undefined | Better HN

0 pointscableshaft3y ago0 comments

So what if they are? (And I'd argue there's not much hard evidence of that, and the in-person working together I did a couple months ago at an engineering summit was completely ineffective and far from innovative, and I think the pandemic in general has proven that people don't need to be in-person to be effective and innovative.)

Why must a company hyper-maximize the effectiveness of every employee at the expense of their work-life balance and happiness (assuming they would rather be remote, of course)?

And if the employee isn't happy, they're probably a lot less effective in-person than you might think, but you assume they are just because they're physically present.

0 comments

paulcole3y ago

> I think the pandemic in general has proven that people don't need to be in-person to be effective and innovative.)

Yes, for some subset of people.

Many people found they did prefer to be in-person to be effective, innovative, and enjoy their work. Some companies are going to want to hire those people and avoid hiring the ones who don’t prefer in-person work.

Nothing wrong with that. It’s somebody at the the company’s decision to make. And maybe it’s a bad decision or a good decision, who knows.

kar5pt3y ago

So why not let people decide for themselves whether they want to be remote? You're assuming in person workers are more effective, which is precisely what's in question to begin with.

paulcole3y ago

How is my assumption different from the pro-remote work people who assume remote workers are more effective.

Both sides here think they’re correct and are incredibly dogmatic and protective of their side.

Companies can choose to let workers decide. It’s definitely one of the options available. But companies can also mandate RTO or mandate continued remote work.

All of those choices allow the employee to decide if the company’s choice is a dealbreaker for them when it comes to where they choose to work.

Another issue is that the pro-remote workers love to assume that a pro-office person sitting alone in the office while everyone else works remotely makes everyone happy. This isn’t always the case.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointscableshaft3y ago0 comments

Why must a company hyper-maximize the effectiveness of every employee at the expense of their work-life balance and happiness (assuming they would rather be remote, of course)?

And if the employee isn't happy, they're probably a lot less effective in-person than you might think, but you assume they are just because they're physically present.

0 comments

paulcole3y ago

> I think the pandemic in general has proven that people don't need to be in-person to be effective and innovative.)

Yes, for some subset of people.

Nothing wrong with that. It’s somebody at the the company’s decision to make. And maybe it’s a bad decision or a good decision, who knows.

kar5pt3y ago

So why not let people decide for themselves whether they want to be remote? You're assuming in person workers are more effective, which is precisely what's in question to begin with.

paulcole3y ago

How is my assumption different from the pro-remote work people who assume remote workers are more effective.

Both sides here think they’re correct and are incredibly dogmatic and protective of their side.

Companies can choose to let workers decide. It’s definitely one of the options available. But companies can also mandate RTO or mandate continued remote work.

All of those choices allow the employee to decide if the company’s choice is a dealbreaker for them when it comes to where they choose to work.

Another issue is that the pro-remote workers love to assume that a pro-office person sitting alone in the office while everyone else works remotely makes everyone happy. This isn’t always the case.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse