Amazon postpones return to office until January 2022(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
Amazon postpones return to office until January 2022
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/05/amazon-postpones-return-to-office-until-january-2022-.html
187 comments
Assumes everyone was in same office to start.
No one said home means slack/written comms.
Hours per day of ad-hocs & meetings in-person or zoom are similarly verbal.
If your company is globally / nationally distributed, you were on zooms anyway pre-pandemic, not a huge difference.
Extrovert vs introvert bias here as well. If you are introverted & trying to get focussed work done, open floor plans full of extroverts and shoulder tapping is the reason most of your commits happen after 7pm when the office is empty or you are coding at home after-work.
Wife & I went into our offices for a partial week recently and had same experience - I got nothing done, spent hours on zoom anyway, am completely exhausted, and everyone just seemed to be there to socialize (hey lets get lunch! / hanging out by the coffee machine).
Ideas vs implementation thing here too. Spitballing ideas is great, but actually having the time to implement them (not chopped up into 30min blocks between meetings & interruption) is another.
Extrovert vs introvert bias here as well. If you are introverted & trying to get focussed work done, open floor plans full of extroverts and shoulder tapping is the reason most of your commits happen after 7pm when the office is empty or you are coding at home after-work.
Wife & I went into our offices for a partial week recently and had same experience - I got nothing done, spent hours on zoom anyway, am completely exhausted, and everyone just seemed to be there to socialize (hey lets get lunch! / hanging out by the coffee machine).
Ideas vs implementation thing here too. Spitballing ideas is great, but actually having the time to implement them (not chopped up into 30min blocks between meetings & interruption) is another.
We had layoffs a year ago and got moved into an existing team that none of us knew. Then they reassigned more people on and off the project.
After 2 months our team lead realized that we were having problems so he organized 2 meetings a week but there is no status taking. It is all "What problems are you having and let us try to collectively debug it." Share your screen, other people draw on it, give control of your screen to a coworker and let them try a command.
It has actually been great. I have gotten to know 4 of the remote people really well now. I hope to meet them in person some day and have a beer with them.
I'm doing semiconductor design, not software in case anybody is wondering.
After 2 months our team lead realized that we were having problems so he organized 2 meetings a week but there is no status taking. It is all "What problems are you having and let us try to collectively debug it." Share your screen, other people draw on it, give control of your screen to a coworker and let them try a command.
It has actually been great. I have gotten to know 4 of the remote people really well now. I hope to meet them in person some day and have a beer with them.
I'm doing semiconductor design, not software in case anybody is wondering.
The social isolation of this whole period has definitely had an effect on me personally.
I'm assuming most people already have a strong social circle that they've been able to rely on during this, but as someone who moved to a new city to work as a young professional in his late 20's and no friends in the area, it's been rough.
I'm assuming most people already have a strong social circle that they've been able to rely on during this, but as someone who moved to a new city to work as a young professional in his late 20's and no friends in the area, it's been rough.
Ask them if they have time for a 30 minute phone call later?
Right.
This feels like classic open floor plan extrovert "I could just grab & interrupt people whenever I needed them" lol.
Of course not. I hate open floor plans. The same would apply if we were all in individual offices. What matters is physical proximity allowing for impromptu informal conversations.
And that will be postponed till later in the spring.. I can't see things improving during the winter.
We just had a voluntary return to office 2 weeks ago, which was canceled after 1 week with the rise of the delta variant. I'm pretty sure we will be in limbo until spring.
At some point paying for office space rent is just throwing good money after bad.
How many tech companies will just let their offices go when the lease is up? Or begin the process of subletting?
Many tech companies have started a full remote hiring swing, and they won't let these employees go when things return to "normal". It wouldn't make sense to lay them off if they're productive talent.
I could see small WeWork-style hubs working for companies that want to support small clusters of remote workers, but not full offices.
This will probably put a lot of downwards pressure on our $300-500k compensation packages as we begin to hire from middle and southern US states, where wages never reached west coast levels.
How many tech companies will just let their offices go when the lease is up? Or begin the process of subletting?
Many tech companies have started a full remote hiring swing, and they won't let these employees go when things return to "normal". It wouldn't make sense to lay them off if they're productive talent.
I could see small WeWork-style hubs working for companies that want to support small clusters of remote workers, but not full offices.
This will probably put a lot of downwards pressure on our $300-500k compensation packages as we begin to hire from middle and southern US states, where wages never reached west coast levels.
> How many tech companies will just let their offices go when the lease is up?
Any of them which have learned how to produce as much value working remotely as they did working in an office, less the cost of renting the office.
Ha, who am I kidding? It won't be a rational choice.
The companies that will continue demanding in-office work will be those driven by a company culture that _distrusts their employees_. I expect that if sufficiently many companies opt to remain fully WFH and abandon offices altogether that those which demand office presence will be viewed suspiciously by prospective employees.
As suspiciously as one should view a potential employer who demands to install rootkit spyware on your personal computer when conducting an interview.
Any of them which have learned how to produce as much value working remotely as they did working in an office, less the cost of renting the office.
Ha, who am I kidding? It won't be a rational choice.
The companies that will continue demanding in-office work will be those driven by a company culture that _distrusts their employees_. I expect that if sufficiently many companies opt to remain fully WFH and abandon offices altogether that those which demand office presence will be viewed suspiciously by prospective employees.
As suspiciously as one should view a potential employer who demands to install rootkit spyware on your personal computer when conducting an interview.
> At some point paying for office space rent is just throwing good money after bad.
To many companies, real estate is money parking or even speculation.
To many companies, real estate is money parking or even speculation.
Right. If things are already getting postponed during delta, there's no way anyone is going back during lambda.
Honestly, Gamma seemed like the most dangerous one to me on paper. I apparently am very wrong on that assumption though. (Gamma was the "P1" variant that was reinfecting cities that were previously infected with COVID19)
Alpha of course was the problem (being the first COVID19 variant that was "better" than the original). But only Delta was actually "better" than Alpha. Everyone has completely forgotten about Beta (aka: South Africa variant), despite it being hugely in the news a few months ago.
Lambda isn't spreading very much. There's a "Delta-Plus" variant going around, but it seems like "Delta-Plus" is no "better" than the original Delta.
--------
We drew the short straw on this one. Back in the 1918 pandemic, the flu evolved into a less-dangerous form. In this COVID19 situation, we got unlucky twice, and the virus evolved twice (first to Alpha, then again to Delta).
There's no reason to assume that the virus will continue to "get better", so to speak. Aside from the fact that it did so twice in the past year... the next step it takes forward could be backwards. Evolution cuts both ways, its not always a straight path towards improvement.
-----------
EDIT: Looking at the list: Beta, Gamma, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta, Theta, Iota, and Kappa are all "variants of concern" but no one gives a care. Only Delta is giving us issues right now, and only Alpha gave us a major issue before Delta.
Alpha of course was the problem (being the first COVID19 variant that was "better" than the original). But only Delta was actually "better" than Alpha. Everyone has completely forgotten about Beta (aka: South Africa variant), despite it being hugely in the news a few months ago.
Lambda isn't spreading very much. There's a "Delta-Plus" variant going around, but it seems like "Delta-Plus" is no "better" than the original Delta.
--------
We drew the short straw on this one. Back in the 1918 pandemic, the flu evolved into a less-dangerous form. In this COVID19 situation, we got unlucky twice, and the virus evolved twice (first to Alpha, then again to Delta).
There's no reason to assume that the virus will continue to "get better", so to speak. Aside from the fact that it did so twice in the past year... the next step it takes forward could be backwards. Evolution cuts both ways, its not always a straight path towards improvement.
-----------
EDIT: Looking at the list: Beta, Gamma, Epsilon, Zeta, Eta, Theta, Iota, and Kappa are all "variants of concern" but no one gives a care. Only Delta is giving us issues right now, and only Alpha gave us a major issue before Delta.
Random aside: I find it confusing that Alpha is the first variant, rather than the original SARS2 strain.
Most 'Greek letter' conversations I've had just ignore this and say "Alpha" when they mean the original.
For what it's worth, there is some evidence that Delta is less deadly than the original strain, although by how much is difficult to say, especially with vaccination as a confounding measure.
Most 'Greek letter' conversations I've had just ignore this and say "Alpha" when they mean the original.
For what it's worth, there is some evidence that Delta is less deadly than the original strain, although by how much is difficult to say, especially with vaccination as a confounding measure.
I personally found the B.1.1.7 or B.1.351 nomenclature to be more understandable. This "Alpha" or "Delta" thing is so arbitrary. I don't even know what constitutes a variant of concern (Okay, I know a collection of scientists are sitting around in a committee deciding which variants "deserve" a Greek name... but given all the Greek names that have come out, they seem to have given out too many)
Ex: Why are we calling a variant "Delta-plus" ?? Shouldn't it just take the next Greek letter?
Ex: Why are we calling a variant "Delta-plus" ?? Shouldn't it just take the next Greek letter?
> We drew the short straw on this one. Back in the 1918 pandemic, the flu evolved into a less-dangerous form. In this COVID19 situation, we got unlucky twice, and the virus evolved twice (first to Alpha, then again to Delta).
Wasn't the second wave of the 1918 pandemic the most deadly?[1] To be sure, the current flu variants are much less dangerous than anything from that time though.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave...
Wasn't the second wave of the 1918 pandemic the most deadly?[1] To be sure, the current flu variants are much less dangerous than anything from that time though.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Deadly_second_wave...
https://www.montana.edu/diseaseecologylab/covid19blog/posts/...
I admit that I forgot about the 2nd wave in 1919. But my understanding is that in 1920 or so, the virus mutated again into a less-virulent form, allowing the pandemic to end.
I admit that I forgot about the 2nd wave in 1919. But my understanding is that in 1920 or so, the virus mutated again into a less-virulent form, allowing the pandemic to end.
I have presently have 3 gym memberships.. two of them I added during this last no-mask period.
One is probably dropping off soon (technicalities about where I live, etc., create uncertainty about the duration of that).
One is very expensive, but I love that gym, but it's less conducive to the workouts I want to do if I'm wearing a mask.
The cheaper one is closest to my house and the easiest for me to program with a mask.
I'm trying to figure out whether to pay the cancellation fees or hope for better times soon. It seems likely that I'll pay the break-up fees and keep the one gym membership because.. I agree with your prognosis. But I don't want to agree with that prognosis.
One is probably dropping off soon (technicalities about where I live, etc., create uncertainty about the duration of that).
One is very expensive, but I love that gym, but it's less conducive to the workouts I want to do if I'm wearing a mask.
The cheaper one is closest to my house and the easiest for me to program with a mask.
I'm trying to figure out whether to pay the cancellation fees or hope for better times soon. It seems likely that I'll pay the break-up fees and keep the one gym membership because.. I agree with your prognosis. But I don't want to agree with that prognosis.
It is a race between variants and vaccines... and the variants are winning.
I think the only solution is to engineer a benign variant of the virus... one that spreads easily but doesn't make people sick, and yet gives full immunity to those who are infected with it. Then gather all the anti-vaxxers by offering them free concert, pizza and beer, and secretly release the benign variant on them!
This is the only way to immunize the entire country. Once infected with the benign variant, the anti-vaxxers can be encouraged to go to concerts, crowded places, not wear masks, and so on. The benign variant will soon be the dominant variant, displacing all other variants!
I think the only solution is to engineer a benign variant of the virus... one that spreads easily but doesn't make people sick, and yet gives full immunity to those who are infected with it. Then gather all the anti-vaxxers by offering them free concert, pizza and beer, and secretly release the benign variant on them!
This is the only way to immunize the entire country. Once infected with the benign variant, the anti-vaxxers can be encouraged to go to concerts, crowded places, not wear masks, and so on. The benign variant will soon be the dominant variant, displacing all other variants!
> secretly release the benign variant on them
Well, no. No need to hate on each other.
Well, no. No need to hate on each other.
[deleted]
Currently on HN's front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28077258
Not endorsing your rudeness, but there’s actually a technique called variolation that does something similar by purposely exposing people to low loads of a wild virus so their immune system has an advantage. Variolation could be a good argument for masking in public.
But variolation requires manually treating people one by one.
We need a better way -- which is to convert the virus itself into a vaccine, which will then spread automatically in a community.
We need a better way -- which is to convert the virus itself into a vaccine, which will then spread automatically in a community.
[deleted]
This actually isn't the first time I've heard of this being suggested. A post with more details of how this could be implemented got pretty popular on here about a year and a half ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22830320
Wow, that's cool! It is interesting that actual scientists have thought of the same idea. The idea may still be relevant given how long it is taking the entire world to be vaccinated. There is a serious risk of new even more dangerous variants emerging as long as the entire world is not vaccinated. Releasing an "attenuated variant" into communities that cannot be vaccinated quickly may still be necessary.
I took bets with others on when we'd be allowed return to the office. This was in March 2020.
Some said April, some stated June or July. One outrageous bet was January 2021 which we all took as a bit of a joke. No way would this last that long. "People will wear masks and isolate and we'll beat this".
We made the same bet in March 2021, laughing at our previous bad estimates. The furthest out was again January next year. That was a ridiculous suggestion we thought. "The vaccine is here it should be over soon".
I wonder how 2022 will go.
Some said April, some stated June or July. One outrageous bet was January 2021 which we all took as a bit of a joke. No way would this last that long. "People will wear masks and isolate and we'll beat this".
We made the same bet in March 2021, laughing at our previous bad estimates. The furthest out was again January next year. That was a ridiculous suggestion we thought. "The vaccine is here it should be over soon".
I wonder how 2022 will go.
This is only my opinion, but really, we cannot afford to continue like this for months and months, or hell, even years. Once most of the population will be vaccinated, there will absolutely be no reason to keep facilities closed anymore. The reason lockdowns were decided was because the virus caused hospitals and medical facilities to struggle under the weight of critical cases. With the vaccine, and even if new variants appear, the number of people having to go to the hospital will plummet. We'll have to find one way or another to live with the virus as it will never be eradicated completely.
> Once most of the population will be vaccinated, there will absolutely be no reason to keep facilities closed anymore
Most of the population has been vaccinated.
50.4% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
Most of the population has been vaccinated.
50.4% of the U.S. population is fully vaccinated:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/coronavirus-covid-19/vaccine-trac...
I think the parent is implying enough vaccinations to slow the spread of COVID. Clearly Delta is proving that 50.4% vaccination rate is not even close to good enough, unless we're willing to consign the other 49.6% to their fate.
Why can’t we keep going like this? Profit continues whether workers go back to the office or not. Companies are making money hand over fist right now.
If this stretches past the end of 2021, WFH will simply be a feature of the white collar economy. Companies are already finding it hard to break inertia and get people back into the office; after another 6 months of this they’re not even going to try.
If this stretches past the end of 2021, WFH will simply be a feature of the white collar economy. Companies are already finding it hard to break inertia and get people back into the office; after another 6 months of this they’re not even going to try.
There are people who are suffering greatly under these arrangements and it's not talked about much. It's much easier to understand how hard it is to have kids at home while juggling work than it is to understand the detrimental effect of Big Tech having you move somewhere, then shutting off any ability you have to form social connections
There's a lot of ways to nerdsnipe that argument, ex. "just move back!"...it's too late, those social connections are gone
There's a lot of ways to nerdsnipe that argument, ex. "just move back!"...it's too late, those social connections are gone
Right, but this assumes that nobody was suffering under the pre-pandemic work culture. For many people I talk to, their lives have significantly improved under this dynamic. Yes, with kids.
There are also a lot of places to make social connections that aren’t work.
There are also a lot of places to make social connections that aren’t work.
Yes, you're right, as you point out, I mentioned them.
You're, of course, right that work isn't the only place to meet people, but that's trivially true in a way that feels insulting - my intent was to point out the other side of the coin is being trivialized, and it's on me that I wasn't clear on the that. And earnestly, is there really a ton of places to make social connections available right now?
You're, of course, right that work isn't the only place to meet people, but that's trivially true in a way that feels insulting - my intent was to point out the other side of the coin is being trivialized, and it's on me that I wasn't clear on the that. And earnestly, is there really a ton of places to make social connections available right now?
And some people were suffering when they had to spend 2+ hours commuting every day. When they never saw their kids.
Being remote does not mean working from home. Being remote does not mean never going out, quite the opposite actually, you just need to be intentional about it.
Being remote does not mean working from home. Being remote does not mean never going out, quite the opposite actually, you just need to be intentional about it.
Sorry - my comment was more of a general "we can't keep everything closed and continue to impose lockdowns" rather than "we have to stop WFH and everyone should go back to the office," in spite of the article.
Still, to expand on the issue of WFH, I absolutely see no problem with it and I even advocated for it before the pandemic. I just wish everyone who wants to go back to the office for legitimate reasons (because they like to see their co-workers, because they have bad working conditions at home and what not) were able to if vaccinated.
Still, to expand on the issue of WFH, I absolutely see no problem with it and I even advocated for it before the pandemic. I just wish everyone who wants to go back to the office for legitimate reasons (because they like to see their co-workers, because they have bad working conditions at home and what not) were able to if vaccinated.
Yeah I guess that’s what I’m saying - whatever version of “lockdown” we’re currently in (which is simply recommended but not required masking in my city) is probably the “new normal”. The economy has proven it can function effectively and even grow GDP at this level. And covid is probably never going away given the intransigence.
I don’t think there’s political appetite to lock down things again. The left won’t go along with lockdowns this time; they’re too bitter at the right for causing this to drag out.
I don’t think there’s political appetite to lock down things again. The left won’t go along with lockdowns this time; they’re too bitter at the right for causing this to drag out.
If "if" the holdouts can be convinced there won't be a reason anymore, right now though the resistance has become ideological so god only knows when this'll end.
I hope so. There's this unfortunate tendency, myself included, to treat going back to the office as not taking health seriously, and when that's combined with a lot of people having stable social structures like a family or roots in the area, group discussion centers around this as an endless snow day.
But, it's not: if you moved from a smaller city to one of the expensive FAANG areas the past few years, you were trading remote work for getting to work with people. My mental state is...not great...with the isolation of leaving behind my social circle to move here, and now not having a social circle built up here. I almost feel cheated that I moved to work here, this is _exactly_ what I ran away from: remote work, coworkers with no incentive/forcing function to collaborate, and detached management "managing" problems by rote bon mots that don't actually fix anything.
But, it's not: if you moved from a smaller city to one of the expensive FAANG areas the past few years, you were trading remote work for getting to work with people. My mental state is...not great...with the isolation of leaving behind my social circle to move here, and now not having a social circle built up here. I almost feel cheated that I moved to work here, this is _exactly_ what I ran away from: remote work, coworkers with no incentive/forcing function to collaborate, and detached management "managing" problems by rote bon mots that don't actually fix anything.
> With the vaccine, and even if new variants appear, the number of people having to go to the hospital will plummet.
I mean, I think Delta (at least in the US, I won't speak to/for other countries) has proven this incorrect since we have multiple instances of hospitals filling up right now even though (IIRC) we just hit the 70% first shot mark (for 18+).
Also we haven't yet, and I hope we never, see a variant that not only causes lots of breakthrough cases but also results in higher rates of hospitalization/ICU/vent/death even for the vaccinated.
What we can't afford is to continue to put up with the unvaccinated. My state, just a few hours ago, announced that 70%+ of our hospitals are now collectively going to require the vaccination to continue working there and it's my fervent hope that more and more private sector companies do the same (as have at least a few major manufactures in my state). I'd actually prefer to see something akin to what NY just did. I understand the privacy concerns with having to prove vaccination status but the alternative (what we did for the last 1.5 years+) is not something I'm willing to put up. I'm so incredibly tired of having the people who refuse to do the bare minimum drag the rest of us down.
I mean, I think Delta (at least in the US, I won't speak to/for other countries) has proven this incorrect since we have multiple instances of hospitals filling up right now even though (IIRC) we just hit the 70% first shot mark (for 18+).
Also we haven't yet, and I hope we never, see a variant that not only causes lots of breakthrough cases but also results in higher rates of hospitalization/ICU/vent/death even for the vaccinated.
What we can't afford is to continue to put up with the unvaccinated. My state, just a few hours ago, announced that 70%+ of our hospitals are now collectively going to require the vaccination to continue working there and it's my fervent hope that more and more private sector companies do the same (as have at least a few major manufactures in my state). I'd actually prefer to see something akin to what NY just did. I understand the privacy concerns with having to prove vaccination status but the alternative (what we did for the last 1.5 years+) is not something I'm willing to put up. I'm so incredibly tired of having the people who refuse to do the bare minimum drag the rest of us down.
The floodgates on private employer requirements seem to be opening pretty rapidly. Two in-person tech conferences I plan to attend in the fall are both requiring vaccinations to attend.
It seems especially reasonable when going somewhere (like a conference or an office that allows continued WFH) is pretty much optional. Of course, it's more complicated if, say, you're in sales and it's customers who impose the requirement.
It seems especially reasonable when going somewhere (like a conference or an office that allows continued WFH) is pretty much optional. Of course, it's more complicated if, say, you're in sales and it's customers who impose the requirement.
The 70% with one shot is weighted to areas like Northeast and hospitals filling up is in Southern US. Averaging those stats over the entire US misses that aspect.
Yes, that is correct. I was trying to use the most favorable interpretation of the data in my reply but yes, it’s closer to 50% (at least fully) in most places. My state included.
In the book Apollo's Arrow (which came out in oct 2020), Dr. Christakis said
"Either way, we will be wearing masks, for example, and avoiding crowded places. I’ll call this the immediate pandemic period. For a few years after we either reach herd immunity or have a widely distributed vaccine, people will still be recovering from the overall clinical, psychological, social, and economic shock of the pandemic and the adjustments it required, perhaps through 2024. I’ll call this the intermediate pandemic period. Then, gradually, things will return to “normal”—albeit in a world with some persistent changes. Around 2024, the post-pandemic period will likely begin"
"Either way, we will be wearing masks, for example, and avoiding crowded places. I’ll call this the immediate pandemic period. For a few years after we either reach herd immunity or have a widely distributed vaccine, people will still be recovering from the overall clinical, psychological, social, and economic shock of the pandemic and the adjustments it required, perhaps through 2024. I’ll call this the intermediate pandemic period. Then, gradually, things will return to “normal”—albeit in a world with some persistent changes. Around 2024, the post-pandemic period will likely begin"
I've scoffed at covid skeptics since Winter 2020. There was already enough info out at the time about conditions in China and initial cases spreading globally to see that it was no joke. Then people continuously kick the can down the road saying after summer, no after winter, no after spring, no after summer again. It's not that hard to see that this isn't something we're going to overcome in a year or two.
Much more reasonable than an employer mandating a vaccine to return to an office setting.
I disagree, and I'm surprised the White House isn't trying to work with big employers to try to get them to mandate the vaccine. That would get a huge chunk of the population. Not many are going to quit their job over a shot. Walmart, Kroger, Amazon, etc are some of the biggest employers in the US.
You have to feel bad for Amazon Warehouse workers reading this headline though.
You have to feel bad for Amazon Warehouse workers reading this headline though.
Why wouldn't the federal government just mandate a vaccine?
Putting it on employers is yet another sign of cowardice in our leadership.
Each business shouldn't have to sort this out... it's too complex of an issue.
If there's going to be a mandate, make a real mandate.
People misunderstood my point. I don't think this should be on employers. I think that's bad for a lot of reasons.
It should be on governments.
BUT... bigger picture, it's not like these vaccine cards are hard to fake. I was vaccinated in March, but I have no way of proving that. I didn't bother to save my vaccine card. It was just a generic piece of paper with the company's logo and two hastily written vaccine lot numbers though. Again... nobody checked my ID. No real way to prove you were vaccinate. It's a mess.
Should have tied stimulus grants to getting vaccinated. Should have set up a vaccine registration system. Nope... government fucked up, and is now passing the buck on to businesses.
Let's say the vaccine does give us all tails in 20 years... can I sue my employer? I sure can. The government isn't even giving businesses any protection.
Total joke. Worst possible way to do this on every front.
Putting it on employers is yet another sign of cowardice in our leadership.
Each business shouldn't have to sort this out... it's too complex of an issue.
If there's going to be a mandate, make a real mandate.
People misunderstood my point. I don't think this should be on employers. I think that's bad for a lot of reasons.
It should be on governments.
BUT... bigger picture, it's not like these vaccine cards are hard to fake. I was vaccinated in March, but I have no way of proving that. I didn't bother to save my vaccine card. It was just a generic piece of paper with the company's logo and two hastily written vaccine lot numbers though. Again... nobody checked my ID. No real way to prove you were vaccinate. It's a mess.
Should have tied stimulus grants to getting vaccinated. Should have set up a vaccine registration system. Nope... government fucked up, and is now passing the buck on to businesses.
Let's say the vaccine does give us all tails in 20 years... can I sue my employer? I sure can. The government isn't even giving businesses any protection.
Total joke. Worst possible way to do this on every front.
> Why wouldn't the federal government just mandate a vaccine?
Because it would never hold up in court? Even in countries outside the US their mandates are bordering on illegal. If the federal government mandated vaccines, who is going to enforce it anyhow? You can't. Local law enforcement is not under federal jurisdiction. Even if the Federal government had some sort of strong law enforcement arm, it wouldn't work. A lawsuit would immediately be filed, and at best it would go straight to SCOTUS and (rightfully) shot down or it would sit at trial for months/years.
The easiest and best way is through employer mandates because 99% of people are not going to lose their job over a shot and they have total legal authority. Monetary incentives are vastly more legal and moral.
To the contrary on your point, a federal mandate on all citizens is weak/awful leadership considering it would never work and would immediately be revoked by the courts. That decision would likely also be bipartisan. The same is probably going to happen with the eviction moratorium; Biden's extension is on incredibly shaky legal grounds and is probably going to be overturned.
Because it would never hold up in court? Even in countries outside the US their mandates are bordering on illegal. If the federal government mandated vaccines, who is going to enforce it anyhow? You can't. Local law enforcement is not under federal jurisdiction. Even if the Federal government had some sort of strong law enforcement arm, it wouldn't work. A lawsuit would immediately be filed, and at best it would go straight to SCOTUS and (rightfully) shot down or it would sit at trial for months/years.
The easiest and best way is through employer mandates because 99% of people are not going to lose their job over a shot and they have total legal authority. Monetary incentives are vastly more legal and moral.
To the contrary on your point, a federal mandate on all citizens is weak/awful leadership considering it would never work and would immediately be revoked by the courts. That decision would likely also be bipartisan. The same is probably going to happen with the eviction moratorium; Biden's extension is on incredibly shaky legal grounds and is probably going to be overturned.
What about those who want to return? They have no choice even if vaccinated.
I feel that returning should be optional but only available for the vaccinated. That enables choice whereas no one allowed to return at all does not enable choice.
I feel that returning should be optional but only available for the vaccinated. That enables choice whereas no one allowed to return at all does not enable choice.
My coworkers who do want to return (our offices are open on a voluntary basis) want to make everyone else return too because there’s no reason for them to go in if there’s only 10 people there.
Personally I have friends outside of work, so I haven’t been in.
Personally I have friends outside of work, so I haven’t been in.
This is the worst thing about people who prefer working in the office: they aren't satisfied by going in, they need to force others to go into the office to keep them company. At least those of us who prefer permanent wfh don't impact other people's decisions. And worst of all are executives and managers who want people in chairs to make them feel important and noticed.
>At least those of us who prefer permanent wfh don't impact other people's decisions.
Sort of. Once you have a cohort back in the office, they probably should be meeting over video because having a group in a conference room and a group remote in their home offices doesn't work well. Of course people in the office mostly won't do that and communications will be worse than fully remote.
Sort of. Once you have a cohort back in the office, they probably should be meeting over video because having a group in a conference room and a group remote in their home offices doesn't work well. Of course people in the office mostly won't do that and communications will be worse than fully remote.
As it doesn't solve what they hate about remote work, i.e. the Zoom and not getting to chat with people.
This is why I don't think hybrid will work.
This is why I don't think hybrid will work.
I think you're right, and I think it will motivate those of us who want to work remotely to quit and find companies that have that as their culture and let the "back to the office" folks become more homogenized.
Currently at a hybrid company spread out across multiple offices. So all that happened was that we moved our meetings from our home offices to our open office desks.
A lot of people come to the office vs. remote question from a place where "office" means that almost everyone you ever interact with is a few dozen steps away. For many of us, it's more like thousands of miles. In fact, if I go into either of the closest offices, I know almost no one there and even fewer who are likely to actually be in the office if I drop in.
Once people are mandated to return to the office, they will not tolerate working alongside unvaccinated coworkers.
Can you sue your employer if you get covid from a colleague and they didn’t mandate vaccinations (but did mandate return to office and your employment would be terminated otherwise)? IANAL.
Fully vaccinated, and I don't care in the slightest. The vaccines provide nearly perfect protection against serious outcomes.
I am far more upset by the idea of continuing this indefinitely. Desperately want to be back in the office.
People who want to return to work should be allowed to do so. Those who do not should be allowed to do so. May the most productive employees win.
I am far more upset by the idea of continuing this indefinitely. Desperately want to be back in the office.
People who want to return to work should be allowed to do so. Those who do not should be allowed to do so. May the most productive employees win.
"Nearly perfect" is doing a lot of work there. I am perfectly fine with offices, conferences, etc. mandating vaccines for people. ADDED: People do have a choice, especially at companies not requiring people to come back to offices.
Nearly perfect protection for you, maybe. Catching it when vaccinated is still unpleasant for many, can wreck social plans if you have to isolate, and puts you at risk of passing it on to someone more vulnerable.
Already you sound adversarial, like this is a battle of work cultures and you want your side to win. You say things like "return to work", as if the people who are working from home aren't already working. Did you mean your comment to come across this way?
No, you're reading into it.
I think that both sides of this issue should be allowed to do whatever they want to do, and we'll find out what the result is.
I think that both sides of this issue should be allowed to do whatever they want to do, and we'll find out what the result is.
Not if you have children under 12.
I don't understand how after nearly one and a half years into this pandemic, people still keep parroting "but what about the children!". There is close to 0 (zero, nada, zilch) risk to children from COVID-19. You're much better off worrying about the other more dangerous things that can kill children.
Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. The data is simply overwhelming.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775
"The vaccines provide nearly perfect protection against serious outcomes."
I am vaccinated, however, my young child is not. If I get a breakthrough case, I don't want to spread it to my kid. I know this is anecdotal, but... my wife's office just closed because of a breakthrough case, and another friend was recently exposed to someone with a breakthrough case.
I am vaccinated, however, my young child is not. If I get a breakthrough case, I don't want to spread it to my kid. I know this is anecdotal, but... my wife's office just closed because of a breakthrough case, and another friend was recently exposed to someone with a breakthrough case.
Children are at exceptionally low risk from Covid. The data is simply overwhelming.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28041775
What, you don't think your employer should control your medical decisions?? /s
Its amazing to me how people have thrown their bodily autonomy out the window when there is suddenly a new risk.
Its amazing to me how people have thrown their bodily autonomy out the window when there is suddenly a new risk.
I love that the conversation is always around personal "bodily autonomy" despite the fact that your decision to not get vaccinated affects every single other person with whom you come into contact.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.
Personal liberty at the expense of the liberty of others is a sick joke, and to pretend that the vaccine conversation is anything else is hysterically naive.
People do have an autonomous choice: get your shot, or find another way to stop endangering those around you.
Freedom of speech doesn't cover shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theatre.
Personal liberty at the expense of the liberty of others is a sick joke, and to pretend that the vaccine conversation is anything else is hysterically naive.
People do have an autonomous choice: get your shot, or find another way to stop endangering those around you.
First, you can yell fire in a crowded theatre. What if there really is a fire?
Alcohol kills plenty of people each year, and often it’s not the drinker. Should we ban alcohol? (I hear you, but employers can ban drinking at work!) Sure, but the equivalent would be forcing someone to not drink outside of work. After all, can you turn the vaccine off when you leave the office?
I’m fine with an employer mandating masks, they can be removed after your shift.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
Alcohol kills plenty of people each year, and often it’s not the drinker. Should we ban alcohol? (I hear you, but employers can ban drinking at work!) Sure, but the equivalent would be forcing someone to not drink outside of work. After all, can you turn the vaccine off when you leave the office?
I’m fine with an employer mandating masks, they can be removed after your shift.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...
It’s normal that most people prioritize the social responsibility to prevent the spread of a deadly virus.
Ive already had covid. I am immune and don’t spread it. I already meet your requirements. But why must I go further and modify my body unnecessarily?
Because we don’t know if you’re immune. We do know vaccines help even for those who have contracted the virus. Therefore, it’s necessary for you to get vaccinated.
Do you mean, we don't know if I'm immune but spreading, or can't prove that I'm immune (no negative test)?
Assuming the first, I guess we'll have to wait for the data. Assuming the second, I haven't ever been assumed sick until proven healthy. I've been sick many times in my life, and I voluntarily self-isolate to protect others. But suddenly this is considered selfish. I must prove health or be exiled until I conform.
Are you not worried about losing your freedom? Or was this a freedom you never valued? The specific freedom I mean was choosing what goes in your body.
Thank you for your honest response. Most people just downvote and scroll on.
Assuming the first, I guess we'll have to wait for the data. Assuming the second, I haven't ever been assumed sick until proven healthy. I've been sick many times in my life, and I voluntarily self-isolate to protect others. But suddenly this is considered selfish. I must prove health or be exiled until I conform.
Are you not worried about losing your freedom? Or was this a freedom you never valued? The specific freedom I mean was choosing what goes in your body.
Thank you for your honest response. Most people just downvote and scroll on.
Are you allowed to drive on the job when under medication?
The US military gives a huge number of vaccines to its servicemen and woman. Lots of companies require periodic drug tests. Airlines definitely restrict you. The list goes on and on.
If you don't want to get vaccinated at work, it's perfectly reasonable to require you to wear a mask, and to produce two negative COVID tests a week, on your own time, at your own expense.
Employers routinely ask blue collar workers to piss in a cup, or undergo medical examinations. I don't see why white collar workers should be treated much differently.
Those of us who are vaccinated have done our part. Now, it's up to those that aren't to do theirs.
Employers routinely ask blue collar workers to piss in a cup, or undergo medical examinations. I don't see why white collar workers should be treated much differently.
Those of us who are vaccinated have done our part. Now, it's up to those that aren't to do theirs.
I wonder if this will affect AWS re:Invent - meant to be kicking off end of November in person. I expect it would flop if it was just customers and no engineers.
I'm currently planning to attend a couple of scaled-back in-person events in the fall. Hard to say about re:Invent. It's normally such a big event. And Vegas? I'd probably bet on it being virtual in some form. Maybe some scaled-down in-person component.
They're already selling tickets for the in person event, as well as making some of it available online for free.
AWS was good with video for re:Invent well before COVID. We'll see what happens in the fall. Certainly some organizations are betting that events can happen with whatever scaling back and requirements for attendees. But things can change even if people register.
This is a good question. I was planning on attending when they asked me a few months ago, but now with delta I'm reconsidering.
Extremely grateful for tech giants like Amazon putting pressure on the rest of the industry. I wouldn't work for them but I definitely benefit from them in cases like this. Hopefully the rest of the industry follows suite.
Why do you want everyone else to be back at the office?
It sounds more like they are appreciative that Amazon is setting a precedent to have employees back by '22 which other companies will theoretically have to match.
I am appreciative that Amazon is allowing wfh to continue longer. Maybe my wording was unclear lol
Yes, I have completely misunderstood you :)
[deleted]
The other giants put the tech pressure on Amazon, lol. Amazon was the last domino to fall for 2022
ah, well, whoever it is, I thank anybody keeping the wfh ball rolling. I'm eager to never return to an office and the longer we keep the temporary thing going, the higher chance I have of getting a fully remote situation locked down before having to go back in
I bet we'll see PR from Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft soon, with roughly the same timeline.
My company announced a couple of months ago that they are planning on having everyone come back into office starting on September 1st. I request a "full remote exception" three times, and was rejected each time, one of which coming straight from the CTO. So I found a new job and put in my two weeks - somehow, everyone up the chain from me was incredibly surprised and disappointed, and even offered me a "full remote exception" if I stayed (I declined). How long are companies going to pretend that Pandora's Box hasn't been opened with regards to remote work? Why are we pretending that employees aren't as productive when at home? This last year and a half have shown tech companies posting record profits, so it's clear that employees are just as productive from their homes as from the office. Those who can adapt to this new world will be able to hire the best talent, and those who can't are going to really struggle and lost talent.
The vast majority people at my org enjoy hybrid over full remote.
honestly, because some of us aren't nearly as productive at home as we are in the office. I'm glad you are, and I'm glad you found a remote job, and I wish you success in it. But I'd like to get back into the office where I don't hear my dogs bark at every bird that lands in the back yard, or constant interruption by my retired neighbors, UPS/FedEx/USPS, etc etc etc.
I miss the delineation between work and home. I've lost it.
I miss the delineation between work and home. I've lost it.
What if your employer agreed to rent you an office space? Or converted your office to more of a WeWork style space where you can reserve a desk?
I'm thinking this is where companies will be headed. For employees who want to work remotely, let them. For everyone else, either rent them small offices or allow them to come to the office as they choose.
I'm thinking this is where companies will be headed. For employees who want to work remotely, let them. For everyone else, either rent them small offices or allow them to come to the office as they choose.
I'd rather be in a space with other coworkers at that point.
Let's be honest, most of us didn't have a problem with the office, most of us had a problem with the open office and the commute, both of which are solvable. This remote work trend will peak (I don't know when, but it will), and we will come full circle back to offices again, and the ones that offer an office with a door will reap the rewards. Hopefully by then America has also figured out the infrastructure issue.
Let's be honest, most of us didn't have a problem with the office, most of us had a problem with the open office and the commute, both of which are solvable. This remote work trend will peak (I don't know when, but it will), and we will come full circle back to offices again, and the ones that offer an office with a door will reap the rewards. Hopefully by then America has also figured out the infrastructure issue.
I had an office with a door for 11 years at 2 different companies. It was great. Then I had to switch jobs where we had cubicles but we worked from home half the time. My current job is all cubicles even for managers. People are always talking on conference calls the entire day. I have been work from home since March 2020 and I get so much more done.
We are planning to start 2 days in the office in September. I'm hoping it gets delayed. I would love to have an office with a door again but I'm just happy we don't have a giant table with an open floorplan like some of my friends.
We are planning to start 2 days in the office in September. I'm hoping it gets delayed. I would love to have an office with a door again but I'm just happy we don't have a giant table with an open floorplan like some of my friends.
> Let's be honest, most of us didn't have a problem with the office, most of us had a problem with the open office and the commute, both of which are solvable.
I kinda agree with this. at least, I wouldn't mind going to the office if it was a pleasant ten minute walk from my home. but how is the commute a solvable problem? many offices are located in suburban office parks. no one wants to live there. and desirable neighborhoods within walking distance of good employers are, well, desirable. you can't pay everyone enough money to live in the same nice places where everyone else also wants to live.
I kinda agree with this. at least, I wouldn't mind going to the office if it was a pleasant ten minute walk from my home. but how is the commute a solvable problem? many offices are located in suburban office parks. no one wants to live there. and desirable neighborhoods within walking distance of good employers are, well, desirable. you can't pay everyone enough money to live in the same nice places where everyone else also wants to live.
> but how is the commute a solvable problem?
By holding politicians feet to the fire when they've acted like infrastructure is their number one priority for the past 30 years. We should have high speed rail connecting every major city at this point but for some godforsaken reason we don't. We should have light rails and cable cars, and other green forms of transportation lightening the car load, and down the road, heavier investment in driverless technology (as well as supporting infrastructure) can almost eliminate congestion.
Sounds like a lot, but America has done more in less time. We just have allowed cynicism and paralysis to take over.
By holding politicians feet to the fire when they've acted like infrastructure is their number one priority for the past 30 years. We should have high speed rail connecting every major city at this point but for some godforsaken reason we don't. We should have light rails and cable cars, and other green forms of transportation lightening the car load, and down the road, heavier investment in driverless technology (as well as supporting infrastructure) can almost eliminate congestion.
Sounds like a lot, but America has done more in less time. We just have allowed cynicism and paralysis to take over.
OP isn't demanding the company become all remote. They aren't dictating how you work. They want everyone to have an option to work in the manner that is best for them.
Yes, thank you for clarifying this. Let everyone work in the way that's best for them.
And this creates a bad dichotomy. If half team is remote and other has is in office it creates a really unbalanced interaction pattern.
I agree with both perspectives and not sure what I prefer but do think the team should be consistent (all remote or all in person). I don't want to have standup with 8 engineers in person and 1 engineer remote on VC.
I agree with both perspectives and not sure what I prefer but do think the team should be consistent (all remote or all in person). I don't want to have standup with 8 engineers in person and 1 engineer remote on VC.
Yes, working for a remote-only environment is vastly different from mixed. I don't know how companies are going to handle this without committing significant effort to making sure remote workers are kept in the loop.
Can you imagine a football team half remote / half on the field? It can be only one or the other (when they all play it coop via a game console). And yes, the specifics of our work is different (software development happens in the mind) but the underlying principles of human communication are the same. Fully remote communication works but worse than on-site unless you are outsourced or one of the 1k employees where they measure your productivity by the lines of committed code. Seriously, this road of thinking popularised by the latter type of employees because they are the majority I am afraid.
>Can you imagine a football team half remote / half on the field?
On gameday several members of the coaching staff for football teams are in skyboxes in the stadium removed from the players and coaches on the field. That is because they prefer to have an aerial view that allows them to see the game better. It works better for them and therefore it works better for the team. Your analogy doesn't provide the obvious answer you think it does.
On gameday several members of the coaching staff for football teams are in skyboxes in the stadium removed from the players and coaches on the field. That is because they prefer to have an aerial view that allows them to see the game better. It works better for them and therefore it works better for the team. Your analogy doesn't provide the obvious answer you think it does.
An interesting question that's still TBD is how well companies can operate with a significant in-office team and remote team. I think this past 18 months has proven that fully remote can work, but it may be the case that a 50/50 remote/office split is significantly harder to manage.
Anecdotally, my company had an office team and a remote team split about 50/50 before and unrelated to COVID, and it was tricky. We don't have a lot of meetings, but when we did, it was hard to have a physical group in a conference room with a remote group on a screen. We solved that by effectively going fully remote for meetings that involved remote employees - everyone who was physically in the office would connect to a video call at their individual desks. I was personally fine with it, but some people definitely prefer (and work better in) that physical conference room setting.
All of that to say, the way one person works might be a forcing factor for others, even if they don't intend for it to be. Tricky problem.
Anecdotally, my company had an office team and a remote team split about 50/50 before and unrelated to COVID, and it was tricky. We don't have a lot of meetings, but when we did, it was hard to have a physical group in a conference room with a remote group on a screen. We solved that by effectively going fully remote for meetings that involved remote employees - everyone who was physically in the office would connect to a video call at their individual desks. I was personally fine with it, but some people definitely prefer (and work better in) that physical conference room setting.
All of that to say, the way one person works might be a forcing factor for others, even if they don't intend for it to be. Tricky problem.
If I'm in a meeting of any size, I'm dealing with people spread over offices and remote across North America and Europe anyway.
>We solved that by effectively going fully remote for meetings that involved remote employees
Yes, this is the process that teams within my extended team mostly follow.
>We solved that by effectively going fully remote for meetings that involved remote employees
Yes, this is the process that teams within my extended team mostly follow.
I've been in physical/remote meeting splits. It's not really that hard. The trick is having everyone sign into the meeting with their own PC.
I take it you do not work in an open office.
I'm not the person you replied to. But I do work in an open office for a small startup. My productive went straight down the drain when working from home. I much prefer working at the office. I guess people are just different.
> I'd like to get back into the office where I don't hear my dogs bark at every bird that lands in the back yard
I'm enjoying working from home along with the sights and sounds, except for leaf blowers. I can look out my window and watch squirrels play. Luckily I only have one neighbor with a dog and it doesn't bark much. But this comment makes me wonder why you bother having a dog if you don't even like the sounds they make.
I'm enjoying working from home along with the sights and sounds, except for leaf blowers. I can look out my window and watch squirrels play. Luckily I only have one neighbor with a dog and it doesn't bark much. But this comment makes me wonder why you bother having a dog if you don't even like the sounds they make.
Leaf blowers should be outright banned in cities as their main effect is to blow dirt onto everyone else. Maybe now that so many people are working from home, we'll get some pushback on such "affluenza" that otherwise went unnoticed by commuters.
Improve your home, you can control that. You have almost zero control at the office.
it's great that you have a private office. But most of the tech world are in open office floorplans now where the distractions are vastly greater than any at home.
And I'm not ready for spending 3 hours in a car everyday. That's a slow suicide
And I'm not ready for spending 3 hours in a car everyday. That's a slow suicide
Few people (some, but few) are asking for companies to eliminate the office for people who want to be there. From what I've read, there are even more people who prefer 2-3 days in the office to a fully remote lifestyle.
The real sticking point seems to be attendance requirements.
Having to go somewhere every day even if it takes 3 hours to get there and back, whether you're more productive there or not.
Having to be there certain hours, even if a slight shift in hours would save you thousands of dollars a year in childcare expenses.
Having to sit at the desk until 5 pm (or longer) for show, even if you're a salaried employee, are fried from numerous meetings or an intense thinking job, and spent other time -- not at the desk -- thinking about work problems.
Having to work all of your 8-10 hours in a row, even if you would be more productive if you broke it up into 1-4 hour bursts spread throughout the day.
The real sticking point seems to be attendance requirements.
Having to go somewhere every day even if it takes 3 hours to get there and back, whether you're more productive there or not.
Having to be there certain hours, even if a slight shift in hours would save you thousands of dollars a year in childcare expenses.
Having to sit at the desk until 5 pm (or longer) for show, even if you're a salaried employee, are fried from numerous meetings or an intense thinking job, and spent other time -- not at the desk -- thinking about work problems.
Having to work all of your 8-10 hours in a row, even if you would be more productive if you broke it up into 1-4 hour bursts spread throughout the day.
Maintaining productivity while WFH comes at a huge personal cost for some people: family, lack of space, destroyed life/work balance etc.
There should be some colloqualisms around this to recognize that there are valid positions across the spectrum. I'm a hardcore WFH'er, an introvert with a dedicated office in a beautiful spot in the woods and no colleagues at my work location which is a 45 minute commute each way.
On the other hand I work with extroverted young folks that are sitting on the edge of their bed all day in a stuffy bedroom with one window so they can work from the top of their dresser in an apartment with three other roommates.
On the other hand I work with extroverted young folks that are sitting on the edge of their bed all day in a stuffy bedroom with one window so they can work from the top of their dresser in an apartment with three other roommates.
Not to mention that some roles requiring tight focused interaction (such as mine) benefit greatly from in person meeting.
Ideally, for me, I'd be in office two days a week (and no more). I'm much more productive on my technical tasks at home.
Ideally, for me, I'd be in office two days a week (and no more). I'm much more productive on my technical tasks at home.
I like to think that different places serve different purposes for me. When I think of the woods I think of a place to relax, connect with nature and to take my mind off of work. To make that my workplace where I am introducing the stresses of workplace challenges or even the occasional work crisis, only serves to corrupt that space and my connection to it.
Disclaimer: I realize not everyone would share that point of view (and clearly having an office in the woods is working well for you), but that's my perspective on it.
Disclaimer: I realize not everyone would share that point of view (and clearly having an office in the woods is working well for you), but that's my perspective on it.
>> destroyed life/work balance etc.
This is what the 75min/direction commute to SF would do to me
This is what the 75min/direction commute to SF would do to me
Honestly, yes, thanks for saying this. I literally had to move, I lost roommates that are now close friends but it's not the same. My monthly expenses are up even considering I don't commute, and I'm cooking/blending so it's not that, just the rent and stuff I had to buy. I held up for a year but when I saw it was going to be another year I had to pull the trigger and move to a bigger place.
I'm chill and think I respect the "WFH forever" crowd a lot. I just would love to be able to have my home office be for my hobbies again and it was hard to even mention this at work without someone aggressively jumping on me because I'm a shill for the big tech executive caste that wants us all "trapped" in the office again. I changed employers recently because of this to a company that has more of an office culture.
I'm chill and think I respect the "WFH forever" crowd a lot. I just would love to be able to have my home office be for my hobbies again and it was hard to even mention this at work without someone aggressively jumping on me because I'm a shill for the big tech executive caste that wants us all "trapped" in the office again. I changed employers recently because of this to a company that has more of an office culture.
Question (I'm not being facetious; I actually wonder this) - Why do companies (and some workers) seem to believe that to have a great office culture people must be trapped there?
This is one of the sticking points in this discussion, I think.
(Leaving aside the issue of long commutes.) Why do people's actual hours sitting at the desk need to policed?
This is one of the sticking points in this discussion, I think.
(Leaving aside the issue of long commutes.) Why do people's actual hours sitting at the desk need to policed?
In my experience, policing desk hours doesn't do much for software engineering and most creative fields. Sometimes it is necessary though, if someone is checked out and lying about getting stuff done or being able to hit a milestone if they are just forced to sit and policed they will get stuff done but otherwise they will not. I find this latter case to be the exception. People with this attitude are already toxic when being policed, I think with WFH there's going to be a multiplier for their toxicity.
I think in a great office culture people are going to the office because they want to, or because they are more productive there. In my experience this is what will happen once a bunch of people are already at the office and remote people can't catch up or feel left behind on some stuff. Also on meetings when there's like four or five people on a room the people on videoconference just can't work at the same level and it's very hard to accommodate for them.
I think it's ok if some companies don't want to go back to the office, but I just think colocated teams perform better. I'd rather be on the teams that perform better. I think maybe for a giant like Google letting everyone go home is not a bad idea, but if you want a tiger team to skunkworks something up for you I think WFH won't cut it. Maybe a few days a week or every other week if you need to a lot of alone work, but not all the time.
I think in a great office culture people are going to the office because they want to, or because they are more productive there. In my experience this is what will happen once a bunch of people are already at the office and remote people can't catch up or feel left behind on some stuff. Also on meetings when there's like four or five people on a room the people on videoconference just can't work at the same level and it's very hard to accommodate for them.
I think it's ok if some companies don't want to go back to the office, but I just think colocated teams perform better. I'd rather be on the teams that perform better. I think maybe for a giant like Google letting everyone go home is not a bad idea, but if you want a tiger team to skunkworks something up for you I think WFH won't cut it. Maybe a few days a week or every other week if you need to a lot of alone work, but not all the time.
Maintaining productivity in the typical office comes at huge personal and professional costs for others, and I'm kinda frustrated that this situation hasn't resulted in more empathy from fans of the office (because, you would think that having been forced into a suboptimal work situation, they'd understand more how much that sucks).
Remote work doesn't mean you have to literally work from home. Before the pandemic, I worked remotely, but rarely from my actual home.
The real amateur move here was to have the CTO decline and then change position. Of course you already lined up a new job, have no loyalty to your current employer, and will tell anyone who is willing to listen. They are now going to have others shopping for remote offers and giving their 2 weeks notice just to get the exception.
> Of course you already lined up a new job, have no loyalty to your current employer, and will tell anyone who is willing to listen.
God. Damn. Right.
God. Damn. Right.
It literally astounds me that managers don't understand that if you force people to shop around to get any improvement in their situations they will resent you for it. It costs time to secure another position, and if you only needed to pay me or give me X + Y initially to retain my employment, if you make me get an offer to negotiate it is going to cost you X + Y + Z because you wasted my time.
>it is going to cost you X + Y + Z because you wasted my time.
And because it is most certainly apparent no loyalty exists and now I have to factor in the risk you let me go (a.k.a. fire) me in 6 months if the right opportunity arises. To hell if I want to keep working in a place where I'm always needing to watch my back and be ready to find something else anyways. Good riddance!
And because it is most certainly apparent no loyalty exists and now I have to factor in the risk you let me go (a.k.a. fire) me in 6 months if the right opportunity arises. To hell if I want to keep working in a place where I'm always needing to watch my back and be ready to find something else anyways. Good riddance!
It's going to be tricky. I personally can't wait to go back to the office, and reclaim some space in my apartment by tearing down my WFH setup. Plus all the free Diet Coke I can drink, overhearing coworker's conversations and never being "out of the loop", etc. I think that people who feel as I do will simply go back to the office, and we'll incidentally enjoy the benefits of faster communication, which will make WFH employees feel left out, so they'll come in or go hybrid. Sorry about this in advance.
As a new grad, onboarding during covid sucked so extremely hard. It started off with a lack of productivity, a lack of understanding, and an extreme amount of anxiety from being unable to tell what is expected of me and how to achieve that.
Going to office has been the best possible thing for me. I can see my coworkers, understand the expectations set for me, get instant help from coworkers (and often provide instant help). My anxiety is better and my health is better. I'm not distracted by the 10,000 things around my house that I either want to do or need to do.
That being said, that's only my experience. I think the research shows that remote work is just as productive, if not better. It's better for people who really need to take care of personal things during work hours. The opposition to remote work is far too forceful, especially when companies don't even intend to back up their threats (like in your case). Leadership in many companies seems against the idea for WFH for all the wrong reasons. They need to understand it's a real risk trying to force employees to come back to the office, and you can certainly lose some very important talent by doing that.
Going to office has been the best possible thing for me. I can see my coworkers, understand the expectations set for me, get instant help from coworkers (and often provide instant help). My anxiety is better and my health is better. I'm not distracted by the 10,000 things around my house that I either want to do or need to do.
That being said, that's only my experience. I think the research shows that remote work is just as productive, if not better. It's better for people who really need to take care of personal things during work hours. The opposition to remote work is far too forceful, especially when companies don't even intend to back up their threats (like in your case). Leadership in many companies seems against the idea for WFH for all the wrong reasons. They need to understand it's a real risk trying to force employees to come back to the office, and you can certainly lose some very important talent by doing that.
I can absolutely empathize why graduating into this could be a really bad experience for people. Was just talking with someone about this earlier in the week. I admittedly started work in a very different time with very different and more limited tools but it's hard for me to imagine.
I mean, here's the thing. Most new grads are drastically overestimating the importance that they're onboarded quickly. The median productivity of a new grad is approximately zero for the first year. Maybe even negative. Nobody really expects much of you anyway. So just, chill and focus on improving at a slow and steady rate.
The whole reason FANG companies hire new grades is because a small fraction will become superstars in a few years. And a small handful of those superstars will stay out of loyalty/comfort/inertia. New grads are basically deep out of the money, long-dated call options. Companies aren't going to care whether it takes them 3 months or 6 months to get acclimated to the org's culture.
The whole reason FANG companies hire new grades is because a small fraction will become superstars in a few years. And a small handful of those superstars will stay out of loyalty/comfort/inertia. New grads are basically deep out of the money, long-dated call options. Companies aren't going to care whether it takes them 3 months or 6 months to get acclimated to the org's culture.
That's easy to say as an experienced employee, but when you're a new hire and you have no clue what's going on around you because there are no conversations to accidentally overhear, no one sitting 3 feet away to ask random questions of, and no way to interpret your boss's apathy about your existence...
Plus reading here about certain companies' interest in pruning people ruthlessly...
I could see why morale among new hires would be problematic in this rather chaotic time.
Plus reading here about certain companies' interest in pruning people ruthlessly...
I could see why morale among new hires would be problematic in this rather chaotic time.
>> no conversations to accidentally overhear, no one sitting 3 feet away to ask random questions of
That's all done in chat now. Which on a personal level, that's how I've done it for a quarter of a century, but it's like that at work now too.
That's all done in chat now. Which on a personal level, that's how I've done it for a quarter of a century, but it's like that at work now too.
I have found that many conversations that would have been public in an office setting are now held in private chats, or in specialized channels that particularly newcomers won't be a part of.
Additionally, someone who's new is much easier to spot and thus be reminded of when they're physically proximate. Someone new on chat who doesn't have much to contribute yet can very easily vanish, so while they may be able to pull information from others, much less information will be deliberately pushed their way.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but we have millennia of culture and evolution built around in-person interactions.
Additionally, someone who's new is much easier to spot and thus be reminded of when they're physically proximate. Someone new on chat who doesn't have much to contribute yet can very easily vanish, so while they may be able to pull information from others, much less information will be deliberately pushed their way.
I'm not saying it's impossible, but we have millennia of culture and evolution built around in-person interactions.
>> I have found that many conversations that would have been public in an office setting are now held in private chats
I haven't seen that. What type of conversations that used to be public are you seeing being moved to private now that things are done through chat?
I haven't seen that. What type of conversations that used to be public are you seeing being moved to private now that things are done through chat?
Any time someone wants something from me specifically, or vice versa.
Exactly .
If you turn that 1 year into 2 years, though, you HAVE changed things dramatically in terms of the value of what you're paying for.
So if today's new grads are telling you "I'm drowning" and two years ago they weren't... maybe you should listen.
And measured productivity is only half of it if a sizable fraction of those frustrated new grads leave much sooner than they would otherwise.
Or if "new grad" experiences also tend to match "new hire" experiences even for experienced folks...
So if today's new grads are telling you "I'm drowning" and two years ago they weren't... maybe you should listen.
And measured productivity is only half of it if a sizable fraction of those frustrated new grads leave much sooner than they would otherwise.
Or if "new grad" experiences also tend to match "new hire" experiences even for experienced folks...
I think your advice to relax and focus on slow, steady improvement is on point, but imo you are really overstating the bit about low expectations for new grads. no reasonable company will make a new grad solely responsible for some critical part of their product, but most will be disappointed if your main accomplishment in your first year on the job was "got onboarded". the expectation is that you may need some hand-holding, but ultimately you will get stuff done. at my company, the people that assumed the expectation for their productivity was "approximately zero" were quite surprised to see the difference in second-year raises between them and their new grad peers.
IMO this is an institutional problem at your workplace. I know my company's grown a ton and I've actually put in more hours ensuring one-on-one, high-touch onboarding time with all our new engineers so that they never feel unsupported and unknowing what the expectations are.
It's absolutely vital to recreate the same onboarding experience (seeing someone all day, being there whenever a question is asked, etc) virtually, and that means putting in the extra effort in making onesself available, checking in, and being proactive.
It's absolutely vital to recreate the same onboarding experience (seeing someone all day, being there whenever a question is asked, etc) virtually, and that means putting in the extra effort in making onesself available, checking in, and being proactive.
I'm no longer a new grad, and was onboarded long before COVID. I think those same problems, lack of productivity, understanding unable to tell expectations all applied even in-person. It seems to be more of a supervisor problem than a remote work problem. And as dcolkitt said, unrealistic expectations on how fast that's supposed to take. A lot of new grads are used to an internship which is only ~10 weeks, or a 16 week semester as a timeframe when you should be able to get entirely up to speed and done producing what's needed. But that's not necessarily long enough to truly learn how a team works and what the expectations are at a lot of companies.
Hmm ... I hear what you're saying. At the same time, I recognize some of the new-kid-on-the-block problems you describe here.
I was a new grad in the analog world. The same kind of uncertainty existed for me. Sometimes a coworker who was supposed to help me just didn't talk to me. Many managers were just as poor then as they are now, in person or online, at setting and communicating expectations.
And there were additional problems in person that don't exist in the same way online. Particularly for women ... bullying and inappropriate attention from the men; envy and criticism from the women.
Also, early on in this pandemic, people and companies were scrambling in general. So, the chaos of onboarding may not have been a problem with onboarding per se, or even with companies not handling it "well" but just a shared difficulty.
I was a new grad in the analog world. The same kind of uncertainty existed for me. Sometimes a coworker who was supposed to help me just didn't talk to me. Many managers were just as poor then as they are now, in person or online, at setting and communicating expectations.
And there were additional problems in person that don't exist in the same way online. Particularly for women ... bullying and inappropriate attention from the men; envy and criticism from the women.
Also, early on in this pandemic, people and companies were scrambling in general. So, the chaos of onboarding may not have been a problem with onboarding per se, or even with companies not handling it "well" but just a shared difficulty.
> get instant help from coworkers
You helped your company by saving senior engineers' precious time.
You helped your company by saving senior engineers' precious time.
Unless maybe the primary value of a lot of senior engineers is onboarding and coaching.
My first SE gig did remote days, and I used to dread those when just starting out.
Nurturing early career engineers in a remote setting is definitely something companies need to get better at.
Nurturing early career engineers in a remote setting is definitely something companies need to get better at.
Because not everyone is productive? Also, I want statistically significant proof of the correlation between working from home and company profits. I doubt there here is such research because it is nearly impossible to prove due to many other factors. For example, my company profits also increased but not because of home office but because of ppl doing more stuff online. Why? Because 2 out of 3 colleagues complained being unproductive and demotivated at home.
So "because not everyone is productive", everyone should be mandated to go back into the office?
No, but I am in favour of communication this beforehand during the interview. There are on-site companies and companies who allow remote as well as companies working only remote. Also, I am in favour of making exceptions if you can prove that you are more productive within the course of several months and afterwards while being completely remote.
You can tell that I am suspicious to the remote == productivity mantra. Because we are working in a team unless you’re a freelancer or a one man project guy (which in a well managed company is a rare thing) and as human beings need eye to eye communication to work efficiently.
Why should "more productive" be the standard?
If a person is equally productive but happier, why not let 'em be happier?
If a person is equally productive but happier, why not let 'em be happier?
Why is the past year and a half of ratings while working remotely enough "proof" of productivity? Really, why is my opinion as an employee about how I work best not enough? You are exhibiting the same issue described elsewhere in this thread - you do not have enough trust for your employees to allow remote work.
Because it is always always more about the team dynamics and chemistry than about you as an individual. If you’re a lone wolf and do-all guy this doesn’t mean you will be valuable in a team, well connected with your colleagues OR on the other hand, outperform several people. In the end of the day, the company size, business domain, etc. has more impact to whether you work remote or not and have to be evaluated and assessed. We allow remote but these are exceptions for those who cannot move easily.
So explain my company. My team is split into two primary locations. The HQ, where I work is a typical multistory office building, while the remote site is more stripped down. The remote site has no managers for my team, our managers are all at the HQ.
So essentially, the workers at the remote site have been working (tada) remotely for over 13 years. And they do a great job. We communicate via email, by Teams/Webex, and there's no real difference.
And then COVID comes along and we all WFH for the last 18 months. Now when things appear to be getting better, mgmt is all in a rush to "RTO."
So not only have we proven that we can work well remotely in non-COVID times, but under the immense pressure of COVID, we had record profits.
So now we're going with the worst of all worlds for my team; hybrid. We're allowed to work 1-3 days a week remotely, but the other days we'll be in the office in desk hotels. Sounds like so much fun.
It really boils down to old school VPs/Managers who think butts in seats is how you get work done. And I say this as someone who's closer to retirement age than most.
So essentially, the workers at the remote site have been working (tada) remotely for over 13 years. And they do a great job. We communicate via email, by Teams/Webex, and there's no real difference.
And then COVID comes along and we all WFH for the last 18 months. Now when things appear to be getting better, mgmt is all in a rush to "RTO."
So not only have we proven that we can work well remotely in non-COVID times, but under the immense pressure of COVID, we had record profits.
So now we're going with the worst of all worlds for my team; hybrid. We're allowed to work 1-3 days a week remotely, but the other days we'll be in the office in desk hotels. Sounds like so much fun.
It really boils down to old school VPs/Managers who think butts in seats is how you get work done. And I say this as someone who's closer to retirement age than most.
What about letting each person choose for themselves. If I want to work remote 100% of the time, I can. If I want to work only in the office, I can. If I want to work remote 3 days and in the office 2 days, I can. If I want to work 10 hours 4 days and take the 5th off, I can.
> I want statistically significant proof of the correlation between working from home and company profits.
Let's start with statistically significant proof of the correlation between working from the open office and company profits. That game cuts both ways.
Or, simply let everyone work as and where they wish and apply the same evaluation and retention criteria to everyone. No need to discrimiante against one group.
Let's start with statistically significant proof of the correlation between working from the open office and company profits. That game cuts both ways.
Or, simply let everyone work as and where they wish and apply the same evaluation and retention criteria to everyone. No need to discrimiante against one group.
I’m personally on the hybrid boat, but one thing I’m worried about is whether full remote just leads to more outsourcing. Out sourcing has a lot of issues, but the actual differences between an onsite employee versus a remote employee in Prague are bigger than a remote employee in Montana versus Prague. And the perceived difference to a cfo may be even lower, so maybe they’ll go with wherever is cheaper.
Are these concerns of being careful of what we wish for too premature?
Are these concerns of being careful of what we wish for too premature?
The folks who consider themselves un-outsourcable who have to interact with the devteam often won't consider someone in Prague to be a substitute for someone in Montana since it will fuck their schedule up timezone-wise and/or result in tanked productivity through massively harder coordination challenges.
Canada or Central or South America, on the other hand... could be a lot of opportunity for people there.
Canada or Central or South America, on the other hand... could be a lot of opportunity for people there.
You might be very well right that the colleague from Prague outclasses your Montana colleague.
Does that worry you?
Does that worry you?
No, that’s my point. If they’re already remote then the difference is diminished between someone who wanted offices remote so they could move out of a high cost of living area and the remote person in another lower cost of living country. There is value in having people onsite, but without that consideration then the supply of workers is higher.
Is this necessarily bad? No, but be prepared for more competition and maybe needing to move to an even lower cost area than you’d imagined.
Is this necessarily bad? No, but be prepared for more competition and maybe needing to move to an even lower cost area than you’d imagined.
Taking a step back, I've dropped hints a few different ways at previous positions, "I need X to happen to be happy", "Y really hurts my jobs satisfaction", etc. Yet they always seem surprised when I eventually try for something better, or at least a change, and leave. My last job I dropped what I thought were clear hints at 6, 3, and 1 month before leaving (I had my own private ultimatum timeline).
It's not very professional, but I feel like I have to say, "do X or I'm going to quit". Not very professional, and probably wouldn't go over well, but saying it politely doesn't seem to get the message across.
It's not very professional, but I feel like I have to say, "do X or I'm going to quit". Not very professional, and probably wouldn't go over well, but saying it politely doesn't seem to get the message across.
It's like dating. They are what they are and you want what you want, and telling them, "well maybe I would be happy if you changed in these specific ways" is just not going to work for you or them. Not if you drop hints, not if you drop ultimatums. They are what they are.
Just go find what you think will make you happy.
Just go find what you think will make you happy.
There is no doubt that some people are more productive remotely. But employees should also realize that the company’s definition of “productivity” is different from their own. For example, some engineers are happy to avoid random interruptions by working remotely, but the company might see those interruptions as how junior engineers learn the build and dev toolchains. That doesn’t show up in your peformance review, so it might not be worth anything to you, but it is worth something to the company.
I don’t think the solution here is for every company to become “remote-friendly.” I think it’s for remote companies like Automattic, Gitlab, and Invision to exist, and for remote-desiring engineers to get jobs there.
I don’t think the solution here is for every company to become “remote-friendly.” I think it’s for remote companies like Automattic, Gitlab, and Invision to exist, and for remote-desiring engineers to get jobs there.
I would have told them, you had your chance, now it's too little too late
This +20. Screw the managers they always held back progress.
Amazon Corporate. And Amazon's website people. But Amazon is not a website. It is a warehouse and delivery company. The vast majority of employees, those working in warehouses and delivering things to customers, will likely not ever be able to work from home.
Vaccine rollout went so smooth it turned around my pessimism for 3-6 months, but now the last 2-3 weeks have me quite pessimistic.
The breakthrough cases (quantity, severity) plus ability of vaxxed to spread, anecdotes of everyone knowing people getting sick, where we are with cases vs last summer, plus % unvaxxed in certain demographics within cities makes RTO seem quite untenable now.
Vax seems to protect against hospitalization & death from delta, but can very easily be laid up a week or two sick and have non-trivial respiratory issues.
Went into office last week 1st time, stunned to see 2019 style maskless floor with full density occupancy of desks. Attendance is being centrally coordinate & desk reservations required, so this was no coincidence or accident...
I go 18 months without eating indoors, shopping for groceries w/o mask, getting on a plane, etc and now I'm gonna sit on a crowded open office floor at 100% occupancy maskless 5 days/week? WTF.
NY offices seem to be ignoring that even if 80% of white collar staff they employ are vaccinated, the outsourced/building services staff are not. Not to mention the place you pickup lunch, coffee, and the cross section of people on public transit.
Some actual numbers from recent NYTimes/City official stats for even having 1 shot yet:
* NYPD 45%
* Black Bronx residents ~36%
* South Williamsburg ~35%
* MTA subway & bus staff ~45%
* NYC teachers (whose union demanded to be front of line but refuse a mandate) ~60%
* NYCHA ~38%
NY seems to be dragging their heals on this, some combination of BdB - Cuomo feuding, Cuomo busy with impeachment defense, return of in-person schools, and the Commercial RE/Bank/Dining industry pressures. As soon as City/State put an indoor mask mandate in place, it puts indoor dining, schools and offices into question all over again. So the tail is wagging the dog, as they say.
The breakthrough cases (quantity, severity) plus ability of vaxxed to spread, anecdotes of everyone knowing people getting sick, where we are with cases vs last summer, plus % unvaxxed in certain demographics within cities makes RTO seem quite untenable now.
Vax seems to protect against hospitalization & death from delta, but can very easily be laid up a week or two sick and have non-trivial respiratory issues.
Went into office last week 1st time, stunned to see 2019 style maskless floor with full density occupancy of desks. Attendance is being centrally coordinate & desk reservations required, so this was no coincidence or accident...
I go 18 months without eating indoors, shopping for groceries w/o mask, getting on a plane, etc and now I'm gonna sit on a crowded open office floor at 100% occupancy maskless 5 days/week? WTF.
NY offices seem to be ignoring that even if 80% of white collar staff they employ are vaccinated, the outsourced/building services staff are not. Not to mention the place you pickup lunch, coffee, and the cross section of people on public transit.
Some actual numbers from recent NYTimes/City official stats for even having 1 shot yet:
* NYPD 45%
* Black Bronx residents ~36%
* South Williamsburg ~35%
* MTA subway & bus staff ~45%
* NYC teachers (whose union demanded to be front of line but refuse a mandate) ~60%
* NYCHA ~38%
NY seems to be dragging their heals on this, some combination of BdB - Cuomo feuding, Cuomo busy with impeachment defense, return of in-person schools, and the Commercial RE/Bank/Dining industry pressures. As soon as City/State put an indoor mask mandate in place, it puts indoor dining, schools and offices into question all over again. So the tail is wagging the dog, as they say.
At some point, we're going to have to make a call about whether we want to live with the risks or continue distancing. Considering how much more contagious delta is, I suspect masks won't be enough on their own, beyond signaling that it's not safe and scaring people away.
Considering how not especially deadly covid is, I personally don't see masks and distancing as a long-term solution, but a lot of people disagree and seem perfectly happy spending the decade getting meals delivered and working from home.
Considering how not especially deadly covid is, I personally don't see masks and distancing as a long-term solution, but a lot of people disagree and seem perfectly happy spending the decade getting meals delivered and working from home.
The issue is that companies are mandating return, so its not employees choice.
What % chance of being sick for 1-2 weeks are you OK with?
What % chance of permanent lung capacity loss are you OK with?
What % chance of death are you OK with?
Are you OK with your employer making that decision on your behalf?
What % chance of being sick for 1-2 weeks are you OK with?
What % chance of permanent lung capacity loss are you OK with?
What % chance of death are you OK with?
Are you OK with your employer making that decision on your behalf?
We did the same thing a couple weeks ago. Predictions are hard, especially about the future, but I'd bet money that will slip, too.
If you're waiting for 'normal', I think you're already soaking in it. At least for the next 18 months or so, which is effectively forever in terms of flexible change.
If you're waiting for 'normal', I think you're already soaking in it. At least for the next 18 months or so, which is effectively forever in terms of flexible change.
I feel like I'm in the minority here as a tech worker, I can't wait to return to office full time and hopefully will be able to work in the office 5 days a week. WFH has just never worked well for me personally. I enjoy the physical separation between work and home, and even given the opportunity to work from anywhere in the world, I would still choose to live where I currently do (nyc).
I don’t want everyone to work remote or everyone work in the office or everyone work remote 2 days and in the office 3 days. What I do want is every person can decide for themselves what is best for themselves without any repercussions. We need to learn that even if we are in the office that not everyone will be so every meeting will have people calling in on zoom - and that is okay.
I think the problem many people have is they hate interacting over Zoom.
Well, I hate working in an office. So, I guess we all have to suffer a bit so that everyone can work in their optimal environment.
Surprise surprise! no one really believed that 2021 would have been the go back to the office, business as usual year right?
COVID-19, unfortunately, is here to stay, and by looking at all the people that could get vaccinated and decide not to, and unfortunately all the people around the world that would like to get vaccinated but can't, I have hard time seeing a "going back to normal" anytime soon.
Also, we have to hope that the virus does not mutate in more aggressive forms that could defeat the efficacy of current vaccines.
Companies small/medium/big should make piece with their mind and accept the fact that remote working is here to stay, it is a viable option and they should stop expecting people to work from an office just for the sake of having people around.
COVID-19, unfortunately, is here to stay, and by looking at all the people that could get vaccinated and decide not to, and unfortunately all the people around the world that would like to get vaccinated but can't, I have hard time seeing a "going back to normal" anytime soon.
Also, we have to hope that the virus does not mutate in more aggressive forms that could defeat the efficacy of current vaccines.
Companies small/medium/big should make piece with their mind and accept the fact that remote working is here to stay, it is a viable option and they should stop expecting people to work from an office just for the sake of having people around.
Just like you say companies have to accept remote because it's hear to stay, some people are going to have to accept normal is going to return because, like you say, covid is hear to stay. Sorry, but if every day is anm state of emergency then no days are.
Seriously, I think 90% of every good idea I've ever had has come to me in situations like the above. I don't wanna force people to come back to the office with me, but I'm just surprised that more people aren't feeling like they've lost something important without it. Yes, I can informally start off a chat with a colleague over Slack, but it just doesn't work for me. People think too much before they write something. All the good ideas die if people weigh their words too much :-(