[DoctorMckay101]

I think my sentiments are best expressed in a greentext manner:

> be me

> wfh as a soft dev for a big tech company

> company tells me to come back to the office

> they claim it is to promote coworking and socialize

> have to wake up an hour earlier

> 1h commute, no real public transport options

> get stuck in traffic, +20 minutes

> arrive late at office

> no matter, no one checks office logs and I turned on my laptop in the car

> half of the workers are wfh

> no one from my team is there

> remember they are not even from the same city lol

> put on my headphones

> zoom meeting, have to book a room

> finish meeting

> put some spotify on

> don't talk to nobody for 6h

> make a greentext in ycombinator

> leave an hour earlier because no one checks office logs

> 1h commute back

[noncoml]

In my latest 1-on-1 my manager was asking me to go back to office. In the same meeting a bit later when I said I’m underutilized and asked for more work, he said there isn’t much work to be done at the time other the sustaining I’ve been already doing.

He just wants me to be in office just for the shake of being in office..

[mytailorisrich]

> be in office just for the shake of being in office.

That's what most companies which now have a 'hybrid' model do. Many around here (UK) advertise at being 'hybrid', meaning 2 days in a office a week. But, really, why?

I think most companies don't have a solid justification for this.

IMHO, if there must be set days in office they must be special days with everyone in office the same day and a focus on face-to-face interactions. If it's to code in office instead of at home 1-2 days a week there is no point at all.

[DoctorMckay101]

Pretty much, yeah.

In my case I would not care about going to the office if it were anywhere near downtown. That way I could go down to my local pub or game store after work. However, my company is located in the periphery of the city. If I want to go anywhere that means getting in my car once more.

[xiphias2]

If you look at a financial point of view lot of companies need to show that offices are still critical for working, because office valuations (that the company may own or long term lease) are plummeting.

[izacus]

This conspiracy theory is repeatedly being dragged out but can you give any kind of proof that offices are actually something that moves a needle on any companies financial statement in a way that INCREASES profits?

[Mezzie]

Commercial real estate often operates under multi-year leases, so companies have property leases anyway, they figure they might get some use for it. Other than that, the pressure mostly has to do with the networks/social circles that those higher up in companies run in. Local governments have historically worked hand in hand with companies to make their locations good places for businesses because they benefit from the increased foot traffic/population/tax base. Now the two sides (companies and local/state governments) have competing interests and the heads of companies are being pressured and wooed pretty hard to get people back into offices.

If you're an executive and have a choice between pissing off your employees (who you view as fungible) and pissing off people in your network who could make your life/the life of your company more difficult, the obvious answer is to piss off your employees. If local and state governments can't depend on office workers for $$, they might need to start doing things like raising corporate tax rates or stop giving companies incentives/grants/exemptions. Basically in person is worse for the company's long-term bottom line but it's better in the short term for the people making the decisions. What does the CEO care if the company takes a hit in ~5 years? They won't be working there. They do care if they have to start paying more taxes or explain to the board why all of a sudden they have to start paying expenses that previously were offloaded due to agreements.

That's my read on it anyway. It's a fascinating social problem wherein the interests of the higher ups and the interests of the company as a whole are at odds.

[izacus]

> That's my read on it anyway. It's a fascinating social problem wherein the interests of the higher ups and the interests of the company as a whole are at odds.

Well there's plenty of readings like that, but there's very little evidence they're actually _true_. They're just stories told around fires about evil gods depriving poor workers of wfh.

I see plenty other (often misguided) reasons why managers keep pushing for RTO, but "my companys office space, oh egads" is almost never one.

[Mezzie]

I mean to be fair, it'd be nearly impossible to get evidence one way or another given we're discussing the true motives of people and those are impossible to objectively verify. I don't think there's any shady conspiracy, just incentives that are aligning in weird ways and that in most American companies worker satisfaction is something that's pretty easy to let fall compared to other factors. I also don't think that the managers etc. are doing this on purpose: I think it's a case where the publications they read and the members of their network they listen to want RTO and they trust the words and interpretations of business publications and the people they meet with often over those of their employees.

Knowing the 'gods' are stupid rather than evil doesn't change 'acting in their own interests but not the interests of employees/the long term health of the company' problem. Why are they buying into these misguided reasons? Because it benefits them to do so. Why are they listening only to the RTO side? Because those institutions are more trusted by the decision makers.

[jonfw]

If you have a 100 million dollar CRE building on your balance sheet, and sell it for 50 million, that's a 50 mill hit. Companies just don't want to realize the hit and kill their performance for that quarter

[nulbyte]

That would be rational, but I haven't seen anyone accuse businesses pushing for RTO of being rational.

[riley_dog]

my company is actively tracking everyone and their attendance, and then displaying metrics on attendance in all hands meetings. it's like high school or something.

[ac26]

This is a bit comical. I've always figured that hiring a manager to just play baby sitter for professional adults is the most inefficient use of company resources. I understand that there are certain industries which this might be more important but I'm going to guess most industries would benefit from having better hiring practices and a more trusting culture.

[mustacheemperor]

if you call out sick does your company's truancy officer drop by to make sure you aren't running around the canals with your friends?

[BeFlatXIII]

I will be the first one in, last one out, and on Hacker News all the time in between.

[tennisflyi]

Welcome to the Amazon warehouse with metrics like TOT with really nice trappings. Got got.

[theodric]

That's abusive behavior

[mk89]

Better than Jellyfish! :)

[halfmatthalfcat]

Definition of toxic.

[mbrochh]

Dude, get out!

[mypastself]

Your bosses taking notes right now:

“So this is all resolved if we monitor employees constantly, and punish them for being late.”

[2OEH8eoCRo0]

> no one from my team is there

I'm not at Dell but that would be me if I were forced into the office. I have teammates in every CONUS timezone and none are anywhere near my closest office. I'd essentially be in the office working remotely.

[mk89]

> > they claim it is to promote coworking and socialize

And they are right, look:

> get stuck in traffic, +20 minutes and > half of the workers are wfh

you have seen way more people than if you had stayed at home. Especially while driving, at the red traffic lights, or while overtaking cars/or while they overtake you :)

> > remember they are not even from the same city lol

it doesn't matter, distances should not matter, you could befriend someone that is 50 km away, why not - it doesn't matter that you're doing to meet him/her only once a year.

Overall, it does help socialize. :)

[junon]

My employer is not my mother or father. They have no business prescribing me extra-curricular socialization, nor are they afforded any privilege to dictate anything else about my personal life.

[scld]

They're not prescribing extra-curricular socialization for your personal life, though. They're prescribing on-the-clock socialization for your professional life.

[cbg0]

> on-the-clock socialization for your professional life

Can't wait to see this line in a company e-mail about forcing people into the office.

[Izkata]

I mean, it's pretty commonly called "networking"...

[junon]

> Especially while driving, at the red traffic lights, or while overtaking cars/or while they overtake you :)

If this wasn't a joke, then my comment was addressing that.

[mk89]

It was a joke! Sorry for the confusion. I hoped that the exaggeration would be considered as a joke.

[junon]

You never know on the internet :D I've seen wilder things suggested in seriousness.

[mk89]

Unfortunately it was meant as a sarcastic comment.

And of course I totally agree with you.

[DoctorMckay101]

Actually chuckled. Good comment.

[the_only_law]

Yet I can socialize just fine without even having a job.

[winocm]

I can extend this.

> company tells people to go to the office

> mfw when carbon neutral goals

[clnq]

That’s fine, they buy cheapest totally legit 100% bro trust me carbon credits to offset that.

[whywhywhywhy]

Seen this story regaled close to 100 times now. If you think complaining about this situation is going to result in the company allowing more WFH and not enforcing more WFO I’ve got some bad news for you.

Not sure why people keep thinking it’s a gotcha that will work in their favor.

[ZunarJ5]

I have to go in 1x/week and this is a good summary.

[globular-toast]

I go in once a week and quite often the whole day is literally socialising. I do absolutely no work on those days.

[sickcodebruh]

Is this a good thing, bad thing, indifferent?

I think a big part of many people’s contempt for their jobs comes from the sense that it’s an endless, thankless stream of tickets and demands. Seeing people in person, remembering they’re human, can help make the rest of the job more pleasant. A day of socializing might make the other four days of remote work more productive, increase job satisfaction, increase retention.

[globular-toast]

Personally I like a clear separation between work and home. If I'm just going to be socialising then I want it to be on my own terms. I'd rather just go for a walk than spend all day in an office with people I don't really like that much. If I'm going to be working then I want to be productive. I like to finish the day feeling like I've done something.

But perhaps the question is whether it's good for the company or for society as whole. That's a much more difficult question but I suspect that it is good for society and possibly the company too. It's normal to not like all aspects of society but it's still better than the alternative.

[the_only_law]

Shit if it’s just about that then just move the office to local bar. I promise I’ll socialize a lot better with you lamos if I’ve had a few drinks.

[Clubber]

What we do is have the team come in the HQ city once every 6 months for a week and have lunches and whatnot.

[ZunarJ5]

My team isn't in my office and people usually aren't super social. It's a bit of a waste of time here. I wish it was like yours.