. What do you not get that just having SOMEWHERE to go during regular days is important to some of us. I honestly don't understand people that function without obligations like this.
I urge you to find a community outside of work. Work to live, don't live to work.
So yeah, I don't live to work. I couldn't care less. But I find it hard to find community at all. I try. I fail. The certainty that there is at least the people in the office keeps me going. I will continue to try.
And no, all office being remote with the option for people to come in doesn't work for me. That's what my last job is. You know whats worse than working from home? Going into the office to find nobody is there, anyone who is there you haven't seen for 6 months and have no rapport with, and you feel like you're in some sterile empty hall. I'm saying only a hybrid job where I knew people would not give up on going to the office fit for me. Even I will give up on going to the office if noone really goes and I feel no imperative to. It's just bad for me.
You know you prefer an office you can go to, and you don't like going days without seeing/talking to another human. That suicidal feeling you mentioned when you go too long without human contact? There is an inverse to that, where people like me feel burnt out, depressed, and "done" after too much (or sometimes even just a little) people time.
The people who want to return to an office should be allowed to, and should have a place to go. There are enough people who prefer working in an office that you'll get your human contact, and the people who want to be at home without all the people interaction should be given that option as well.
But the frustration you feel at the way I framed RTO people is the same frustration I feel when this sensible compromise is proposed, but isn't good enough for the RTO types. You prefer being around people throughout the week, I do not. There's room for both to work, but dictating I have to come to an office because you like seeing people is where the frustration comes from.
But I do agree that if you are hired somewhere that says it's remote or hybrid, you should be able to expect the job to match what it was described as. And in your case, you could find a hybrid job where people actually go in a couple times a week.
That's really all either of us want. If companies would stop playing games, we probably wouldn't have even had this discussion!
- You can't live far away from the office
- You can't take some weeks/months to work from abroad
- You lose flexibility on your schedule when in the office
Of course no approach is perfect but I personally wouldn't say hybrid is a nice balance, it's better than going to the office every day but nowhere near as being 100% remote.
What's the purpose of this data collection ? Please don't tell me that you will use the data collected this way as any kind of "analysis" on how people feel about RTO. It feels like you are trying to create an echo chamber for your own views on the issue, yet you are including options to give some illusion that you are willing to accept the opposite side views.
Since you asked for suggestions; you should either ackowledge that your goals are to gather testimonies of people who do not like RTO, and then it makes no sense to let them indicate they like it. Or you are actually trying to get objective data on the issue and you need to fully rework the website, how you advertise it, and work even harder to put your own bias aside.
Right now it feels we are going to get a post in 3 months explaining that according to your research 97% of the people dot not like RTO. And that's going to be presented with some nice graphs and analysis, possibly even opening the data, as if it was the guarantee of a faire and unbiased study.
I think "trend" is the word best suited to this sentence.
That aside, my former employer ran a six week test where we came to the office twice a week. At the end of the six week period, they looked at the numbers and said wfh was now normal. They downsized and got a smaller office (we'd been talking about expansion before the pan). We basically only needed a place to store equipment and receive packages, so that was what it became.
My current employer does three days in-office and two days at home. But that's largely because my role requires access to equipment. I think other roles are fully wfh.
I don't get bean-counters who want to flex authority over employees who are just as productive when they aren't in office. Gotta let them have their little fiefdoms, I guess.