EA Pushes Full Return to Office, Effectively Ends Remote Hiring(ign.com)
ign.com
EA Pushes Full Return to Office, Effectively Ends Remote Hiring
https://www.ign.com/articles/ea-pushes-full-return-to-office-effectively-ends-remote-hiring
51 comments
Just tell more displaced coal miners and high schoolers to learn to code. That'll solve the problem.
If you're graduating with a CS degree from a legit university you're much better positioned than if you did a 2 month bootcamp, which I expect are the first people to have trouble finding a job
I kinda hear you -- there's definitely gradations at work here -- but the sentiment you've expressed is also fast losing veracity. For instance:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43612448
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43612448
So is that post’s sentiment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43725229
TIL, thanks!
The problem is, they don't even let most people have actual offices at the office.
Even if productivity is better this way, isn't there an advantage to being able to hire people from a wider geography, access to a larger talent pool?
I read @paulg and other leadership type YC people support return to office as well. I recall startups competing for talent desperately. That was why silicon valley startups always had crazy perks. If talent was how my business disrupted and dominated, I would want the most access to talent and give them the best working conditions. Perhaps a subtle pivot in priority has happened? Tech companies no longer believe in a talent-centered strategy? Or there is an over abundance of talent?
I'm just trying to give people the benefit of doubt, that this isn't just cruel people unhappy at the sight of improved quality of life for others.
Even if productivity is better this way, isn't there an advantage to being able to hire people from a wider geography, access to a larger talent pool?
I read @paulg and other leadership type YC people support return to office as well. I recall startups competing for talent desperately. That was why silicon valley startups always had crazy perks. If talent was how my business disrupted and dominated, I would want the most access to talent and give them the best working conditions. Perhaps a subtle pivot in priority has happened? Tech companies no longer believe in a talent-centered strategy? Or there is an over abundance of talent?
I'm just trying to give people the benefit of doubt, that this isn't just cruel people unhappy at the sight of improved quality of life for others.
I don't think these things are really done because you get more done at an office.
I think it's more of a litmus test: If you care about your work enough that you're willing to come to the office every day (or even move cities/countries), then you'll be extremely engaged.
So by saying "you have to come to the office 5 days a week", you will only get people who are very engaged and will get a lot done—even if it's not because of the office.
I guarantee there's a Venn diagram of extremely engaged people who also prefer (or will exclusively do) remote work, which office-only companies will miss out on.
But when you're in a high talent-density area like NYC/SF maybe that's not a big concern.
So willingness to come to the office becomes a proxy metric for how much you care, which obviously influences your engagement.
I think it's more of a litmus test: If you care about your work enough that you're willing to come to the office every day (or even move cities/countries), then you'll be extremely engaged.
So by saying "you have to come to the office 5 days a week", you will only get people who are very engaged and will get a lot done—even if it's not because of the office.
I guarantee there's a Venn diagram of extremely engaged people who also prefer (or will exclusively do) remote work, which office-only companies will miss out on.
But when you're in a high talent-density area like NYC/SF maybe that's not a big concern.
So willingness to come to the office becomes a proxy metric for how much you care, which obviously influences your engagement.
Its a filter for bad negotiators. Throw 1.5h commute on top of 9-10h work and you filter for people who have no sense of self-preservation and thus will also suck at negotiation. 3 years in burnout, rinse and repeat.
Game-development already is a super-hostile work environment, where "talent" is regularly replaced by some starry eyed university-grad for cheap. If people are just ablative material and payment is all the captain crunch you can eat in the cafeteria, nobody at a cult gets to work remote.
Game-development already is a super-hostile work environment, where "talent" is regularly replaced by some starry eyed university-grad for cheap. If people are just ablative material and payment is all the captain crunch you can eat in the cafeteria, nobody at a cult gets to work remote.
As someone who's not into gaming, it's still astounding to me how people endure the working conditions in that industry just because they're obsessed with video games.
I suppose it's the weird dynamic in our society where you get paid less and have worse working conditions the more passion you feel for your work.
I suppose it's the weird dynamic in our society where you get paid less and have worse working conditions the more passion you feel for your work.
"Do what you love and you will never have to work a day in your life"
You will also get paid less than you are worth and eventually start to hate what you love.
You will also get paid less than you are worth and eventually start to hate what you love.
I think it's a psychological thing where we assume what's fun can't be highly paid and what sucks must be worth a lot of compensation.
The intersection between highly paid and passionate is surprisingly rare.
The intersection between highly paid and passionate is surprisingly rare.
It were okay, but the problem is- the industries that exploit the young and naive - actively pull out tentacles to draw in more of the young and naive. Thats what all the hollywood "how to become a star" and "talentshows" are.. get fresh meat..
That isn't it. Employers know that if you have passion, you'll be willing to work more for less money. Which is why they so often insist on passion.
Also, I've seen plenty of people on HN insist that people doing "creative" work (excepting programmers, who are obviously worth every penny) should do so for free so as not to taint the purity of their work with capitalist incentives.
It isn't an assumption that what's fun can't be highly paid, rather it's an assumption that what's fun shouldn't be highly paid.
Also, I've seen plenty of people on HN insist that people doing "creative" work (excepting programmers, who are obviously worth every penny) should do so for free so as not to taint the purity of their work with capitalist incentives.
It isn't an assumption that what's fun can't be highly paid, rather it's an assumption that what's fun shouldn't be highly paid.
> I think it's more of a litmus test: If you care about your work enough that you're willing to come to the office every day (or even move cities/countries), then you'll be extremely engaged.
Sure, but what if there is another company closer to me (office), or offering hybrid or full remote work? I can about my work just the same elsewhere.
I think you're on the right track, but in my opinion, it is more about having reliable employees than employees who care or are engaged. Your actual performance and talent could be bad, but so long as you won't ask for too much pay and you won't leave any time soon, that is what these companies want more than talent. This is sort of what I was alluding to. disruptive startups would never think this way, but EA isn't that anymore. neither are google or facebook. they're no longer disruptive, they are complacent and spiraling into the IBM and AT&T like mediocrity.
Sure, but what if there is another company closer to me (office), or offering hybrid or full remote work? I can about my work just the same elsewhere.
I think you're on the right track, but in my opinion, it is more about having reliable employees than employees who care or are engaged. Your actual performance and talent could be bad, but so long as you won't ask for too much pay and you won't leave any time soon, that is what these companies want more than talent. This is sort of what I was alluding to. disruptive startups would never think this way, but EA isn't that anymore. neither are google or facebook. they're no longer disruptive, they are complacent and spiraling into the IBM and AT&T like mediocrity.
> I think you're on the right track, but in my opinion, it is more about having reliable employees than employees who care or are engaged.
Sure! I think the (maybe sad) reality is that most larger companies don't actually need excellence in most roles.
First, excellent people tend to have bigger variance and second, most jobs just don't require being that good.
I imagine that in today's Apple, there's no way Jony Ive would be as influential. And maybe that's just how things go:
The types of people who can innovate and change things are dissatisfied with the status quo. But once you ARE the status quo, you seek precisely the people who want to maintain it.
Sure! I think the (maybe sad) reality is that most larger companies don't actually need excellence in most roles.
First, excellent people tend to have bigger variance and second, most jobs just don't require being that good.
I imagine that in today's Apple, there's no way Jony Ive would be as influential. And maybe that's just how things go:
The types of people who can innovate and change things are dissatisfied with the status quo. But once you ARE the status quo, you seek precisely the people who want to maintain it.
[deleted]
> If you care about your work enough that you're willing to come to the office every day (or even move cities/countries), then you'll be extremely engaged.
Or extremely stupid (if for the same money you get WFH without the need to move to another city or even country and waste I don't know how many hours commuting, and spending most of your life in a space that you can't really adapt to your needs).
Or extremely stupid (if for the same money you get WFH without the need to move to another city or even country and waste I don't know how many hours commuting, and spending most of your life in a space that you can't really adapt to your needs).
But you're precisely proving my point: If you're willing to go through all of that, you're super committed to that job!
If you're committed for the right reasons or not ultimately doesn't matter, but it is a filter for candidates.
Plus there are people who genuinely like working from an office full-time.
If you're committed for the right reasons or not ultimately doesn't matter, but it is a filter for candidates.
Plus there are people who genuinely like working from an office full-time.
I see your point, but the risk is that instead of the most motivated ones you get the most desperate ones. It is not the same.
May be the problem with hiring from wider geography is that evaluation of a candidate performance is a difficult and largely unsolved problem. Hiring from a small area (like SV) an employer can rely on offline social networks (friend of my friend knows a candidate). Though I don’t understand why US companies so afraid to make a bad hire given that it is easy to fire someone who doesn’t perform well in the US.
>Though I don’t understand why US companies so afraid to make a bad hire given that it is easy to fire someone who doesn’t perform well in the US.
I assume because in the US employees can still sue for what they would consider wrongful termination, especially if the worker is part of a protected group, making firing a very expensive endeavor in the end.
I assume because in the US employees can still sue for what they would consider wrongful termination, especially if the worker is part of a protected group, making firing a very expensive endeavor in the end.
In practice this almost never happens.
Even people who are actually discriminated against, which is very common, don't typically sue. It's a lot of work to sue, and while you're at it, you don't have a job or health insurance. Most workers are just focused on getting another job so they're not on the street or bankrupted by an unexpected surgery.
I've seen now multiple cases of very obvious discrimination. Nothing actually comes of it. If the brass wants you gone, you're gone. You have no recourse, laws are basically just suggestions when it comes to corporations.
Even people who are actually discriminated against, which is very common, don't typically sue. It's a lot of work to sue, and while you're at it, you don't have a job or health insurance. Most workers are just focused on getting another job so they're not on the street or bankrupted by an unexpected surgery.
I've seen now multiple cases of very obvious discrimination. Nothing actually comes of it. If the brass wants you gone, you're gone. You have no recourse, laws are basically just suggestions when it comes to corporations.
If it's so easy to fire people with no consequences, how do you explain the reticence of companies to take some risks in hiring.
Companies are risk-averse to a detriment. If you look at huge companies who have failed over time you'll notice something: they have the tools, but they don't have the balls.
Companies are pretty much always going to prioritize the lowest-risk highest-value option right now, over and over and over, until they eventually fail. This doesn't just pertain to hiring, but all business decisions. RCA, GE, GM, you name it, this is how it's done. It's the American school of business.
Companies are pretty much always going to prioritize the lowest-risk highest-value option right now, over and over and over, until they eventually fail. This doesn't just pertain to hiring, but all business decisions. RCA, GE, GM, you name it, this is how it's done. It's the American school of business.
The hypothesis I settled on is that they're cracking down on overwork, so people pulling two jobs in secret.
There's also the question of executives having a stake in the commercial real estate that's used for the office, but I think it's secondary, as they're too okay with firing people for that to be the main reason.
There's also the question of executives having a stake in the commercial real estate that's used for the office, but I think it's secondary, as they're too okay with firing people for that to be the main reason.
It's not complicated, they don't trust remote workers except for a few exceptional individuals.
Are there any companies making the news that are going in the opposite direction? Allowing more flexible “hybrid”, or even full remote?
I recently got an Amazon recruiter ping, but realized that they couldn’t pay me enough to commute into the city center. I’m not really looking, but if push came to shove, I would have to if the industry is really moving back to the office. Makes me real sad.
I recently got an Amazon recruiter ping, but realized that they couldn’t pay me enough to commute into the city center. I’m not really looking, but if push came to shove, I would have to if the industry is really moving back to the office. Makes me real sad.
How do you want them to pump up real estate prices if people can work and live outside of city centers ? What are they going to do with all these gigantic towers ? Thinks about these poor mill/billionaires!
Who is "they"?
The companies bringing employees back to the office aren't typically the owners of these buildings not are they real estate investors.
The companies bringing employees back to the office aren't typically the owners of these buildings not are they real estate investors.
If they (the companies) aren't the ones who own the buildings then why are they doing this?
Not rhetorical - from my perspective, it seems like RTO is plainly a money-waster. If you're hybrid or remote and it's working, why take the risk? And, why pour your pockets on things that don't make you money, like office space? Cubicles don't produce your product, people do.
I mean, it just makes so little sense to me. I don't think that means it's a conspiracy. But, clearly, we are missing something that executives are factoring into this decision.
Not rhetorical - from my perspective, it seems like RTO is plainly a money-waster. If you're hybrid or remote and it's working, why take the risk? And, why pour your pockets on things that don't make you money, like office space? Cubicles don't produce your product, people do.
I mean, it just makes so little sense to me. I don't think that means it's a conspiracy. But, clearly, we are missing something that executives are factoring into this decision.
Companies don’t lease month to month. Empty space is $$$$ out the door every month.
The parent comment is specifically about the motivation for back to office being real estate prices.
Sunk cost fallacy may be a factor but it's not the same.
Sunk cost fallacy may be a factor but it's not the same.
No, but many of them may have signed agreements that provided tax breaks for their office location.
Local businesses want humans near them.. that was the agreement, and the government wants that generated tax revenue.
Many of this big orgs are not "maintaining their side of the agreement" - hence pressure to return.. lest tax breaks get challenged.
Local businesses want humans near them.. that was the agreement, and the government wants that generated tax revenue.
Many of this big orgs are not "maintaining their side of the agreement" - hence pressure to return.. lest tax breaks get challenged.
Those tax breaks offset the price of the office. The price off the office doesn't need a tax break if you don't have an office.
Frankly, the idea that there is any logical financial motivation (aside from an idea of increased productivity) for return to office is far fetched.
Frankly, the idea that there is any logical financial motivation (aside from an idea of increased productivity) for return to office is far fetched.
Megacorps are making dumb, outdated, bureaucratic, inflexible, control-freak, paternalism fashionable again.
Its because the leadership is always stuck in the past and never stops to ask "is this the right thing to do?"
Ethics are a quaint memory because leadership of private equity/publicly-traded companies are graded primarily only on profit maximization. And, leadership often pays MBB consultants to think for them, effectively outsourcing decision-making and creating a fall guy so they can blame someone else for screwing up.
"globally consistent, enterprise-wide work model" sounds dystopian.
Another company I’ll never want to work for then.
[deleted]
- We need save climate! Less pollution!
- Can I work from home?
- That's not what I meant!
My previous company had some "greenest employee" award for commute with most transit, etc - they told me I didn't qualify because I wfh... even though I didn't drive at all for work.
Probably the worst company I've interviewed for. Yet another reason to stay away
Agreed. I had a bizarre interview experience with them whereupon finishing the interview, the hiring manager emailed me once a week for about 4 or 5 weeks in a row asking if I was still interested. It was bizarre. How many times do I have to say yes? After the 4th or 5th time I just told them no, not any more.
Ghost jobs perhaps to test the market, inflate stats reported to regulators, and/or HR people justifying their jobs.
I don't think so. This was almost 15yrs ago before this was common. Also they wouldn't waste time asking if I was still interested after completing a full interview if it was just a ghost job.
> After the 4th or 5th time I just told them no, not any more.
I hope that is the point where they sent the offer.
I hope that is the point where they sent the offer.
Indeed, it's even worse if you get acquired.
These sorts of power plays are impossible in a resource-constrained setting.
Meanwhile, spare a thought for the poor devils graduating from CS degree programs right now.