Also — would you WFH if you had to take a pay cut of 10% or greater?
However, few offices are ideal. Traffic and commuting is one of the worst little things of daily life. It's dangerous. It ruins the environment. Parking sucks.
Good offices are wide open spaces, with good air, good climate, and cheerful environments. Many offices are bad environments and overcrowded.
There's a balance that COVID has tilted. Some will learn that they don't need offices anymore, especially when people have decked out their home offices. It's likely we'll see employers double down on home offices where they can. Some, like Airbnb or Apple might find that morale is better in their offices. Some smaller companies might set up theirs out of major cities, where lifestyle is cheaper and less crowded.
I agree, but commuting has significant mental-health benefits. It provides a clear mental separation between "work" and "home".
I and several of my coworkers have noticed that we never feel "off work" anymore. Work just bleeds into everything because there isn't that 30 minute period (enforced by the need to arrive home in time to make and eat dinner) to clear your head at the end of the day and mentally switch contexts.
My experience has been the exact opposite. I've been fortunate to have very reasonable commutes in all my jobs, but WFH is much better than my 25-30 minute commutes. I no longer get the "it's 5:50PM but can you take a quick look at this because you're the only one still here" issues that had me commuting home at 7 or 8 pm every few weeks. And then there's the 20 hours a week of time I get to play with my kid, do chores, or relax. Sure I still get the occasional slack message mid evening, but that was happening before WFH as well. There are downsides around ease of communication and sense of camaraderie, but work life balance/separation has been pretty much 100% win.
This seems like a stretch for anyone who has ever dealt with rush-hour traffic in a major city.
A lot of great startups start out in garages, but frankly most of us can't afford a garage, and some even sleep in less space than that. If we could afford homes that have garages, that would likely beat working in some big city skyscraper.
Only if you try to reimplement the traditional office and its processes in a WFH setting. That's an endeavour that's bound to fail.
In remote-first settings communication works differently, especially in that ideally it should happen mostly asynchronously, i.e. as written communication, which has the huge additional benefit of avoiding information silos through readily available documentation and decision records.
YMMV. Your home can be your ideal office, and is for many of us working remote (myself included). There are technology companies with hundreds of employees with billion dollar+ valuations who are fully remote. There is no proof they would be more efficient if you colocated all of those folks in person.
It is much harder to create a new billion dollar company if everyone is WFH, especially if there is a physical product as opposed to something that only manifests on screens.
It is much harder to on board and mentor new co-workers.
It is much harder to make a transition to the next position in your career, like a promotion or move within the company.
It is much harder to develop and maintain relationships that result in respect and trust for coworkers.
All of the above especially if most people are in the office.
I’ve become a bit like a contractor grinding through a series of similar projects, my career growth has stalled, and my only interactions with my coworkers who used to be friends now always boil down to ‘when will X be done?’
I would avoid WFH for anyone not in the sunset years of their career.
I think that one of the main reasons some people, and some professions (like banking), prefer working in person is because it is less accountable without the written/recorded history.
Now that a lot of the distractions and meetings are gone lots of people are realizing they really only work a couple hours a day and spend the rest dicking around or stuck in pointless meetings.
I've been at home since March and haven't had symptoms of anything which is so great.
I fully support this, and I to a degree, I've been doing it for 6 years already, and I find it extremely effective.
And no, I would not take a pay cut. Companies pay for what I bring to the table. As long as they get what they want from me, it should be irrelevant where am I.
If you aren't going to be paying for a workspace, a lab environment, electricity, etc. for me to do my job, I'll be the one paying for those things, so give me more money to pay for it.
If you're not going to pay for an office for me to use, pay me enough to afford a larger home with a dedicated office space.
I would happily take a pay cut to work from home, and I'd even happily take a 50% pay cut to cut my hours by 50%, and I'd like a pony...
On the contrary, you likely have lower commuting costs.
However, the more important aspect might be that you end up needing more space at home and the employer needs less space in the office. Working from your kitchen table is probably not the best idea in terms of ergonomics.
In my opinion this aspect gets few attention in the discussion.
Many couples do not have two spare bedrooms (especially in the Bay Area) to work in. That means potentially renting/buying a larger living space, or converting living space into working space.
N=1, but my lower commuting costs are more than offset by the lack of company-provided lunches, snacks, and coffee.
Working from home saves the company money. A company that is good to employees would recognise this and return at least some of the savings via payroll or reimbursements.
What a time to be alive.
Also, I would WFH for the paycut, and that's because technically I'm not home at the moment - and that is potentially more valuable than what the extra money would have bought.
I think we'll see a return to normal as there is too much vested interest in commercial property esp in the UK.
2. Managers are more effective at the office where they can talk to people and discover information: "manage by walking around".
3. Why are managers / executives necessary and often paid more? Because their contribution affects the work of many other people. Managers' work operates with leverage (for good or ill).
4. If offices make managers more effective, and managers leverage their effectiveness over a large number of people, then the greatest good for the company is likely to be a return to in-person working environments.
It may take a while, but most of us will be going back.
Will this happen in 2021? No idea. Some workplaces have announced full-remote until mid-2021 at the very least, and any cure / vaccine will take time to fully study, productionize, and distribute. It might take a few years to fully return, and there may be a slightly higher proportion of WFH even after that.
For a historical perspective: consider that humanity has weathered catastrophic pandemics before, and look to what happened there in the longer term. This time around, we have the further advantage of much better medicine / logistics than, say, during the 1918 flu. (We also, of course, have both the advantages and disadvantages that come with much faster communications channels.)
2. Absolutely not! By working from home, I'm taking on additional office-related expenses that would normally be paid for, plus expenses related specifically to remote work (e.g. webcams). If anything, I'd expect the company to help cover those expenses, and/or bump my salary up to compensate for added setup and logistics on my end (or even just to reflect the reduced overhead on their end - if they save money having me work at home, why shouldn't I see some of that?)
1. Lots of people have horrible internet connections making communication a frustrating experience. 2. Hard to get attention of colleagues when they don't respond on Slack. It was already hard enough in the office but at least you could physically walk into somebody's cube before. 3. Not everyone has the amenities of air conditioning or heating.
