Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by teddyh 524 days ago
It is extremely generous of you to assume that those who push for RTO have the company’s interest in mind.
1 comments

Okay, so what's the point? Just to piss of employees and waste money on real-estate and snacks?
Organizations consist of many individuals with different motivations, so it's hard to ascribe a single reason to an individual or group.

Here are some of the real and assumed reasons that companies are pushing for this:

- They have accepted tax breaks or other financial benefits from cities tied to specific headcounts or jobs created

- They are locked into longer term leases or own the building outright and want to make use of their sunk costs

- They found that (on average?) remote employees are less productive

- They want to encourage employees to find another employer

- It's a control/showing-off thing

There seems to be a financial motivation behind this and apparently employee happiness/productivity doesn't appear to be part of it. I [anecdata warning] don't see employers mentioning any sort of commute benefit/subsidy for returning to the office nor do I see 'remote employment' touted as a benefit so these decisions are being made without any consideration for employees.

I guess pick from one of the above and figure out which way a company stands to benefit - there's your answer.

> They have accepted tax breaks or other financial benefits from cities tied to specific headcounts or jobs created

I don't think that's how tax cuts work. No matter the incentives, it's cheaper to not have office space than to have office space and get some write off. I doubt some city is saying "For every $100 of office expenses, we'll give you $200 of tax credits". If anything, companies track days worked from home so they don't have to pay as much city taxes

> They are locked into longer term leases or own the building outright and want to make use of their sunk costs

You can always sublease and many do. There are also variable expenses (insurance, maintenance, etc)

> They found that (on average?) remote employees are less productive

This is my belief

> They want to encourage employees to find another employer

Maybe, as a filtering mechanism. Kind of like soft layoffs, but its very risky.

> It's a control/showing-off thing

Also very risky because you just piss people off and pay to do it.

Some people become bosses and managers because they like to boss people around. When they’re not physically around other people who are their subordinates, they can’t scratch their itch. More generously, some people have built their whole management style on watching people around the office and get a feel for what’s going on. And if they can’t see someone, they assume that that person is hiding somewhere in order to slack off. Now imagine this person a few years ago in a company which went all work-from-home. This person would want cameras on all employees during work hours, and constant meetings, to to get that same feeling that they can get a sense of what is going on. This same person would naturally advocate to RTO as soon as possible, could not clearly articulate why, but would fall back on their managerial authority to get it done.