[DeepThoughts]

I’d like to propose a reframing of your scenarios for objectivity:

WFH is horrible for some people in some scenarios.

WFO (work from office) is also equally terrible for some people in some scenarios. It’s just that people have generally normalized and accepted that these horrible WFO situations are required to feed yourself.

Barring jobs where you cannot function without physical presence, I’d say we need to fundamentally rethink why WFO is a default. And why we think a baseline of suffering for some people is generally OK.

[treis]

I feel like it's an all or nothing proposition. If you have some WFH and some in the office over time the office folks will out politic the WFH folks. It's also hard to be a remote attendee of a meeting that's happening with some in person. Definitely feel like a third wheel.

IMHO, if you mix WFH and office the WFH folks will end up like internal contractors that don't have the same advancement potential as their office colleagues.

[ghaff]

I respectfully disagree.

Many larger companies already are coordinating across multiple locations and timezones. One of the teams I work with has people on Eastern US time (though not all in the same office even before this) and Europe.

Another group is in two geographically separated offices in Eastern Time.

And other groups are just scattered all over.

[tuna-piano]

Just going to guess that whichever location the team has the most people and wherever manager works from become the places where big decisions are made and promotions come from.

I've worked remote when the rest of the team is in an office, and it's definitely not for all positions/teams.

[ghaff]

I agree that situations where N-1 of the team is physically located in an office and one person isn't tend to be difficult. But we're mostly now often talking about significant distribution/WFH.

The groups I'm involved with were already distributed with not much in terms of a "home base."

[spfzero]

But it would have to be some really serious “advancement opportunity” to make up for the 90 minutes of your life spent commuting every day, no?

[arbitrary_name]

Yeah, I am early thirties, working in consulting, strong resume including faang member companies... and you will have to drag me back to an office screaming. I simply don't care enough about my career trajectory to have my entire lifestyle dictated by where my office happens to be.

[ksk]

More companies would adopt WFH if they see the success (primarily economically) of other companies who adopt it. Its really as simple as that. Why would any company want to rent expensive commercial real-estate and other overhead if the end result was _worse_ for their bottom line.

Personally, I believe that WFO is still the better way to function. Human collaboration is tied in closely with pre-existing conventions, using multiple modes of communication, and building camaraderie. I think its clear that conventions and ritualistic practices help a ton with social cohesion. Also we use multiple methods to communicate our ideas and feelings - verbal, non-verbal, physical, non-physical, facial expressions, tone of voice, etc. Someone punching the air when they've solved a hard problem, or some co-worker who isn't on your team that you only occasionally meet, excitedly telling you a fun story about their vacation or whatever. There is tons of communication that happens between humans in an office that is difficult if not impossible to replicate in a WFH environment. As a society, I think we'd be poorer for that if we lose it.

[richardwhiuk]

Can you provide some examples of WFO being such an issue? Is it mostly "commuting sucks"?

[ericb]

Commuting sucks is enough! Commuting wastes 52 minutes a day, not counting gas station and maintenance trips. It is expensive, dangerous, and uses around 6-7% of your waking hours while polluting the environment.

Past that:

-If you have kids, you often can't easily get them if they have an emergency at school, or appointments

-WFO encourages buts-in-seats management vs. productivity based management

-Background noise

-Interruptions to your workflow that break creative "flow"

-Time spent packing lunch

-Money spent on cafeteria food

Whatever benefits WFO has, it needs to cover commuting costs, loss of life (car accidents), loss of time, loss of concentration, and for the company, the expense of renting and maintaining office space before it can break even in cost-benefit.

[treis]

WFO nickels and dimes you on equipment. I can bill out 300k in hours a year but getting a company to spend $1,000 on monitors, chair, keyboard, etc. is like pulling teeth. They expect me to work on a 14" laptop and maybe an external monitor. At home I can use my setup.

[perryizgr8]

If I'm WFH why should I spend my money and use my equipment to work? I have a large gaming monitor, why should my company expect everyone to make similar purchases to be able to work properly? In office even though companies are miserly, they do provide a baseline of equipment that is good enough for most people.

[schwartzworld]

WFO nickels and dimes you, but you're okay paying out of pocket for all your equipment at home?

By that logic, you could just bring your own monitor and chair and keyboard into the office.

[treis]

I already have the equipment at home for my personal use.

[scotuswroteus]

which is often BANNED

[schwartzworld]

Your office wouldn't allow you your own chair?

[22c]

Commuting, (mostly) fixed hours, noise levels, personal space.

To expand a bit on the fixed hours, early-birds tend to be fine with getting to the office early, but night owls will either get kicked out or have to deal with people vacuuming floors around them.

[perryizgr8]

Our workplace has a nice solution for this. Office timings are 8 to 5. Early birds can arrive at 8 and leave by 5. But this is not enforced. Many night owls only arrive by 11 or 12 and leave later or leave by 3 or 4 and continue work from home at their time. Leadership just needs to be flexible enough.

[trengorilla]

I've just gone back to WFO and here are the reasons it sucks for me:

- an extra hour per day getting ready and travelling which increases stress and is ~250 hours per year simply wasted - many people have to waste much more.

- my office has terrible facilities. there is no natural light, heating is inconsistent and it's dusty.

- my office is attached to a factory so i have to listen to lathes running for a full 8 hours per day while i'm trying to solve problems.

- no eating area so i pretty much sit in my car for my lunch break

- people are constantly interrupting me with trivial issues that have absolutely no priority

- i don't really socialise at work much anyway so what's the point? i'm the only developer so there's no benefit from being near a team

Instead I could sit in my office at home with a superior set up, superior comfort, relaxing environment. I can go and have a lie down whenver I want. I can start and finish work at odd times if necessary. I can go to the gym on my lunch break.

It's just no contest for me personally although I must admit the quality of my office environment is certainly below average.

[andrewfong]

You get sick more often, especially with an open office setup. Even pre-COVID, it was kinda common during flu and cold season to have a big chunk of your team sniffling or wheezing. Someone who should stay home inevitably shows up because of an important meeting or they don't want to use a sick day or whatever, and then half the office ends up sick.

[trashymctrash]

I agree. I was seated next to a guy with a small kid, so naturally he got sick all the time. And then I got sick as well

I usually tell people to go home if they are sick, but some of them are too proud and say "I'm fine". Since I'm not the manager, I can't force them, but I think I'll switch to home office when those scenarios happen again

Any other suggestions how to deal with those situations?

[snegu]

I think the biggest issue is that you need to live near your office. This usually means you have to spend a lot more on housing than you would otherwise. This is why I went remote - we couldn't afford any houses near my workplace.

[throwa112233]

- Being tethered to a physical location means limited options for where you can live. You live where you have to, not necessarily where you want to.

- Commuting sucks, unless you live in a nice neighborhood and can walk to work or take a leisurely ride. This doesn't exist for most people. It's especially bad in the bay area if you need to take BART. Who wants to be packed inside a train like sardines with people smoking crack. Seriously, have you ever seen a train station during commuting hours? They're 10 rows deep of people waiting to get on. That's assuming it isn't shut down for some random reasons. I should also mention wasting around 2 hours a day that you could spend on more sleep or hobbies.

- Open offices suck and are a poor excuse that they increase collaboration. Constant disruptions (both sound and visual noise), can't have any personal conversations and need to find a meeting room or hide in the hallways. Not to mention, I don't need/want to see my coworkers on facebook all day while they complain that they don't have enough time to finish their tasks.

- WFH can contribute to a more flexible schedule. Most people cannot focus non-stop for hours on end. It's healthy to take breaks but you can't do much beyond walking around your office (if it's in a safe location) if you're tied to the office.

- many more but I got tired of typing.

[jetru]

If everyone was as reasonable as you, the world would be a nice place