[ddelt]

This has been my experience thus far as well. It hasn't really mattered how well I could frame productivity or measurable improvements in my quality of life to an immediate manager or team - ultimately if the senior leadership dislikes the idea of remote work, each level beneath them will hesitate to fully embrace it.

I've found that companies that promote work-life balance as one of their strengths are the best places to ask or test the waters.

[jerguismi]

"It hasn't really mattered how well I could frame productivity or measurable improvements in my quality of life"

First, your quality of life isn't really a selling point from employers point of view. To raise your odds at negotiations you should focus solely on the employers problems. The same applies when selling something - you should not focus on the benefits that you as a seller get (like money), but on the problems that get solved from the employer.

Secondly, focusing on raw productivity on alone seems to be quite a common thing on these discussions. I think it is quite limited viewpoint, since a ton of other things matter as well in addition to productivity. Communication with others, spreading your knowledge, trust issues, where to focus, etc.

[ddelt]

I don't necessarily disagree with the first point that you raised, but I would posit that if my quality of life sucks as an engineer, eventually that will become the employers problem when I update my cv and find work with a better quality of life, potentially too soon or at the wrong time.

Moreover, an employer is 'selling' their reputation to potential talent as well as selling their product.

[magicnmonkey]

When it becomes problem they fire you, they don't give you some special cash suitcase and tell you, go improve your life first.

[ddelt]

Where in my comment did I suggest that the employee be given a handout?

Perhaps I'm not working for companies who are as ruthless as you and the other commenter, but as my previous comments alluded to, I actually have updated my CV, and left jobs for other, better jobs, mostly because there was a work-life balance improvement to be gained from the move. And yes, the work-life balance improvement in all situations was a more accepting and flexible remote-work policy. And that was after using available avenues (asking manager(s), 1-1s, etc) to see if a WFH arrangement was viable.

In all cases, I did so with tact and professionalism.

That might be getting lost in translation, because your comment seems to indicate that I just walked into my bosses office and complained that my life sucks and I need to work from home, or else. And that I should be given a handout.

In my opinion, you use what avenues are available to you to see if WFH is possible. If it's important to you, and you aren't getting met half-way, then it's time to start looking elsewhere.

[souprock]

Remote work goes against having the best work-life balance.

When you walk out the door of the office, work should be over and done with until you return. Taking work home should be impossible.

Paid overtime helps greatly. It discourages the employer from trying to get free work out of you.

Having a non-zero commute doesn't have to mean commuting for 2 hours in urban traffic. You can pick a location where a tiny commute is possible.

[eeeeeeeeeeeee]

Huh? I work 40 hours a week remote in my office. After 5pm I close my office door and I’m done.

[whateveracct]

In an office, many engineers surely _actually_ work well under 40 hrs most weeks. If you're remote, that time is yours to spend time with pets and family, do chores, run errands, relax, exercise, etc.

[memling]

Ten minutes in the car on a 240-day work year is one work week. While commuting has some benefits, like decompression time and work life separation, even a short commute has an impact on your free time. Remoting has hazards that one ought not downplay, but the lack of commute is a bigger deal than we might realize.