[dogman144]

No, see what I mean in another thread. Return-to-office is in large part steered by public opinion and commercial real estate issues.

For every bold company that leans into remote, the majority rest check the public temperature and do what seems in line pending open revolt form their employees or competitors offering remote.

So much of the public temperature around remote work is oriented around heavy support from public figures for return to office. By some employees supporting it as well, everyone risks getting swept back into office whether they like it or not and don’t have a job with enough power (like a talented dev) to go against the grain and protest.

If you’re not in those jobs with leverage and at a company considering RTO or not, Employees supporting remote work are espousing very safe career views, and the employees who disagree risk going against the grain with mgmt who want the office back so stay silent.

So this is what I mean by OP’s opinions mean everyone else gets swept in it as well.

[mym1990]

So you are advocating for the censorship of someone who supports return to office based on the fact that it would create a sweeping effect across the industry that would force you back into a cubicle? Yeah, no thanks.

[dogman144]

The sweeping effect is already happening.

The Mayor of NYC and state governor are directly petitioning companies to “fill our downtown!” For Pete’s sake.

So, with that in mind, I’m advocating for employees who want to go back to consider how their vocal opinions affect other employees who don’t want it, which based on the ghost-town hybrid office attempts and midtown NYC being at like 40% capacity are a critical mass of workers, to understand how their vocal-ness gets co-opted by entities that care a lot less about that worker’s having a friend group and more about commercial real estate, getting commuters back and generally abstract “well this is how it’s always done” logic, and to understand that they as employees add the final piece to making RTO happen in a way that harms all employees who aren’t in nimble jobs like SWE but should still be able to see their families grow up even if they don’t know how to code.

On the remote work side, you have largely tech companies which are down for it no issue but aren’t most companies, and then you have employees who just want to see their families and soccer games and get to know their spouses before age 60.

This population gets ignored by the somewhat very powerful stakeholders for RTO by wrapping up the argument in abstract “national /personal meaning” arguments as if the office is the only way to get those, and then the addition is that the stay-at-home employees are pajama-wearing slackers who don’t understand this greater good.

But, as long as employees don’t budge by and large and hop companies for remote, this is in balance for both the employees that want to be remote and the ones that want an office.

But when employees who want to RTO and start advocating for it, it’s changed. They add the final piece for employers and stakeholders who ultimately just want commercial rent paid and downtown lunch traffic to say “see, employees want RTO too!” This is all over LinkedIn and op-eds consistently.

The sweeps start happening, and everyone comes in, all because Bob wanted easy access to after-work pub experiences. At the cost of other employees’ family lives and literal hours of their day on a commute.

I’m not advocating for censorship, I’m advocating for candor in evaluating what’s going on.

[kaashif]

The great thing about markets is that we can both get what we want. You can get a remote job, and I can get an in-person job.

I will continue to argue against any government regulations forcing the issue one way or another. But if companies start demanding workers return and the pool of jobs available to you shrinks, that's not my problem.

To be clear, I oppose Mayor Adams's (and anyone else's) inept efforts to distort the labor market in favor of in-person working, even if it's towards something I personally prefer. Government should play no role in remote vs in-person.

[dogman144]

Yes I agree, interested to see how it plays out. But I’d argue Adams and Albany’s pressure on PwC or whoever to renew their midtown lease paired with my various employee-unity rants ITT will be what results in the meaningful RTO events. There won’t be any laws, just social pressure.

The market might solve it via PwC tanking over 10 yrs due to talent, but in the meantime that’s 10 yrs of people who deserve to see their families more too and can’t.

You could argue they should just be good enough at their jobs and/or choose the right career as to get remote options. Fair enough and this is what I’ve done.

But the implied primitive that the market decides who gets more family time, especially when it’s almost as simple as internet at the office or internet at home, seems very socially wrong to me.

[mym1990]

You're asking for candor, but not giving a bit of it back. Your argument can be completely flipped for the other side and it would make the same points. You are assuming OP is on LinkedIn boards and in work meetings holding up signs to initiate RTO. In reality they are probably just on HN expressing an opinion. For Pete's sake.

[dogman144]

How so? What am I not being candid about and how can it be flipped. I’m not assuming OP is anywhere, I’m pointing out what OPs opinion, in aggregate, does to job trends and the externalities and consequences are beyond a narrow “I miss going to the pub after work.”

Candidly, I believe that employees who advocate for RTO are playing into the hands of stakeholders who don’t care much at all about those employees interests and reasons for going in, and by extension it damages fellow employees who want to stay remote.

The issue is, and by extension my primitives:

- remote employees can stay remote without damaging RTO employees’ social connections as there are a mountain or ways to get those social connections outside of easy-mode work.

- if RTO employees start going back, remote employees get damaged. There is the binary in office/not in office option. demonstrated outcomes are RTO pressure from some leads to RTO pressure for all.

- so, remote employees aren’t infringing on RTO, but RTO infringes on remote. There is more than enough evidence of this. One is allowing whoever to do whatever, the other is infringing on one population to support the social needs of another. That doesn’t seem right for Pete’s sake.

Ultimately, between a person’s ability to get easy access to a pub in light of the above, vs the resulting damage on employees who just want to work via the internet connection in their homes vs the one in the office and as a result see their kids grow up and get to know their spouses outside of pre-8am and post-7pm… that seems like a clear greater good to orient around and to be aware of one’s views’ impacts. It’s more than just pub nights involved.