Ask HN: Did the Tesla return to work happen?
151 comments
By and large yes, people returned to the office however a lot are disgruntled and exceptions to work remotely largely depend on your manager and their ability to push that up the chain as Elon is meant to approve each exception personally. (in practice most of the full-time remote employees already had such exceptions but some newer hires during the pandemic weren't hired under that regime).
However a lot of folks quit but it has less to do with the remote work policy and more to do with a massive options cliff that occurred recently. Once the golden handcuffs came off a lot of folk figured it was time to move on, which is fair given the hell they went through to deliver 3 and Y + the 10x appreciation in their options.
However a lot of folks quit but it has less to do with the remote work policy and more to do with a massive options cliff that occurred recently. Once the golden handcuffs came off a lot of folk figured it was time to move on, which is fair given the hell they went through to deliver 3 and Y + the 10x appreciation in their options.
A friend's wife worked at the Bay Area factory then volunteered to take a management position at the Shanghai branch. She worked remotely from California during COVID which she loved and now is required to move full-time to Shanghai (my friend is doing it more begrudgingly than her, she speaks mandarin so it's easier).
She basically became a millionaire from those stock options. Even though she only made $150k when she joined. So it's not all bad.
She basically became a millionaire from those stock options. Even though she only made $150k when she joined. So it's not all bad.
> A friend's wife worked at the Bay Area factory then volunteered to take a management position at the Shanghai branch
I would be somewhat resentful if I had a manager at an engineering plant that was located thousands of miles away. I think managers working in the same physical location as workers is the right call
I would be somewhat resentful if I had a manager at an engineering plant that was located thousands of miles away. I think managers working in the same physical location as workers is the right call
Yeah especially in China.
Good time to quit. Unless she wants house arrest for 150k a year lol
good for her!
what makes you think WFH policy had nothing to do with it?
not at Tesla, but another FAANG, and half my team quit when RTO was announced.
not at Tesla, but another FAANG, and half my team quit when RTO was announced.
My team at google, we originally told everyone to come and go as they pleased back in February. That seemed the most flexible and the most employee friendly, but when we surveyed the team they didn’t like having no guidance on when they should be in the office.
So we labeled three days “preferred in-office” and made it clear you could still work from home on those days if you wanted. People much prefer this system.
So we labeled three days “preferred in-office” and made it clear you could still work from home on those days if you wanted. People much prefer this system.
In my experience, if the company says "we would prefer that you do this, but it's your choice" it means "We don't feel like we can make you do this for whatever reason, but if you don't, you're Not a Team Player, and your career advancement ends here"
Maybe Google is different, but I doubt it. Probably Google used to be different, and no longer is, and a bunch of people are going to be unpleasantly surprised.
Maybe Google is different, but I doubt it. Probably Google used to be different, and no longer is, and a bunch of people are going to be unpleasantly surprised.
This is the conundrum, right? A lot of people dislike having no direction, especially with a lot of local people. My employer for example has one Thursday-Friday every month where the policy is basically "go into your local office, if you are within a commutable distance, and you want to go in." 'Commutable distance' is intentionally undefined, as the goal is for each person to decide whether they are a commutable distance or not. I had a job where I had a 50 minute commute but it was all back roads and I was going 50-60mph the entire time. It was fine, even enjoyable in nice weather. I've also had jobs where I sit on an interstate parking lot for 25 minutes each day and it was hell.
"Preferred in-office" makes sense when it's not as you described. It all just boils down to how much you can trust your boss and their boss, and whether you believe the company will make a good faith effort to communicate policy changes to you effectively. There's always the risk of someone you've never met getting a promotion and all of a sudden the definition of "preferred" changes but isn't communicated.
"Preferred in-office" makes sense when it's not as you described. It all just boils down to how much you can trust your boss and their boss, and whether you believe the company will make a good faith effort to communicate policy changes to you effectively. There's always the risk of someone you've never met getting a promotion and all of a sudden the definition of "preferred" changes but isn't communicated.
I mean you can't legitimately impose your suspicions, as founded as they could be about compagnies you know, on a compagny you don't.
What answer do you want really ? It's good to be suspicious but you need to leave room for actual good policies.
What answer do you want really ? It's good to be suspicious but you need to leave room for actual good policies.
I can indeed legitimately impose my suspicions, because behavior of people with power in organizations does not exist in a vacuum and instead tends to follow certain lines based on human behavioral impulses, cultural factors, etc. Of course there are exceptions, but not preparing for fallout from not doing an optional but encouraged thing at work is sort of like showing up at work in your underwear because your new company might be a pants-optional company even though most companies aren't.
In this case, if I were a Google employee looking to advance in the company, I would show up on the suggested days with a convincing-looking smile on my face. If I was already at a level where I didn't expect to advance further without changing companies, I would continue working from home and be prepared to be on the top of the list the next time layoffs came up.
In this case, if I were a Google employee looking to advance in the company, I would show up on the suggested days with a convincing-looking smile on my face. If I was already at a level where I didn't expect to advance further without changing companies, I would continue working from home and be prepared to be on the top of the list the next time layoffs came up.
I don't disagree with any of what you say but seeing the devil everywhere has drawbacks too, starting with possibly being plain wrong. In this specific case the policy came precisely because employees asked for it..
Also to speak your language, one of the reasons people propose WFH or other benefits is precisely because they feel they don't hold so much power in a market where SWE are in high demand. So they 'sort-of-expect' you to use the benefits as proof that you 'sort-of-value' them and will stay. That doesn't mean you won't have to s** d** to advance.
Also to speak your language, one of the reasons people propose WFH or other benefits is precisely because they feel they don't hold so much power in a market where SWE are in high demand. So they 'sort-of-expect' you to use the benefits as proof that you 'sort-of-value' them and will stay. That doesn't mean you won't have to s** d** to advance.
Google is a big company, it's very difficult to generalize about what the expectations are universally - and my statement was just about my little corner of it.
Speaking for myself, I don't care at all whether people are in the office or not, and since I work in a totally different location from 80%+ of the team, I wouldn't know anyway unless we have a meeting together. I know that other peer managers I work with feel similarly. I've also been managing people in distributed locations for more than 20 years at this point, so perhaps I have more experience with it than others. I'm sure there are teams that handle things the way you describe - but I don't run one, and I won't work on one.
For myself, I enjoy being in the office because I have small children at home and I find it more challenging to concentrate unless I lock myself away in my bedroom, and if that's what I'm going to do, I'd rather be in-office. That being said, I'm WFH tomorrow and Friday because I have some personal things to take care of that are easier to do from home.
I also want to emphasize that we started off with a fully "you do you" philosophy, and we even pushed the managers on the team to make sure that they worked from home a few days a week at minimum to demonstrate that it was okay and model the behavior we wanted to encourage. My preference would be to keep it that way.
As I said in my original post, though, after a few months we asked people what THEIR preference was, and they (by a significant majority) wanted more structure on when to be in the office. Not to HAVE to go to the office, but to know when to expect to find other people in the office, because people didn't like going to the office only to discover that only two people from a team of 10 were in the office, but 5 of the others had been in the day before. Some teams had already informally started agreeing on "default in-office" days on their own.
We went to great lengths to try to emphasize that there is no obligation or expectation, but that if all other things are equal, these are the days when people should expect to find others on their team in office. Some teams (AFAIK) still pick one or two days a week to focus on in-office for themselves.
Speaking for myself, I don't care at all whether people are in the office or not, and since I work in a totally different location from 80%+ of the team, I wouldn't know anyway unless we have a meeting together. I know that other peer managers I work with feel similarly. I've also been managing people in distributed locations for more than 20 years at this point, so perhaps I have more experience with it than others. I'm sure there are teams that handle things the way you describe - but I don't run one, and I won't work on one.
For myself, I enjoy being in the office because I have small children at home and I find it more challenging to concentrate unless I lock myself away in my bedroom, and if that's what I'm going to do, I'd rather be in-office. That being said, I'm WFH tomorrow and Friday because I have some personal things to take care of that are easier to do from home.
I also want to emphasize that we started off with a fully "you do you" philosophy, and we even pushed the managers on the team to make sure that they worked from home a few days a week at minimum to demonstrate that it was okay and model the behavior we wanted to encourage. My preference would be to keep it that way.
As I said in my original post, though, after a few months we asked people what THEIR preference was, and they (by a significant majority) wanted more structure on when to be in the office. Not to HAVE to go to the office, but to know when to expect to find other people in the office, because people didn't like going to the office only to discover that only two people from a team of 10 were in the office, but 5 of the others had been in the day before. Some teams had already informally started agreeing on "default in-office" days on their own.
We went to great lengths to try to emphasize that there is no obligation or expectation, but that if all other things are equal, these are the days when people should expect to find others on their team in office. Some teams (AFAIK) still pick one or two days a week to focus on in-office for themselves.
In my experience direct management is much more impactful to lived experience than company policy. Every team will be different, and I can only speak to my own experience, not to the experience of anyone under a different manager.
My higher ups have communicated that they're fine with people working from home, and you don't need to tell anyone, just mark your calendar that you're at home so people know to enter online meetings. People range from being in office the recommended 3 days a week, to 5 days a week, to rarely coming in, to never coming in ever, and I think people using any of these permutations are doing great.
One additional detail on the company policy side, we do have available remote work and you do (at least initially) get paid the same moving to remote and staying in the same place. I know at least two people that have successfully applied to work remote and I believe the vast majority of people who applied were approved for remote work. I can't speak for people going for high level management positions but I assume things would be different there.
Opinions are my own.
My higher ups have communicated that they're fine with people working from home, and you don't need to tell anyone, just mark your calendar that you're at home so people know to enter online meetings. People range from being in office the recommended 3 days a week, to 5 days a week, to rarely coming in, to never coming in ever, and I think people using any of these permutations are doing great.
One additional detail on the company policy side, we do have available remote work and you do (at least initially) get paid the same moving to remote and staying in the same place. I know at least two people that have successfully applied to work remote and I believe the vast majority of people who applied were approved for remote work. I can't speak for people going for high level management positions but I assume things would be different there.
Opinions are my own.
"Preferred but optional, your choice" sounds like a perfect compromise to me. At my job, it's "three days in minimum or you're fired, and btw the other two are preferred as well".
eh its close but not the same. It says "you can work from home but you need to have a reason" basically.
For a company with an office and colocated employees, this seems like a good balance to me. I'm fully remote now but in my old team as covid began to taper off we had Wednesday as our "preferred in-office" day. People would make the effort to come in if they didn't have a reason not to and we'd take an extended lunch to socialise and catch up.
Our team was split between 2 offices in different cities so all our meetings were still done on video calls but it mean the two sides of the team could get together. Also if we all met up in one office every few months then we had a day of the week we'd default to.
Suggested structure, but freedom to choose!
Our team was split between 2 offices in different cities so all our meetings were still done on video calls but it mean the two sides of the team could get together. Also if we all met up in one office every few months then we had a day of the week we'd default to.
Suggested structure, but freedom to choose!
National holidays have the same coordination role: even if one had the same total days of vacation per year (as paid by employer), having some of them fixed by societal convention is an advantage for those who want to go to their village and meet their friends and relatives.
This is why Christmas shutdowns (and Thanksgiving) are the best holidays. Whenever we have a new person, we tell them how seriously we take the shutdown and to not send the team any emails until after.
In 2020, we had a manager join from a different FANG and she sent two emails the first Monday of break. Apparently another manager immediately texted her and told her to stop!
In 2020, we had a manager join from a different FANG and she sent two emails the first Monday of break. Apparently another manager immediately texted her and told her to stop!
Why are people reading emails during these breaks? By not reacting everyone would quickly understand that off means off.
Right? On a break like that I don't even have my laptop with me.
Maybe it's because I am French but all these stories about people working during breaks is insane.
In all honesty, I have several work pals who do read their emails when on break (their choice) - I prefer coming back to 500 to 800 emails, quickly go though the important ones and realize that 8/9th of the problems solved themselves without my intervention.
In all honesty, I have several work pals who do read their emails when on break (their choice) - I prefer coming back to 500 to 800 emails, quickly go though the important ones and realize that 8/9th of the problems solved themselves without my intervention.
This is great for disciplined employees. It's terrible for junior employees who haven't yet developed their sense of discipline.
Sounds like you should have more faith in your junior employees :)
I’d even say terrible for those who have no experience working remote; you’re entirely right in that it requires discipline. During the pandemic at my old company we had the IT/software department I worked in, and the auditing department. IT had no issues with complete remote having the prior experience and if anything productivity doubled. The auditing department struggled and was forced back in office as soon as possible.
I’m a junior employee working on a “preferred in-office” schedule. The COVID semesters of college tested my discipline much more than this, I really like my hybrid schedule.
Working remotely is a skill to develop, like any other.
I don't understand this. Why do people need such guidance, especially people able to get a job at Google? Especially if it's not enforced in any way.
What are the psychological or social mechanisms behind this?
I'm rather of the kind who don't like to be told what I should do so I can't relate much. (I'd appreciate it if people would tell me they would be pleased to see me and that could actually make me come, but that's different than some emotionless guideline)
What are the psychological or social mechanisms behind this?
I'm rather of the kind who don't like to be told what I should do so I can't relate much. (I'd appreciate it if people would tell me they would be pleased to see me and that could actually make me come, but that's different than some emotionless guideline)
Lots of people – even very smart people – like guidance around what expectations are. This can be doubly true in some environments, like certain corporate environments, where the official policy is not in line with what leadership actually wants to see.
As one example, consider the "unlimited vacation" policy and pushback around those. Sure, the official policy is unlimited, but try taking more vacation than your manager wishes you would and see how that affects your next performance review.
As one example, consider the "unlimited vacation" policy and pushback around those. Sure, the official policy is unlimited, but try taking more vacation than your manager wishes you would and see how that affects your next performance review.
> certain corporate environments, where the official policy is not in line with what leadership actually wants to see
Okay. I've not experienced this situation indeed. Official policy / stated expectations has always matched actual expectations perfectly well wherever I worked, to the best of my knowledge. A difference there must be a mess to handle indeed.
Okay. I've not experienced this situation indeed. Official policy / stated expectations has always matched actual expectations perfectly well wherever I worked, to the best of my knowledge. A difference there must be a mess to handle indeed.
> Why do people need such guidance, especially people able to get a job at Google?
You might think that the people who get to Google are independent thinkers, but it's quite the opposite. Look at it this way: they spend 12 years in primary and secondary education being told what to do, and they study standardized tests to advance to the next stage of their education at a university.
They spend 4+ years there, all the while taking tests and exams and going through courses where again they are told exactly what to do every step of the way, with granular feedback as to how they are meeting the standards. Then upon graduating with a degree they put their knowledge to use by studying for what is essentially yet another entrance exam into Google.
The person who follows this kind of trajectory hasn't had an opportunity for truly independent thought probably their entire life. They are conditioned to follow guidelines, and the first questions they'll ask for any task are: "Where is the rubric? What are the rules? How will I be evaluated?" because they know how to succeed when there are guidelines and rules and procedures to follow. Take away those, and they will flail. I've seen it many times.
You might think that the people who get to Google are independent thinkers, but it's quite the opposite. Look at it this way: they spend 12 years in primary and secondary education being told what to do, and they study standardized tests to advance to the next stage of their education at a university.
They spend 4+ years there, all the while taking tests and exams and going through courses where again they are told exactly what to do every step of the way, with granular feedback as to how they are meeting the standards. Then upon graduating with a degree they put their knowledge to use by studying for what is essentially yet another entrance exam into Google.
The person who follows this kind of trajectory hasn't had an opportunity for truly independent thought probably their entire life. They are conditioned to follow guidelines, and the first questions they'll ask for any task are: "Where is the rubric? What are the rules? How will I be evaluated?" because they know how to succeed when there are guidelines and rules and procedures to follow. Take away those, and they will flail. I've seen it many times.
You are mostly describing my education curriculum though (except the 3 years of PhD, but I'm not sure they fundamentally changed me on this aspect - I already wanted to be left alone back then, and was by the way not totally satisfied on this matter).
As opposed to what people? High school dropouts?
People who finished high school and/or community college, boot camp grads, developers with experience, people joining the field later in life, etc. These people are not represented and the standford college grad is over represented
Directors can waive hiring requirements in most cases. Several high school dropouts with meaningful Linux kernel contributions have received job offers from FAANG without talking to a recruiter or answering a leetcode question.
The "guidance" bit in this context is tied to "when they should be in the office".
For the people who prefer to be in office a few days per week, it would be nice if those few days also overlaps with the in-office days for the people they wanted to meet in person, and it's easier to make this kind of coordination at a higher level. Thus management guidance is basically "let's pick these day(s) of the week where our team would try to be in the office together".
For the people who prefer to be in office a few days per week, it would be nice if those few days also overlaps with the in-office days for the people they wanted to meet in person, and it's easier to make this kind of coordination at a higher level. Thus management guidance is basically "let's pick these day(s) of the week where our team would try to be in the office together".
Indeed, makes sense.
Maybe it was like in my company (big investment bank). The CEO wrote a global mail asking everyone to start coming back to the office - that was 3 months ago and the office is still empty, seems like everybody just kind of ignored it. :-)
From an organizational perspective, this impotent messaging (if it happens repeatedly) is a sign that management is making decisions without vetting them first.
Even the CEO should talk to his team about the viability of decisions before just making a company wide announcement.
As an investor, I'd stay away from such companies.
Even the CEO should talk to his team about the viability of decisions before just making a company wide announcement.
As an investor, I'd stay away from such companies.
As an employee, too. Can't be fun to work under such ineffectual management...
people who work for tesla probably know not to listen him.
Our company (~70 people) has gone to a 3 days in the office Tuesday through Thursday and wfh Monday and Friday . Initially we did pick your 2 wfh days but then I realized what makes being in the office good is being together. So orienting the in office days to be the same for everyone means we have a few days in the middle that people can be together and collaborate and on the edges Monday and Friday remote. It works pretty good - we make some exceptions for people far from the office and of course we have fully remote but I like it it’s created a good balance….
> but then I realized what makes being in the office good is being together.
My favorite time in the office is during the summer period when a random set of people is left behind because of vacation. You get to speak to different people than your usual crowd, the cliques are split up, sometimes you even speak to someone from a different department.
The work-from-home with an office available have been a bit like that.
My favorite time in the office is during the summer period when a random set of people is left behind because of vacation. You get to speak to different people than your usual crowd, the cliques are split up, sometimes you even speak to someone from a different department.
The work-from-home with an office available have been a bit like that.
> as gone to a 3 days in the office Tuesday through Thursday and wfh Monday and Friday
This is the way. People can debate all they want about in office VS remote, however there is VERY clearly some level of preference for employees whether they want one or the other. The pandemic just straight ripped people out of office chairs into their homes without even asking. This is a happy medium IMHO.
For what its worth - my company was setup from the get-go as 100% remote and do quarterly in person meetings. When we recruit we are very up front about this "you need to be comfortable with essentially operating on your own".
This is the way. People can debate all they want about in office VS remote, however there is VERY clearly some level of preference for employees whether they want one or the other. The pandemic just straight ripped people out of office chairs into their homes without even asking. This is a happy medium IMHO.
For what its worth - my company was setup from the get-go as 100% remote and do quarterly in person meetings. When we recruit we are very up front about this "you need to be comfortable with essentially operating on your own".
Did you care to ask your employees what they think? Why not?
For what it’s worth: I’m at a company that did survey employees on this question. The results actually leaned toward return to office for a lot of the non-engineering parts of the company.
Within engineering, the more junior people really wanted to return to office. The people with 10 years of experience and 2 kids at home really wanted to stay home. Not surprising, really.
Our engineering team remained remote, but not everyone is happy about it. I get emails every other week asking engineers to not come into the office very often because we don’t have enough extra desks for remote employees to be in the office very frequently.
> Did you care to ask your employees what they think? Why not?
While I do think it’s very important to keep employee’s desires and career goals in consideration, questions like these aren’t necessarily aligned with what’s best for the company or getting work done. If you survey employees about how many hours they’d prefer to work each week or how big they want their next raise to be, you’re not going to get answers that reflect what’s best or even realistic from a business perspective.
That doesn’t mean you can ignore your employees desires, of course! But you do have to keep in mind that most employees will default to responding with what’s best for them personally, and for a lot of people from the general population that can mean something very different than what’s best for their team or the company.
Within engineering, the more junior people really wanted to return to office. The people with 10 years of experience and 2 kids at home really wanted to stay home. Not surprising, really.
Our engineering team remained remote, but not everyone is happy about it. I get emails every other week asking engineers to not come into the office very often because we don’t have enough extra desks for remote employees to be in the office very frequently.
> Did you care to ask your employees what they think? Why not?
While I do think it’s very important to keep employee’s desires and career goals in consideration, questions like these aren’t necessarily aligned with what’s best for the company or getting work done. If you survey employees about how many hours they’d prefer to work each week or how big they want their next raise to be, you’re not going to get answers that reflect what’s best or even realistic from a business perspective.
That doesn’t mean you can ignore your employees desires, of course! But you do have to keep in mind that most employees will default to responding with what’s best for them personally, and for a lot of people from the general population that can mean something very different than what’s best for their team or the company.
you're wording implies that they didn't ask at all, especially the "why not" at the end. Yet I see nowhere in GP's comment that would allow you to make that assumption
Initially we did pick your 2 wfh days but then I realized what makes being in the office good is being together.
He said “I realized” rather than “we decided”. It heavily implies that it was his decision.
He said “I realized” rather than “we decided”. It heavily implies that it was his decision.
sorry typing early in the morning it was a "I realized" and then a "we decided" e.g. someone in pretty much every company needs to come up with an idea and then socialize it and get by in... We got buy in as "we decided" to unify the days we work together and we work remote... I feel like maybe in this forum i've offended someone for sharing - apologies, just thought in this context sharing our experience was interesting for maybe others...
My company gives everyone the option to be remote or hybrid even if they're near the office. Probably most of engineering comes into the office at least once a week if they're located near it. My whole team tends to come it at least once a week and a few almost every day. That said if it was 3 days a week I think my team would not be happy and I definitely would not be happy.
Thanks for sharing, there’s a lot of negativity in the replies but at least you’re sharing your thought process and the decisions that were made.
How did you end up choosing Tue - Thu? Would it not make more sense to “sync” with each other in the office on the start and end of the week?
How did you end up choosing Tue - Thu? Would it not make more sense to “sync” with each other in the office on the start and end of the week?
Because no one wants to commute on Monday morning and Friday afternoon if they can avoid it?
It sounds like you’re the CEO making decisions for everyone. How many resignations have you had as a result of your choices?
> we make some exceptions for people far from the office
So move far away from the office. Got it.
So move far away from the office. Got it.
No comment on Tesla but the divergence between big companies and startups on the WFH issue is the first new tangible benefit to working at a startup over a bigco in a while. They never reformed the ridiculous tax treatment of ISOs and AMT. The bull market made RSUs and 500k yearly pay realistic at bigcos even for middling employees.
But bigcos don’t trust their own employees and have to justify their massive capital investments in office space. So there is a real, tangible benefit to startup life over cushy bigco.
But bigcos don’t trust their own employees and have to justify their massive capital investments in office space. So there is a real, tangible benefit to startup life over cushy bigco.
Anecdotally, the startups in my circles are the ones pushing hardest for return to office. Startups move and change faster and therefore the advantages of being in-person are greater (I say this as someone who works remote and loves it, but admits the downsides)
There are a few startups that have gone all-in on remote and embraced that as a recruiting point. However, they seem to also being using that as a way to justify lower compensation. Makes sense, given that a lot of people will take a lower comp in exchange for full remote work.
Meanwhile, I’m actually seeing more remote job listings from companies like Google
There are a few startups that have gone all-in on remote and embraced that as a recruiting point. However, they seem to also being using that as a way to justify lower compensation. Makes sense, given that a lot of people will take a lower comp in exchange for full remote work.
Meanwhile, I’m actually seeing more remote job listings from companies like Google
Anecdotally, every startup I've been involved with for the last few years has completely embraced the WFH and used it to expand their hiring pools to the entire country. I've even seen some who are using tools like remote.com to hire staff outside the US.
I've also done a lot of interviewing over the last year and only one startup (Vanta) refused to allow long term remote. Every other company I talked to said they loved it.
I've also done a lot of interviewing over the last year and only one startup (Vanta) refused to allow long term remote. Every other company I talked to said they loved it.
Hi! I'm the head of engineering at Vanta, and as of earlier this year, we do support long-term remote. You may have talked to us right before then.
Feel free to reach out again if you're interested and interviewing -- we're still growing quickly!
Feel free to reach out again if you're interested and interviewing -- we're still growing quickly!
Interestingly I see some startup founders (e.g. Delian from Varda Space) and some SF VC types on Twitter lobbying against WFH, so I wonder how long startups will be different from BigCo's. At the mean time my current client (a large Dutch insurance company) actually promotes WFH and says they will never go above an average office occupancy of 40%, which translates roughly to 2 mandatory office days per week.
I wonder if more companies will start giving in as they lose applicants to companies that offer WFH.
This assumes that WFH is equally as productive as in-person for all companies.
Some companies may have conclusively determined that for them, in-person is far more productive than WFH, and so losing certain applicants is an acceptable tradeoff.
As an anecdote, a friend works on a team that does a lot of hardcore low-level algorithm development. They require at least three days of in-person each week, since collaboratively doing math on whiteboards just doesn’t work as well over Zoom.
Some companies may have conclusively determined that for them, in-person is far more productive than WFH, and so losing certain applicants is an acceptable tradeoff.
As an anecdote, a friend works on a team that does a lot of hardcore low-level algorithm development. They require at least three days of in-person each week, since collaboratively doing math on whiteboards just doesn’t work as well over Zoom.
But even if this is true (and I definitely believe there is merit to f2f interactions), it will come down to the labor market in every respective sector. Software engineers, for example, are in short demand, so if they prefer WFH, they will go to a company that offers that to them. Obviously not every job is appropriate for WFH, [insert YMMV disclaimer here]
“Never” - I don’t have much confidence in things people say when they say it with such surety. E.g. if they found out more office days equals more productivity, they would stick with 40%?
Agreed, although that is actually my own phrasing, so I'm probably to blame here :)
Plenty of bigcos still allow for 100% WFH.
True but plenty don’t as well. See Apple.
ISO?
Incentive Stock Options. The US government makes you pay taxes on the full paper gain the moment you exercise even though a real exit at that price is still a long ways off or likely still low probability. It makes average employees either bound to an employer (and never get favorable capital gains), or they have to be wealthy enough to pay the full tax hit the year of exercise and not be destitute if it never pays off later.
In reality the rich get richer etc. etc.
In reality the rich get richer etc. etc.
> or they have to be wealthy enough to pay the full tax hit the year of exercise
Or they could take an 83(b) election when granted the options. Or they could exercise some fraction of their options. Or they could sell some of the shares in the multibillion-dollar secondary market when they exercise to pay for the taxes.
Your broader point stands. But there are more choices than “eat it.”
Or they could take an 83(b) election when granted the options. Or they could exercise some fraction of their options. Or they could sell some of the shares in the multibillion-dollar secondary market when they exercise to pay for the taxes.
Your broader point stands. But there are more choices than “eat it.”
>Or they could sell some of the shares in the multibillion-dollar secondary market when they exercise to pay for the taxes.
Effectively you can't unless the startup allows for it. I have stock and when I tried to sell on the secondary market exchanges all said that there's a lot of interest but due to the company always exercising right of first refusal no one will bother.
Effectively you can't unless the startup allows for it. I have stock and when I tried to sell on the secondary market exchanges all said that there's a lot of interest but due to the company always exercising right of first refusal no one will bother.
All a bunch of bandaids to get around what is the fundamental injustice. And the secondary market isn’t exactly active for small people and there is no guarantee the board will approve a sale.
> no guarantee the board will approve a sale
Most companies don’t require Board approval for transfers. (There are better ways to moderate the process.) Companies that do are the ones choosing to restrict their employees, not the tax code.
Most companies don’t require Board approval for transfers. (There are better ways to moderate the process.) Companies that do are the ones choosing to restrict their employees, not the tax code.
Its not often mentioned in these threads that you can get what you paid in AMT back in the form of tax credits in subsequent years. Thats worth keeping in mind if you are doing a risk calculation about the probability that the valuation of the company might drop before your shares become liquid.
Words words words - if all of this can be mitigated then why have it in the first place? You work at a startup that hits and need to shell out 6 or 7 figures to exercise… “Bu bu but you can get it back!!” Just change the rule then! What is the benefit? It only harms employees of new ventures
My comment was intended to help people who might be in that situation better understand how AMT works, not to justify it.
But since you ask, the stated purpose of AMT is to make sure high earning individuals are not using tax loopholes to avoid paying any taxes. I assume it applies to ISOs to prevent employees from being compensated only in ISOs to get the better tax treatment.
Having paid AMT myself on exercising ISOs, I concede its an annoying additional thing you have to consider when taking an offer from a startup. But its not some grave injustice. Tech employees at successful startups with in the money options will be just fine.
But since you ask, the stated purpose of AMT is to make sure high earning individuals are not using tax loopholes to avoid paying any taxes. I assume it applies to ISOs to prevent employees from being compensated only in ISOs to get the better tax treatment.
Having paid AMT myself on exercising ISOs, I concede its an annoying additional thing you have to consider when taking an offer from a startup. But its not some grave injustice. Tech employees at successful startups with in the money options will be just fine.
Incentive Stock Option. SOs that vest over time or via some other performance metric
Incentive Stock Options, I assume.
Interesting. I have no hard data, but anecdotally it is the startups complaining about WFH in my LinkedIn network.
Big co still wants people back, but will have a few remote teams for those who won’t come.
Big co still wants people back, but will have a few remote teams for those who won’t come.
A large factor at big companies is layers of administration and middle management that are not necessary under WFH. Who do you think is producing studies saying WFH doesn't work?
> middle management that are not necessary under WFH
I think it's one of these lies that are repeated ad nauseam and now many people believe it. Managers are important and necessary no matter how their reports work. Before the pandemic I had bosses living in another country. Does it mean they were unnecessary? This logic doesn't hold any water.
I think it's one of these lies that are repeated ad nauseam and now many people believe it. Managers are important and necessary no matter how their reports work. Before the pandemic I had bosses living in another country. Does it mean they were unnecessary? This logic doesn't hold any water.
I even think an argument could be made that they are more necessary. On the list of the many things a manager is responsible for are work culture and team cohesion. These things Twitter more active effort in a remote culture. You also need more active effort and structure to facilitate what otherwise might have gotten covered at a water-cooler conversion.
> layers of administration and middle management that are not necessary under WFH
How come they are not necessary under WFH?
The only obvious administration which is not needed (or needed less) is office management. So the people who make sure the kitchenett is clean, the toilets are stocked with toilet paper, etc etc. For every other type of “management” why would you need less of it all of a sudden?
How come they are not necessary under WFH?
The only obvious administration which is not needed (or needed less) is office management. So the people who make sure the kitchenett is clean, the toilets are stocked with toilet paper, etc etc. For every other type of “management” why would you need less of it all of a sudden?
They're necessary unless we've magically figured out how to give every employee twice as many hours in a day to keep up with communications and sit in meetings.
There are alot of videos on youtube by ex-tesla agile consultant/teacher/lead 'joe justice' which go into how Tesla factories operate. Its all in the factory... an example he gave was for most people writing software, they are in the factory in a chair w/ a laptop beside the cars.
Edit: as someone pointed out, he was a consultant who worked for a short period. nonetheless, I still think the videos are quite eye opening to how they operate day-to-day (while navigating around NDA in explanations).
Edit: as someone pointed out, he was a consultant who worked for a short period. nonetheless, I still think the videos are quite eye opening to how they operate day-to-day (while navigating around NDA in explanations).
This guy was at Tesla for less than 2 months (according to his linked-in profile) yet he starts every video that he is an ex-Tesla employee.
Where I live you generally have a 3 month probation period and I don't think anyone who leaves within that period would even write this in their CV.
Where I live you generally have a 3 month probation period and I don't think anyone who leaves within that period would even write this in their CV.
Not the same exactly but this really rubs me the wrong way about Gergely Orosz. He was an EM (not even Senior) at Uber, overall tenure of 4 years. Left 2 years ago. But writes about the place like he was some SVP or CTO
There were literally hundreds of people who had a better view of the org than him
There were literally hundreds of people who had a better view of the org than him
I like the idea of his newsletter (engineer turned journalist) but it often falls short of expectations for the reason you mentioned: Overselling his own experience and exaggerating the sourcing of his information. Most of his Big Tech reporting reduces to “I asked someone who worked at this company and they said this”. He even had to retract a big claim recently because it turned out to be entirely untrue.
His newsletter makes more sense when you read about how he considers it his most successful business after a long string of startups that didn’t work out. He’s basically growth hacking his way to more subscribers with every trick in the book.
His newsletter makes more sense when you read about how he considers it his most successful business after a long string of startups that didn’t work out. He’s basically growth hacking his way to more subscribers with every trick in the book.
Hate to break it to you but almost all journalism is “we asked some people questions”
I don’t know what claim you mention, but his newsletter goes into lots of details, is open about how this is just what he is hearing from people, etc. I don’t know what major claim you’re talking about though, but I do get your point about the business angle.
Tho honestly I would not trust any SVP at a company like Uber to have an understanding of what it’s actually like to be an IC, or PM level. Hearing what people at that level are thinking is way more valuable to me.
I don’t know what claim you mention, but his newsletter goes into lots of details, is open about how this is just what he is hearing from people, etc. I don’t know what major claim you’re talking about though, but I do get your point about the business angle.
Tho honestly I would not trust any SVP at a company like Uber to have an understanding of what it’s actually like to be an IC, or PM level. Hearing what people at that level are thinking is way more valuable to me.
“But writes about the place like he was some SVP or CTO”
What do you mean? He shares true stories and is insightful. He never claims to have been an SVP or CTO. As a CEO myself, I’d much rather read about how a company works from an engineer’s or eng manager’s perspective than from a senior leadership perspective. I think that’s part of why Gergely’s writing is so valuable. You get specific, well sourced stories about how things actually are inside a variety of companies—not just what the external perception is.
What do you mean? He shares true stories and is insightful. He never claims to have been an SVP or CTO. As a CEO myself, I’d much rather read about how a company works from an engineer’s or eng manager’s perspective than from a senior leadership perspective. I think that’s part of why Gergely’s writing is so valuable. You get specific, well sourced stories about how things actually are inside a variety of companies—not just what the external perception is.
>overall tenure of 4 years
I'm not familiar with his writing, but you can learn a hell of a lot about the internal workings in your company in four years.
I'm not familiar with his writing, but you can learn a hell of a lot about the internal workings in your company in four years.
Especially at FAANG and those (ex)Unicorn type of companies. Overall employee tenure is never high since initial stock offerings fall off around the 4 year mark. This creates a lot of opportunity to learn the ins and outs just out of necessity.
> I don't think anyone who leaves within that period would even write this in their CV
Oh that's interesting, I'd have taken the opposite view - that having a 2 month gap on your CV would be interpreted by most HR depts as worse than explaining a 2-month job as "not a good fit"
Edit: I guess I should clarify that I don't see gaps in CVs as a bad thing, but from personal experience I know some HR depts have an irrational fear of them.
Oh that's interesting, I'd have taken the opposite view - that having a 2 month gap on your CV would be interpreted by most HR depts as worse than explaining a 2-month job as "not a good fit"
Edit: I guess I should clarify that I don't see gaps in CVs as a bad thing, but from personal experience I know some HR depts have an irrational fear of them.
If a hiring department takes issue with a 2 month gap in a resume, I'd be worried about what that says about working for that company and whatever other ridiculous things they believe.
A 2 month gap is nothing. Like, maybe an extended holiday or a quick refresh between jobs. If I leave a job, take a few weeks for myself, then start handing out resumes at that point... It could easily be 2 months before an interview is lined up somewhere.
I personally don't think any length of gap in a resume is the business of a hiring department. There are hundreds of legitimate reasons that someone took a few months or even a year or two off (e.g. extended travel, children, caretaking of someone sick/elderly/whatever, etc.). In a lot of cases, the reason for the gap might be super personal (health, death of family, etc.) and really not anyone else's concern. And I'd rather not work at a place where they think a 2 month gap is something they need to worry about -- if I can do the job, I can do the job regardless of my employment status 2 months ago.
A 2 month gap is nothing. Like, maybe an extended holiday or a quick refresh between jobs. If I leave a job, take a few weeks for myself, then start handing out resumes at that point... It could easily be 2 months before an interview is lined up somewhere.
I personally don't think any length of gap in a resume is the business of a hiring department. There are hundreds of legitimate reasons that someone took a few months or even a year or two off (e.g. extended travel, children, caretaking of someone sick/elderly/whatever, etc.). In a lot of cases, the reason for the gap might be super personal (health, death of family, etc.) and really not anyone else's concern. And I'd rather not work at a place where they think a 2 month gap is something they need to worry about -- if I can do the job, I can do the job regardless of my employment status 2 months ago.
If you think having a 2-month gap in employment on your resume is “bad”, you have not been in the workforce very long.
Oh I don't think it's bad at all, just that in a toss up between the two it'd be better to include it - particularly given the chance of it being brought up in interviews. Having to then admit there's another employment you didn't include might not be the best optics.
I guess I have to state the obvious: you won’t get questioned during an interview about a two-month gap on your resume. If you do, I would question the interviewers intentions and run , far away from him.
[deleted]
That’s about as bad as people who take a single non actual degree related course from Harvard or MIT and then put that as their primary education on LinkedIn to get more views.
Managers have been wanting to treat developers as assembly line workers since forever. It harkens back to the promise of object oriented programming — that if the interfaces were well defined upfront then development would be reduced to just implementing the code while conforming to the interface. Of course, that never worked because software development is a fundamentally creative and iterative process, so the assembly line model is doomed to fail every time.
> an example he gave was for most people writing software, they are in the factory in a chair w/ a laptop beside the cars
Sounds like he is making things up. Coding next to a car is pretty specious.
Sounds like he is making things up. Coding next to a car is pretty specious.
How so? If your code is going onto a car, why wouldn't you just load it on one directly to test it out?
That’s like „sitting next to a server in a datacenter to write backend software“ - nobody does that.
Maybe they worked on factory automation software and Workflows - then it makes sense. But for normal software development you do it in an office or a lab with all hardware components you need attached to a test bed and others simulated. Then once in a while some release software will be flashes on a prototype car and taken for a test drive. But not on any arbitrary car leaving the factory. There are strict regulations about prototype cars.
Source: Worked 10 years on automotive software at a car manufacturer (not Tesla)
Maybe they worked on factory automation software and Workflows - then it makes sense. But for normal software development you do it in an office or a lab with all hardware components you need attached to a test bed and others simulated. Then once in a while some release software will be flashes on a prototype car and taken for a test drive. But not on any arbitrary car leaving the factory. There are strict regulations about prototype cars.
Source: Worked 10 years on automotive software at a car manufacturer (not Tesla)
"sitting next to a server in a datacenter to write backend software"
Again, I've worked places where people do this. More precisely it was storage array software, but we had an onsite datacenter and people were live dev-testing redundancy capabilities, etc.
I think I just gravitate to workplaces where I have some physical access to the systems I'm writing code for.
Again, I've worked places where people do this. More precisely it was storage array software, but we had an onsite datacenter and people were live dev-testing redundancy capabilities, etc.
I think I just gravitate to workplaces where I have some physical access to the systems I'm writing code for.
I worked less on automotive software at a Swedish vehicle manufacturer, most of the work was done in office environments and tested on emulators and simulators but it was definitely not rare to sit for days in a vehicle and tweak the software.
So test in production?
I can't figure out if you're not a programmer or just a typical programer.
I can't figure out if you're not a programmer or just a typical programer.
Best practices aren't always adhered to everywhere 100% of the time. And a lot of the time, stuff still works.
Edit: many places don't have perfect simulation setups, test infrastructure, etc. Sometimes you just have to test on a real product.
Edit: many places don't have perfect simulation setups, test infrastructure, etc. Sometimes you just have to test on a real product.
In a test environment? Sure. At the shop floor? Either constant bug fixing, no automated flashing or bad planning. Or all of the above.
> "What if its software? Whats the machine [you need to be by...]"
https://youtu.be/mvBHS4-4OEk?t=1842
>swarm, pair, mob
>the goal is to do it within touching distance of the machine
He's right about this.
I've worked at places like this. It's very effective if you don't have extensive test and simulation infrastructure. You can say it's a bad practice, or a bad work environment, and you may be right. My point is, many places work like this.
He's right about this.
I've worked at places like this. It's very effective if you don't have extensive test and simulation infrastructure. You can say it's a bad practice, or a bad work environment, and you may be right. My point is, many places work like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvBHS4-4OEk&t=1040s
"You are doing hard work... there is no white-collar/blue-collar, its not a thing"
"You are doing hard work... there is no white-collar/blue-collar, its not a thing"
I understand dogfooding and ensuring your developers feel the users pain, but this ain't that. I don't know what this, but it doesn't seem conducive to being able to write quality code.
>Agile leader
_sigh_. I can't even tell if this is satire anymore.
_sigh_. I can't even tell if this is satire anymore.
i didn't mean "Industry Leader", but simply, leading efforts of Agile at Tesla. sorry for the confusion :)
https://youtu.be/Q8_PnAIbQJE?t=269
https://youtu.be/Q8_PnAIbQJE?t=269
Yes. At least partially.
"Did A, B, or C happen?" "Yes. At least partially."
So, which of these did happen?
So, which of these did happen?
The main question is the title. "Did the Tesla return to work happen?"
Things can happen in degrees. Don't be snarky.
Not everyone that works at Tesla returned to work-in-person. Some have.
Not everyone that works at Tesla returned to work-in-person. Some have.
Not being snarky. It's legitimately unclear what the poster meant and the answer is vague enough that it could be true for anything.
> Did people go back?
Yes. At least partially.
> Did people quit?
Yes. At least partially.
See? It's confusing.
> Did people go back?
Yes. At least partially.
> Did people quit?
Yes. At least partially.
See? It's confusing.
Actually, your questions were:
Did A Happen?
did b?
did c?
did d?
Did A Happen?
did b?
did c?
did d?
[deleted]
Careful with your wording! "Return to work" annoys the heck out of people who worked hard all pandemic. You probably mean "return to on-site work."
I just say "return to office". As you say, the work was always happening.
Return to the company provided office. It's ludicrous to imply people weren't working before.
People who spend a lot of time at work arguing about corporate announcement word selection are probably also easily distracted from their job by other drama.
Maybe it's useful to highlight them?
Maybe it's useful to highlight them?
Are you speaking for yourself?
I do find it annoying, probably because I know people who think remote work isn't work. I've caught myself accidentally using "return to work" as well and I appreciate when people catch me.
People gave me so much grief before the pandemic for working from home all the time. Not a soul has said anything to the extent "Oh that must be nice" since.
Working from home has downsides that people refused to understand before they experienced it for themselves.
Still better than a freaking "Open" office. I don't get deafened by HVAC noise at home, or have to pretend to be able to focus while two managers with nothing better to do blabber on about non-work things right next to my desk. And then those self same managers will have the gall to critique my work ethic.
Working from home has downsides that people refused to understand before they experienced it for themselves.
Still better than a freaking "Open" office. I don't get deafened by HVAC noise at home, or have to pretend to be able to focus while two managers with nothing better to do blabber on about non-work things right next to my desk. And then those self same managers will have the gall to critique my work ethic.
Are people really getting offended by that nuance?
Annoyed, yes. Offended, I dunno.
[deleted]
wiltonn(1)
[deleted]
What happened?
Did people go back?
Did people quit?