[jrockway]

To me the concern here is that if a company offers working remotely as an option, remote workers will always be second-class citizens. (The bad habit of Slack DMs instead of conversations in a public channel is already pretty entrenched.) People that work in the office will have casual conversations that exclude people working remotely, and the remote workers will always be a little behind. I think for that reason that all or nothing is the most fair. (I wonder if giving people a coworking space for free is the answer to people that need to get away from home, which is a completely reasonable concern.)

[macksd]

I'm not sure I'd want all-or-nothing to be the norm. I was a full-time remote worker before the pandemic, but I think one of the reasons it worked so well for me is because I had been able to build up a lot of the working relationships I have now in person. I made the decision to go remote because it was just going to work better for me, and I was fully aware that I would have to work at not being forgotten by the people in the office. There are ways to deal with it: you need to overcommunicate, make conscious efforts to get in on "office gossip" (the non-toxic kind), etc. An occcasional office visit or retreat makes a big difference.

Some of the people I've enjoyed working with the most have really struggled with the 100% remote dynamic during the pandemic. They have different personalities which have made it hard for them to be stuck at home, but those personalities make them great team members too. I'm not sure I'd want to just never work with people like that again.

[bendauphinee]

> is because I had been able to build up a lot of the working relationships I have now in person

I’ve been remote only for a decade, and built those same relationships while doing so.

[macksd]

Yeah it's definitely doable. I suppose in addition to the relationships, I especially appreciate having been in the office because it was very early in my career. There's a lot of stuff I know now that I didn't know then about how typical software companies work (where my previous jobs had been very different). I suspect I would've had a much harder time picking up a lot of unspoken understanding if I had been remote right off the bat. Meeting random people (big fan of Donut in Slack now) and being in hallway conversations was a really big deal for me, even though I don't much care for that when I have a choice.

[ghaff]

I've been fully remote for a few years and more remote than not for quite a bit longer. But it's difficult for me to imagine having done this as a fresh grad. Very different time and communication channels to be sure, but still.

[carlisle_]

>People that work in the office will have casual conversations that exclude them, and they'll always be a little behind.

My experience is that this behavior doesn't get translated to remote-only workplaces. Casual in-person conversation doesn't shift to chat platforms, it just happens less frequently.

People being remote that miss out on office chit-chat aren't actually missing out on something if their coworkers can help it. I think these interactions are incredibly important for people who value them, and fear of "leaving out" remote workers isn't a very good reason to prevent them.

The most effective workplaces I've been at that have had successful remote workers are the teams that try to consistently involve those people. It's not a set of rules or trainings that makes people do this, it's a mix of cultural values and individual conscientiousness.

[vp8989]

I think all or nothing is not realistic for most companies unless the CEOs are very progressive and just deeply believe in it.

A decent workaround is to have entirely remote teams and entirely in-office teams. That way people can be on teams where they feel like being remote is not a detriment to their careers (because ALL discussion takes place online) and people who prefer working in-person don't have to force everything onto Slack just to have the remote people feel included.

[vineyardmike]

At my company we’ve always had teams that appeared “all remote”. They just were teams not stationed in the HQ and they were clearly less important (or that was the vibe) and they were usually in a low COL country instead.

The mix definitely will make a cohort of “second class citizens”

[vp8989]

Ye I totally get what you mean and I have observed this a lot too.

I think for some people though, this might be an acceptable trade off (even temporarily) where they favor being able to WFH and not need to be tethered to train lines / highways for commuting over being "close to the action".

If companies offered this trade off across the board it would be a good way to retain employees over the long term as your life situation changes (kids etc ...) you can kind still find a place at the same company that can accomodate the lifestyle you desire at that point in time.

[pnutjam]

On the flip side. I find that when people don't see me, they treat me better. I sound white and have a white name, but I'm brown and this seems to cause issues.

[slavapestov]

> I think for that reason that all or nothing is the most fair.

It seems like the fairest is to offer both and let the employees decide if the tradeoffs are worth it, then?