| I get the sense that many employers see WFH as a temporary measure rather than long-term shift. And consequently they're not willing to seriously invest in tools and processes that would make WFH maximally productive. Suppose for example that Google enacted this policy: (1) They reimburse each employee up to $30k to upgrade their home office, including soundproofing. After Google trained local builders on effective soundproofing strategies and designs. (2) Google provides (with installation) a Google Jamboard to facilitate virtual whiteboard sessions. (3) Google updates their team rules and meeting rules s.t. if anyone in a team or meeting is remote, then the entire team or meeting is remote. (4) Google invests in networking infrastructure (as needed) to ensure decent network connectivity from the employee's home office to Google's internal networks. I imagine that all FAANG companies could afford this. The open question, to me at least, is whether or not that magnitude of investment would make WFH a net win for those companies. But if they see WFH as a short term measure, I assume the answer is no. |
(2) What for? They just gave you a lump sum. Google is not a builder, its a software company!
(3) ??? How can you come up with this? Why would I work remote, just because someone else works remote. I makes zero sense. This rule would effectively eliminate remote work. If you work remote, it's your business. There should be policies in place to foster inclusion of remote workers. However, there could still be the option for "fully remote teams", which is generally a better choice.
(4) Again, Google is not a builder or telecom service. If you want to work from home, make sure you move to a place with a good internet connection..
Tzzz. Expectations people really have. How about Google also does your laundry, takes care of your child while you WFH, so you don't get distracted and perhaps prepares lunch and pads you on the back after 5pm for a job well done?