They’re Talking Behind My Back: Remote Workers Feel Unsupported(wsj.com)
wsj.com
They’re Talking Behind My Back: Remote Workers Feel Unsupported
https://www.wsj.com/articles/theyre-talking-behind-my-back-remote-workers-feel-unsupported-1509541381
89 comments
Remote work works best when everyone does it in the organization. Most of these kinds of complaints come from the fact that a mixed org will tend to treat remote workers as second class citizens, even with the best intentions.
I feel that a problem might be that, while remote working for tech and creative people is to a large extent a solved problem (with tools like git, Slack, GitHub/GitLab/BitBucket, video-conferencing, Jira, Invision, Google Docs etc), it is still difficult to imagine how it would work for management. It is still very much based on face-to-face interactions, especially when it comes to delegating and reporting. As the parent says, if an organisation has a mix of co-located and remote workers, usually the managers are co-located too, and because of the culture they naturally tend to focus more on the co-located developers.
I haven't yet seen a tool that would offer a well-enough solution that it would be accepted by the managers and prompt a change of that location-focused mindset.
I haven't yet seen a tool that would offer a well-enough solution that it would be accepted by the managers and prompt a change of that location-focused mindset.
I can only speak as a manager who a) has a tech background, and b) deliberately founded a remote-only company, but it's really not that bad. With a good video provider (we use zoom) we barely even notice any friction. If you commit and take it seriously, there are solutions for almost everything. The most challenging part I would say is the sort of freewheeling collaborative brainstorming type meetings, and the sort of random overheard serendipitous conversations. Some of that happens in slack, some in zoom, but we do have to be more deliberate about it. But the benefits more than outweigh the drawbacks.
Yep, it is really hard for everyone to use the written channels all the time when part of the people are co-located. Remote only http://www.remoteonly.org/ is much easier than a hybrid organization.
[deleted]
I agree. Within the same company, I felt much more connected to my co-workers when there was an no more than two in any given location. On a new team, I'm the only person remote from the others, and I feel sooo out of the loop.
It's also impacting my ability to network and display technical competence; It's been... frustrating... to watch someone become the product tech lead solely because folks could walk up to and interrupt them.
It's also impacting my ability to network and display technical competence; It's been... frustrating... to watch someone become the product tech lead solely because folks could walk up to and interrupt them.
Becoming a lead isn’t entirely about technical competence. A large part of it is “will other managers stand working with this person?”
Being available for your coworkers is as important as pure technical competency even more so in a corporate environment.
The idea of a raw meritocracy dies quickly when faced with reality.
That attitude is often a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I work for a place where remote work isn’t very common. In my experience in that environment, it’s a honeypot for employees who have daycare, attention span, or other issues/obligations that get worse with remote.
I work for a place where remote work isn’t very common. In my experience in that environment, it’s a honeypot for employees who have daycare, attention span, or other issues/obligations that get worse with remote.
I'll take more time with my family and a little ostracism over a 80 minute commute on BART and an open office any day of the week.
Ditto. Im at the same point.
We had this problem, so we decided to make everyone be remote part time now. It forced us to rethink communication on a daily basis, and everyone is much more cognizant of leaving people out of the loop.
http://structuredsight.com/2017/07/02/practice/
http://structuredsight.com/2017/07/02/practice/
That is really cool. Forced remote part time. I like it!
Is it still working well for you? How much remote work do employees usually do?
Is it still working well for you? How much remote work do employees usually do?
Quite a bit actually, and it works really well for us. It has honestly gotten to the point where I don't know when most of my staff is in the office. I just don't worry about it. The communication is so great between things like Slack, Skype, and even phone calls that being in the same office provides really no major benefit. (In truth we all like being in the office every once in a while, because it's nice to get the entire group together, but it's not necessary.) It really forced us to restructure how we worked for the better, and people love it too.
When we have code reviews and people aren't in the office, we just do it using screen sharing, and everyone being out part of the time ensures all of our requirements for projects are online and available to everyone. One of our biggest benefits is surrounding the daily stand ups. We have them everyday, because we like to get together briefly to socialize a little bit and to make sure that there isn't anything that we really need to discuss, but really we know everything that is going on before the scrum. With this, people who are remote don't call in, and this saves us a ton of time and effort. Between finding a room with a phone and calling into a conference number, we realize that it's completely not worth it and it's not necessary.
When we have code reviews and people aren't in the office, we just do it using screen sharing, and everyone being out part of the time ensures all of our requirements for projects are online and available to everyone. One of our biggest benefits is surrounding the daily stand ups. We have them everyday, because we like to get together briefly to socialize a little bit and to make sure that there isn't anything that we really need to discuss, but really we know everything that is going on before the scrum. With this, people who are remote don't call in, and this saves us a ton of time and effort. Between finding a room with a phone and calling into a conference number, we realize that it's completely not worth it and it's not necessary.
Thanks your article is well written and showed me a different approach to management.
This is the best of all worlds imo. Work from office a day or two. You get the connection with coworkers but still get the remote benefits.
This is a real concern for me. I got contacted for a position that sounds really good, but would require me to relocate to another country.
They give the option to work mostly remote with some travel, but I'm concerned that remote work may impact my career, future promotions, etc.
Anyone got any experience with this?
They give the option to work mostly remote with some travel, but I'm concerned that remote work may impact my career, future promotions, etc.
Anyone got any experience with this?
been remote for about 2 years.
career impacts have been:
career impacts have been:
- no raises. When I left SF, they didn't adjust my comp. Because I pay no state and very low federal taxes (FEIE) adding (~$30k after tax) into my pocket at no cost to my employer and because my cost of living is lower, no raises.
- promotions within this company I think will be limited for me.
- if your comp isn't adjusted to your city, then it can be more difficult to find another remote position where you live. Companies tend to price you at the city you live in, not the value you provide.
- co-working spaces mean I can network with other people at other companies.
- no commute means more time to work on side projects or personal goals.
- less "water cooler" distractions. I can turn off Slack and just focus on coding. makes it easier to get things done.> Companies tend to price you at the city you live in, not the value you provide.
People tend to price a glass of water at how expensive drinks around the place are, not the value this glass provides (crucial for life). Do you find this irrational or otherwise wrong?
People tend to price a glass of water at how expensive drinks around the place are, not the value this glass provides (crucial for life). Do you find this irrational or otherwise wrong?
Remote companies frame the comp problem as: we want to be fair to our employees such that our dev in SF doesn't feel "poor" compared to our devs in middle America.
My opinion is living in an expensive city is a life choice. Just like choosing to purchase a BMW or a new home. You should not be paid more because you own a BMW and your co-worker drives a 10 yr old Toyota.
I have been told no by several companies when they found out I live in abroad and make "SF money", because it wouldn't be fair to their existing remote staff despite having the budget if I lived in SF.
My opinion is living in an expensive city is a life choice. Just like choosing to purchase a BMW or a new home. You should not be paid more because you own a BMW and your co-worker drives a 10 yr old Toyota.
I have been told no by several companies when they found out I live in abroad and make "SF money", because it wouldn't be fair to their existing remote staff despite having the budget if I lived in SF.
That kind of policy is stupid. Is it fair to pay people for more experience in coding if the younger person has more experience in that literal language? Life isn't about being fair it's about making sure everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. If they aren't willing or able to negotiate that is on them. I negotiated/job hopped my way from below 30k to six figures within 5 years. What your compensation is shouldn't matter to what someone else is being comped. What about all the snacks, parties, etc you're not invited to? Do they factor that in?
If they have the budget, then it's not "wouldn't be fair" so much as it is "is currently not fair." On the other hand these developers don't demand more so maybe it is fair.
Developers abroad selling themselves short on compensation might be fair, but it does make it hard for people who do earn "SF money" to relocate and keep their high salaries. It doesn't seem irrational to complain about that situation.
Developers abroad selling themselves short on compensation might be fair, but it does make it hard for people who do earn "SF money" to relocate and keep their high salaries. It doesn't seem irrational to complain about that situation.
It certainly places a bizarre incentive on getting a PO box in SF/NYC/DC, where doing so would not make me anymore productive or valuable.
Do you suppose there are differences between "glass of water" and "human being with skill between marginally and significantly better than average"?
But I agree with you if you are pointing out that it's terrible that developers who aren't in the valley (or similar regions) don't demand higher wages, allowing employers to get away with paying based on location instead of value.
But I agree with you if you are pointing out that it's terrible that developers who aren't in the valley (or similar regions) don't demand higher wages, allowing employers to get away with paying based on location instead of value.
same. I totally understand if a company just doesn't have the budget for an SF engineer, then they shouldn't hire from there.
But if they do have the budget and they still want to price you to your city, then boo on them.
But if they do have the budget and they still want to price you to your city, then boo on them.
It would be irrational to pay more for water from France vs water from the tap, if they're the exact same product.
...unless you can't get water from tap and the only thing that seems to fit
your criteria at this moment is the water from France, and thus you need to
convince the water from France to get to you instead of some local buyer.
You should find out if you will be the only remote employee, or one of a handful.
In my experience, it is very difficult to be the special remote snowflake if telecommuting is not fully embraced by the company.
In my experience, it is very difficult to be the special remote snowflake if telecommuting is not fully embraced by the company.
From my experience remote work will most likely impact your career if the rest of the company isn't remote. You will often be the odd man out. Best is to work for a company that's mainly remote.
It depends on if your function is unique to the company. For example if you are the only developer for a particular organizational unit, then everyone has no choice but to interact with you. In that case you end up treated more like a service provider or remote outsourced resource.
I work in a different office from the rest of my team, and you definitely have to be more proactive about communication. Otherwise you slowly get further out of the loop.
There's a danger some of this is intentional. Being remote can generate resentment in those without the perk, and efforts to level the score. You can only accept being told 'oh, we just happened to bump into each other and talk about it in person but you weren't here' so many times before you start to recognise a pattern.
I haven't gotten that, although it's perhaps because I'm just in another office. But I think it helps that the rest of the team is small (3 other people), and we do scrum and have scheduled meetings for design issues.
Remote for a few years. Some organizations cannot get anything done without people physically getting up from their seats and kicking the seat of the person that's blocking. People will simply do whatever the most annoying or dangerous person coaxes them into doing.
This doesn't work well as a remote peer as they know you'll never be within punching distance, can't fire them and E-mail messages and IM's can always be ignored. But this kind of organization actually also never worked really well for me being inside an office like that as well, to be honest.
If all or most of the technical staff works remote then people tend to work together the best. Still, sometimes I have no idea what's actually happening in the company while I'm churning out features. And perhaps for the better.
This doesn't work well as a remote peer as they know you'll never be within punching distance, can't fire them and E-mail messages and IM's can always be ignored. But this kind of organization actually also never worked really well for me being inside an office like that as well, to be honest.
If all or most of the technical staff works remote then people tend to work together the best. Still, sometimes I have no idea what's actually happening in the company while I'm churning out features. And perhaps for the better.
I would happily work from home in exchange for feeling unsupported, Man some people just don't know how good they have it...
for some reason the usual bypass of wsj is not working, can someone assist?
I tried the ole paste link into google trick.
I tried the ole paste link into google trick.
https://searchengineland.com/report-google-ending-first-clic...
Google is ending requiring news publishers from showing content that would otherwise be behind a paywall for free.
thanks I missed this notification.
This is exactly why I've blocked all wsj links in my browser, unfortunately, the add on I use doesn't work on mobile Firefox yet. Can't HN just ban these? It's clear they don't want nonpaying users, we should respect that wish.
> Can't HN just ban these?
If we are going to decry the loss of quality journalism due to the loss of funds to pay for newsrooms, shouldn't we be supportive of those outlets who are unafraid to ask for quality?
To make an analogy, people here are free to do Show HN's with commercial products. Apps don't have to be free (and comments often complain about free apps that don't value users!)
In other words, if the WSJ is consistently providing high quality content, why not pay for it?
If we are going to decry the loss of quality journalism due to the loss of funds to pay for newsrooms, shouldn't we be supportive of those outlets who are unafraid to ask for quality?
To make an analogy, people here are free to do Show HN's with commercial products. Apps don't have to be free (and comments often complain about free apps that don't value users!)
In other words, if the WSJ is consistently providing high quality content, why not pay for it?
Because I also read the Washington Post, NY Times, LA Times, Seattle Times, USA Today, Christian Science Monitor, and others - its unreasonably for me to have to get a subscription to each, while I'd quite happily pay maybe 10-20c per article to read.
Why is it unreasonable? You are, after all, using the product those outlets provide.
As the other commented mentioned - why should I have to buy a whole album to listen to a song? I neither have time or money to consume but a small fraction of the fine high quality content from those sources, paying 10-15 bucks a month or more to each of them doesn't make much sense to me - I'd love to give them something - just not what they want me to pay, so instead I end up paying nothing in most cases.
News publishers should likely form an association like ASCAP, BMI, or SESAC for music publishers, that police venues for public performance and sell blanket mechanical licenses for all possible cover performances of any music by any of their members.
If an individual pays the journalism association, they can read any article written by any member of it. If they don't pay, they can't read any "premium" journalism content by members of that association.
This would, naturally, take away the power for individual news organizations to price their own content, but it would provide a great incentive for people to actually pay something. I'm not going to bother with WSJ if I have to pay WSJ to read WSJ articles, and separately pay WP to read WP articles, and separately pay ChiTrib and IndyStar and Info-Ledger and Bugle-Tooter and Post-Intelligencer and Mercantile-Onion and Times-Dispatch and Dispatch-Times and every other publisher of ephemeral content on the network. But if I can pay one time to one company that gives me a VIP pass for 90% of all the news sites I visit, that's a really easy sell.
The problem--like with NetFlix losing huge piles of content to Disney rolling its own vidstream service--is fragmentation. If I pay $10/mo to NetFlix now, I'm not going to pay $10/mo to NetFlix and $10/mo to Disney/ABC in the future. I'm not even going to pay $10/mo total divided between them. I'll pay $0/mo, and do something else with my time. Even if the money cost is the same, the business relationship cost is at least doubled, and possibly even squared. And that is a significant factor even if the money cost was zero. If I'm discovering content, I can only discover from one silo at a time. If I'm searching for content, I may have to search many different services before finding what I want.
With respect to buying whole albums just for one song, at least back then I could go to a physical location that had music from all the publishers, all in one place. You didn't have a separate record store for each distributor, or worse, a different store for each publisher.
If an individual pays the journalism association, they can read any article written by any member of it. If they don't pay, they can't read any "premium" journalism content by members of that association.
This would, naturally, take away the power for individual news organizations to price their own content, but it would provide a great incentive for people to actually pay something. I'm not going to bother with WSJ if I have to pay WSJ to read WSJ articles, and separately pay WP to read WP articles, and separately pay ChiTrib and IndyStar and Info-Ledger and Bugle-Tooter and Post-Intelligencer and Mercantile-Onion and Times-Dispatch and Dispatch-Times and every other publisher of ephemeral content on the network. But if I can pay one time to one company that gives me a VIP pass for 90% of all the news sites I visit, that's a really easy sell.
The problem--like with NetFlix losing huge piles of content to Disney rolling its own vidstream service--is fragmentation. If I pay $10/mo to NetFlix now, I'm not going to pay $10/mo to NetFlix and $10/mo to Disney/ABC in the future. I'm not even going to pay $10/mo total divided between them. I'll pay $0/mo, and do something else with my time. Even if the money cost is the same, the business relationship cost is at least doubled, and possibly even squared. And that is a significant factor even if the money cost was zero. If I'm discovering content, I can only discover from one silo at a time. If I'm searching for content, I may have to search many different services before finding what I want.
With respect to buying whole albums just for one song, at least back then I could go to a physical location that had music from all the publishers, all in one place. You didn't have a separate record store for each distributor, or worse, a different store for each publisher.
You've just described Associated Press and United Press International. That's exactly what wire services are.
The WSJ produces content that the wire services don't offer.
The WSJ produces content that the wire services don't offer.
So all I have to do is flash my AP patronage receipt and stroll right past all the paywalls? No? Then that is not what I am describing.
If you're the famous Wall Street Journal, you might be able to manage your own paywall--one that people actually pay to get through. The sort of written content that people will actually pay for could come from anywhere, though. It is organizationally impossible for every individual reader to separately manage their payments relationship with every individual writer. While it may be beneficial for WSJ to keep their own paywall, it cannibalizes the market for paid journalism from other sources by not only taking dollars from people's budgets for discretionary spending, but occupying one slot from the number of different vendors people are willing to patronize at once.
When I was young, my family got both local daily newspapers, plus the New York Times on Sundays. This was largely because my father knew quite a lot of people in the journalism business. The majority of households would choose one local daily or the other, if they even bought a newspaper at all. It wasn't just about cost, but also about the number of newspapers any normal person could read in one day. If you bought either paper, you got access to the AP, Reuters, and UPI stories, because the distribution channel was limited by the capability of putting the newsprint on doorsteps. If your newspaper did not have a reporter on site where something interesting happened, you had to get that story off the wire. And readers got access to the wire through your paper. It didn't matter which paper, really, because they both used the same wire.
It therefore makes sense for all [non-WSJ] papers to band together and make their own nigh-universal paywall, which would encourage those people who will only buy at most one "newspaper" to make it the big fat one with all the wire stories, rather than the niche one that goes deep on a few things that they might not even care about. Those willing to buy multiple "papers" can then also buy their way through the WSJ paywall, but that group is miniscule compared to those who want to buy one paper that can serve 99% of their text-and-photo-based news demand in one package.
When all those newspapers out there have their own paywall, they are implying that people are somehow willing to not only pay for, but also manage a business relationship with, dozens of different newspapers, all of whom have slimmed down markedly from their heyday as print-only editions. If they don't manage their own decline by merging on their own terms, they will continue to get bought by outside national media organizations that will change their editorial focus to align with the new owners' interests. That will make them practically indistinguishable from television news, and a lot of people, myself included, will just stop reading altogether. I'm not going to pay more for a pile of robotic press-briefing reporting and thinly veiled propaganda. I'm not going to support a fourth estate that is all cheerleader and no watchdog. And I'm certainly not going to support clickbait fluff to drive ad revenue.
And on aggregator-discussion sites like HN, those niche-paywalled articles just won't exist, because not enough people will be able to read them to start more than a small number of conversation or commentary threads.
If you're the famous Wall Street Journal, you might be able to manage your own paywall--one that people actually pay to get through. The sort of written content that people will actually pay for could come from anywhere, though. It is organizationally impossible for every individual reader to separately manage their payments relationship with every individual writer. While it may be beneficial for WSJ to keep their own paywall, it cannibalizes the market for paid journalism from other sources by not only taking dollars from people's budgets for discretionary spending, but occupying one slot from the number of different vendors people are willing to patronize at once.
When I was young, my family got both local daily newspapers, plus the New York Times on Sundays. This was largely because my father knew quite a lot of people in the journalism business. The majority of households would choose one local daily or the other, if they even bought a newspaper at all. It wasn't just about cost, but also about the number of newspapers any normal person could read in one day. If you bought either paper, you got access to the AP, Reuters, and UPI stories, because the distribution channel was limited by the capability of putting the newsprint on doorsteps. If your newspaper did not have a reporter on site where something interesting happened, you had to get that story off the wire. And readers got access to the wire through your paper. It didn't matter which paper, really, because they both used the same wire.
It therefore makes sense for all [non-WSJ] papers to band together and make their own nigh-universal paywall, which would encourage those people who will only buy at most one "newspaper" to make it the big fat one with all the wire stories, rather than the niche one that goes deep on a few things that they might not even care about. Those willing to buy multiple "papers" can then also buy their way through the WSJ paywall, but that group is miniscule compared to those who want to buy one paper that can serve 99% of their text-and-photo-based news demand in one package.
When all those newspapers out there have their own paywall, they are implying that people are somehow willing to not only pay for, but also manage a business relationship with, dozens of different newspapers, all of whom have slimmed down markedly from their heyday as print-only editions. If they don't manage their own decline by merging on their own terms, they will continue to get bought by outside national media organizations that will change their editorial focus to align with the new owners' interests. That will make them practically indistinguishable from television news, and a lot of people, myself included, will just stop reading altogether. I'm not going to pay more for a pile of robotic press-briefing reporting and thinly veiled propaganda. I'm not going to support a fourth estate that is all cheerleader and no watchdog. And I'm certainly not going to support clickbait fluff to drive ad revenue.
And on aggregator-discussion sites like HN, those niche-paywalled articles just won't exist, because not enough people will be able to read them to start more than a small number of conversation or commentary threads.
A "one price for all" paywall is a great idea!
Functionally it's like Netflix for news. And just like with Netflix, some companies will think they're too good to be lumped in with the rest, so we get CBS All Access and (next year) Disney streaming, and so on, but all the non-NYTimes, non-WSJ papers for one price might be nice.
Except, well, I think a lot of that content is either hyper-local or general wire service fluff, or rewritten press release fluff. If you don't count the prime sources that wouldn't participate in such a scheme anyway, I'm not sure what's left is actually worth much.
I'd love to be wrong.
Functionally it's like Netflix for news. And just like with Netflix, some companies will think they're too good to be lumped in with the rest, so we get CBS All Access and (next year) Disney streaming, and so on, but all the non-NYTimes, non-WSJ papers for one price might be nice.
Except, well, I think a lot of that content is either hyper-local or general wire service fluff, or rewritten press release fluff. If you don't count the prime sources that wouldn't participate in such a scheme anyway, I'm not sure what's left is actually worth much.
I'd love to be wrong.
Imagine if you had to buy a whole album every time you wanted to hear a song.
Before you ever get to hear the song.
You used to. People did. Now most people stream on Spotify for free, and the hardcore listeners buy albums, and practically nobody buys singles.
That made sense with the distribution medium of the time - much as a newspaper subscription made sense for a dead-tree medium of distribution - we've not been there for a long time.
Perhaps. Though you'd think there's been more than enough research to show that people don't buy individual articles. People don't even really buy individual movies any more, in my experience.
Anyway, Blendle exists now, so we'll see in a couple of years whether this actually does become the standard way of reading the news. I somehow doubt it.
Anyway, Blendle exists now, so we'll see in a couple of years whether this actually does become the standard way of reading the news. I somehow doubt it.
We've always had free streaming in the form of radio.
The point is that you didn't get to pick what you wanted to listen to. It's fundamentally different. If you liked a song enough to want to listen to it on demand, you had to buy the album.
But it's not that. With publishers, you get access to daily or weekly content, a whole collection of it, for a month.
It's like Netflix if they had a "curated" collection and a lot of originals. So it's basically exactly like Netflix or HBO Go.
It's like Netflix if they had a "curated" collection and a lot of originals. So it's basically exactly like Netflix or HBO Go.
Except there are hundreds of them, not just a handful of consolidated sources. What we need is Netflix for Newspapers - that'd be great!
AP Articles represent the quality of hundreds of sources :-)
https://launch.blendle.com/ will quite happily do that for you. I suspect that it won't last.
> while I'd quite happily pay maybe 10-20c per article to read.
Blame the credit card companies for killing even the potential of true micro-transactions. I often wonder how different the internet would be if payments on the order of 10 cents were possible to make.
Blame the credit card companies for killing even the potential of true micro-transactions. I often wonder how different the internet would be if payments on the order of 10 cents were possible to make.
> if the WSJ is consistently providing high quality content, why not pay for it?
That's a different question. What value does HN provide if a story is behind a paywall? You end up with a bunch of discussion mostly by people that haven't read the story. In that case HN is nothing more than a forum for random discussion. If that's considered okay, HN won't be around for long...
That's a different question. What value does HN provide if a story is behind a paywall? You end up with a bunch of discussion mostly by people that haven't read the story. In that case HN is nothing more than a forum for random discussion. If that's considered okay, HN won't be around for long...
"We've been through this countless times, which is why it's in the FAQ. Paywalls suck, but HN would suck worse to do without NYT, WSJ, Economist, and New Yorker articles, to name a few. It's the lesser of two evils and it's off-topic to endlessly litigate this."
I accidentally clicked the link on my phone and got nothing but frustration, I don't see how that makes HN better. The HN I usually see hasn't had those links in quite some time. I haven't missed them, even a little.
I accidentally clicked the link on my phone and got nothing but frustration, I don't see how that makes HN better. The HN I usually see hasn't had those links in quite some time. I haven't missed them, even a little.
The FAQ says
"It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds."
This story, AFAICT, does not have a workaround. Edit: Yes, I did try the link posted elsewhere.
"It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds."
This story, AFAICT, does not have a workaround. Edit: Yes, I did try the link posted elsewhere.
Facebook referral trick works.
Create a bookmark with:
javascript:location.href='http://facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(location.hr...
And click it when on the article page.
Create a bookmark with:
javascript:location.href='http://facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(location.hr...
And click it when on the article page.
Thanks.
You can also go to the page, open console, and run this at the JS commandline:
You can also go to the page, open console, and run this at the JS commandline:
location.href='http://facebook.com/l.php?u='+encodeURIComponent(location.href)Thats very cool, why does this work?
WSJ (along with most news organizations that have paywalls) values clicks from social media highly enough to exempt them from the paywall. Another technique to bypass most paywalls is searching twitter for an article's title.
Interesting, thanks
The JS console has the same scope as JS running on the page. (as does javascript: URis).
Outline works great for this:
http://outline.com/khAmVX
http://outline.com/khAmVX
[deleted]
lets face it, there are problems with all company cultures. Remote has its problems too. Interacting with a lot of people just inheritably presents problems.
Our team is split over two locations; one is the home office, the other is a smaller company we merged with. That part of the team doesn't have any on-site management, so they are in effect remote users. They seem to thrive well without the extra supervision, but they suffer from a lack of visibility from their immediate reporting chain.
One issue with remote work is that it can be pulled back. Our company used to have a very friendly policy towards it, and people got used to working remote for a few days a week. Then there was a change in mid-level mgmt, and boom, no more remote work. That can be hard to adjust to; no one likes to have a "benefit" taken away. Our company is now one that tends to focus on the "optics" of things instead of how they really are, so working outside the office is detrimental to both career and job-security.
One issue with remote work is that it can be pulled back. Our company used to have a very friendly policy towards it, and people got used to working remote for a few days a week. Then there was a change in mid-level mgmt, and boom, no more remote work. That can be hard to adjust to; no one likes to have a "benefit" taken away. Our company is now one that tends to focus on the "optics" of things instead of how they really are, so working outside the office is detrimental to both career and job-security.
Out of curiosity, what reason was given for this policy change? Did you have any full time remote workers who was forced to relocate or leave?
I have seen this at another company and I believe it was due to the fact that management wasn't very tech savvy. So when projects started to slip the only thing they could do was to call a lot of status meetings and make sure people are at the office working visibly. It's hard to judge if a remote worker works on a problem for two weeks or just does nothing.
Exactly. Our company has installed the equivalent of TPS reports so that middle mgmt can feel good about themselves. They stack rank the teams, and ticket count and closure is a "vital" metric. If you do something important that isn't easily measurable (in an automatic fashion), you better be putting in a lot of face time. Oh, and we have 4 trouble/bug/task tracking systems in place...
Its never been a better time to job hunt.
There was no reason given. Just the whims of mgmt.
We didn't have any full-time remote workers that were affected. This only affected people at the home office who wanted a day or two to WFH.
We didn't have any full-time remote workers that were affected. This only affected people at the home office who wanted a day or two to WFH.
At one time you could sit in the middle as a 1099 or W-2 subcontractor; sure you didn't necessarily get a raise unless negotiated and promotions were unlikely due to contractors typically not leading teams unless they too were contractors. But it also removed you from all the office politics, employee reviews and the general hassle of being full time, and you got 100% of your equity from any company up front: they paid by the hour for every hour worked, no more no less. Much better (IMHO) than throwing the dice and hoping for a buyout or IPO on options that 9 times out of 10 are worthless.
Unfortunately due to misuse of contract labor on both sides the IRS cracked down to the point where it's now rarely feasible.
Unfortunately due to misuse of contract labor on both sides the IRS cracked down to the point where it's now rarely feasible.
I've been a remote worker for about 5 years now and I really enjoy the flexibility (and the savings in commute time and energy). There are times when I've felt alienated, but I don't think that would be any better in the office given the geographically dispersed nature of my organizations. I greatly dread the prospect of returning to a butts-in-seats position.
At some companies you're likely to be passed over for promotions if you work remotely.