Regarding return to office policy, I hear many speculations and reasons hypothesized. Mostly by employees who don’t really know and who had no choice in it.

I would like to know is if there are any lemmings out there who have been involved in these talks.

What was discussed?

How is something like this coordinated amongst others businesses even rivals.

What are the high level factors that have gone into the decision?

Bonus points: is it even possible for employees to prevent or reverse these policies at this point?

  • LordCrom@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    My company required everyone come back to the office. My team works in a terminal, we can do our work from anywhere. Everyone of my department went back in. I said no.

    They said I could be terminated

    I said go ahead and fire me, I’m the lead tech, 40 experience, I built and maintain more then half of the automation, I’m the only one who understands networking onprem and I cloud and has a security background.

    I dare you.

    They said they would make a special exemption for me.

    The moral of the story… You can demand stuff from your company if your company can’t function without you.

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Can you hire me and teach me the way 😆

      You’re what I want to be when I grow up. I’m middle aged.

  • KarlHungus42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I happened to be involved in such a meeting this morning.

    The conversation around the general policy was mostly supportive. The main concern is that we do not have an official policy in place and various teams are setting their own rules, which is occaisionally resulting in collaboration issues.

    The other main issue, unsurprisingly, regards what we can do to make sure that people are actually working when they are at home. For the most part, people are getting their work done, but there are always going to be people trying to take advantage and we discussed ways to track that without getting too “big brother” across the board.

    Sounds like we are going to implement a 2 day wfh allowance coordinated within teams, based on their schedules so that we have at least half of each team in the office each day, with exceptions for people with extenuating circumstances.

    We are not going to put any kind of tracking software on their machines, but we are going to monitor overall output.

    • timbuck2themoon@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I gotta be honest- sounds weird you weren’t already tracking output already.

      Like was output before wfh just “theyre in the office today”?

    • blargh513@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I never understand places that dont have some sort of work management methodology.

      In technology, we often use agile. Its complicated, but one key part is that the individuals determine what needs to be done to get an overall effort completed, creates the individual tasks in an application, schedules them for completion and makes notes about status as they go.

      Its a little micro, but it ends all questions of “is this person working”. Either theyre getting stuff done or they aren’t. We have regular sessions to check progress and reports are generated on an ongoing basis. If someone is dicking around it shows up real fast.

      I can’t imagine that places still just raw-dog all the work. What is Joe doing. No clue. When is he going to finish? Dunno. How is the project going? Beats me. Are we staffed appropriately? Good question.

  • nibble4bits@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    My wife’s employment (a national company providing services to homes) not only embraced the remote work that COVID forced her into, they closed down their central customer service call center to save that money.

    This year they’re talking about taking all the administrative people out of the local offices and only needing the service people pick up supplies and having the remote workers pick up the volume.

  • RBWells@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    They let us know their thinking here. I don’t personally have a dog in this fight, live a few blocks from the office so either way is fine with me. They landed on “hybrid” but now I just work at the office and do not bring my laptop home.

    Their thinking:

    Collaboration really is better in the office, zoom does not replace the experience of just being here and aware of conversations around you (fair enough) we are already paying for the office (not a real reason, could sublease, we already did with half of it).

    My thinking (they don’t care but) working from home benefits the rest of my family more than it does me. I can bike to work and do. Reclaimed the space in my house that was office, and absolutely ignore work when I’m home. Certainly would not force anyone else to, like my job did, but glad to have a space to work outside my house.

  • ApollosArrow@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Boiled down to “Me in charge. Come in” as a response to leadership.The reality is they rented out an office to hold 200 people, laid off half of them, and then were upset the place always looked empty when they brought clients around. It went from “You all need to be in office on Wednesdays, so we look like a big company”, to wanting everyone to return.

    The problem is a good majority of people had moved away during covid. Those were the first people to be laid off unless they were superstars. They had a lease agreement until 2026 and were already subletting the previous offices (They kept moving into new spaces as they grew before other leases were up) that also had long contracts. I am no longer there, but rumor is they are trying to sublet the 200 person office and find yet another small space. They are slowly turning into a real estate company.

  • Colonel_Panic_@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’ve been remote for 5 years, since Covid. And it’s been wonderful. I’ve been more productive, happier, better relationship with my family, had more time for hobbies and cooking healthy, spent WAY less money on fast food and gasoline. Before Covid I was in an office and hated it, but didn’t even know why, after I was home for a few weeks I realized why, it’s because I wasn’t being interrupted and distracted every 5 seconds all day long and when I had meetings I could keep working while talking on the video call instead of having to log off, get up and walk to a meeting room.

    Now they are making half the company come back in if you are within some arbitrary radius. Which means teams are all split like mine where half must now commute in, but half don’t, so me and half my team now has to commute in just to go into a conference room and join a video call with the other half.

    And the meetings are scattered all over every day so that basically means no actual work will get done every day.

    I’m looking forward to chatting with my coworkers and laughing as productivity tanks.

    Maybe instead of having meetings all day and forcing people to commute in for a computer based job management could be clear about what is needed, enable people and set them up for success and then leave them alone to get it done.

    It feels like trying to swim 100m, but there is a manager walking along the edge next to you asking you for updates every 5 seconds. Still swimming and the more you ask the longer this takes.

    I think RTO is just a power play. They can do a soft pay cut, a soft layoff as people quit, establish dominance and force employees to be their fake little family instead of their actual families.

    It’s so ridiculous.

    It’s the same fad thing as Open Office Layouts were a decade or two ago. Everyone hates it, productivity tanked, it was miserable, but everyone was doing it so CEOs did it to show how current they were.

  • Brkdncr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago
    • finding and hiring staff will be harder
    • attracting top tier talent will be harder
    • rent will be more expensive
    • childcare will require more sick leave
    • illness will require more sick leave
    • expanding to new territories will be harder

    The c-suite evaluated the cost of rent pretty good and had an existing problem of not being able to hire above average younger talent because the work they were doing was pretty boring. Advertising a good hybrid wfh policy (once a week or once a month in-office depending on different factors) has brought in good people.

    Basically, they saw that it was bringing in cash.

    The biggest challenge has been getting new hires integrated well with existing team leaders.

    There’s also team leaders that refuse to use Teams/zoom, but also don’t answer their phone. In the past you could corner them in their office but now they sort of anchor their team. It’s mostly self-repairing as they stagnate and other teams flourish.

  • meyotch@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    In my corporate experiences, these decisions were made unilaterally by the C suite without discussion.

    • FenrirIII@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      Our CEO literally woke up one Monday and demanded RTO by Friday. Fucking asshole works from home in Hawaii

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        what really needs to happen is for all the workers to just say “no” and continue working from home

        what are they gonna do, fire everyone? good luck

    • Blooper@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is pretty much the answer everywhere. So this post must be targeting c suite folks… on Lemmy.

      • KittenBiscuits@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yes, hi, we do exist. And we were trying to get CEO to implement a hybrid policy for years before covid. He hated the thought. And he was the type of person that would not hesitate to fire an entire department if they felt bold enough to complain about it. When I started there, I didn’t immediately report to him. Anyone there who had a layer of management between themselves and him had a pretty ok work experience there. Direct reports to CEO basically had to manage a toddler who was also the emporor with new clothes. I took the promotion to be his whipping post because I wanted to leverage it to move on. Instead now I have PTSD from an abusive boss and am not able to work full time.

        tl;dr – the C suite does discuss things amongst themselves with and without the CEO. But CEO already knows what they want to do, usually can’t be swayed, can only be warned what the consequences of their decisions will bring.

  • danciestlobster@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    Our office allowed voting to elect a committee to determine what return to office should look like. I was elected to it. They also hired external contractors to mediate basically. Some people came into it thinking everyone should go back to office, but by the end of it we settled that being in office should be required for certain types of work activities and not for others, and apart from the required activities for in office employees could be wherever. We drafted this up into a formalized agreement and everyone was happy with it.

    Then the president who did that program retired and the new guy immediately scrapped the whole thing and forced everyone back into the office overnight without any discussion from the committee or other employees.

  • ExtraMedicated@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    My company (small, < 50 people) basically did an informal survey and then CEO said that working from home is here to stay, with the option to work in the office whenever we want (and some do).

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’ve been in discussions regarding returning to the office for my group, whether other groups should return to the office, and whether to keep the days in the office or add more.

    For returning to the office, a lot of it came down to collaboration. My team does not use online communication tools to the quantity that it can substitute for in person communication. I advocated for a return to office for most staff, in part to benefit junior staff who weren’t communicating and needed mentorship. That meant the entire team had to show up on the same days, but I let them pick the days and changed those days on their request. The intent of the in person days is for them to talk to each other and coordinate.

    One group resisted coming into the office far longer than mine. They were pushed into coming into the office, along with a change in reporting, because that group was blowing budgets and missing deadlines. I said you can bring them into the office, but you have to change their group culture to be more collaborative and talk to each other. It has been an issue working with members of that group because they’ve gotten used to a lack of coordination and communication, which created poor work quality.

    When asked to go full RTO or increase days, I’ve pushed back. My group is mostly meeting deadlines and I see diminishing returns for more days into the office. I’m also aware it is a perk for staff, and not one I want to pull away. However, the gap in online versus physical interaction is still there.

    If you’re going to fight back against coming into the office more, then you’re going to need to argue on the basis of coordination and collective productivity. I’ve seen a lot of people claim individual productivity, but that included a lot of rework that could have been avoided with some five minute conversations. Not emails, conversations.

    On the flip side, if coordination isn’t a big deal, don’t expect raises any time soon. At that point, you’re a more easily replacable cog whose work can get pushed to places with lower costs of living.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I really dislike that a handful of people who can’t get their shit together to communicate over zoom are dragging everyone else (and the environment) down.

      I’d also wager that some of those people also communicate badly in person, but at least do communication shaped activities so it gets a pass.

      Like at my old job, there’d be long meetings both in person and over zoom where nothing would be accomplished. The problem is not if we’re in the same room or not. It’s that people don’t know what the fuck they’re doing at any level of this task. They don’t understand the system, and they don’t know how to run a meeting. The few times I just seized control and ran it like a D&D session went better. eg: "It’s not your turn. Please wait to speak. That’s an interesting idea but the game we set out to play meeting is about [topic], so we’re going to stay on topic. No, the rules say you can’t do that that’s not an option in a web browser.

      That worked fine in person and on zoom. The problem isn’t the medium. The problem is people.

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        That worked fine in person and on zoom. The problem isn’t the medium. The problem is people.

        Yeah, but the problem of management is people. And I’ve pointed out that management aren’t always the people who don’t communicate. And issues with communication are made worse when everything is pushed to text where nuance is lost and everything is archived which can be used against you.

        There are probably some teams that can work well remotely, but a lot of teams can’t. I generally find the best people who work remotely are highly competent at their job. Most people aren’t highly competent at their jobs.

        • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          And issues with communication are made worse when everything is pushed to text where nuance is lost and everything is archived which can be used against you.

          There’s some truth to this, but also video chat is commonplace now. That can be recorded too, but so can anything. Some of my coworkers started using Signal for out of band communication even though zoom/slack said they didn’t retain any recordings.

          If they can’t work remotely, they should be leveled up. Stop dragging everyone else down.

          And again, if you can only communicate in person you’re probably bad at communicating in person, too, without realizing it. I think a lot of CEO types think they’re amazing because they walk into a room and everyone’s like “yeah boss got it that’s great feedback”, and they don’t realize they just said a bunch of garbage and people just agreed because he’s the boss.

          • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            I think a lot of CEO types think they’re amazing because they walk into a room and everyone’s like “yeah boss got it that’s great feedback”, and they don’t realize they just said a bunch of garbage and people just agreed because he’s the boss.

            I bet. I also wouldn’t be surprised if the CEO gives direction, hears “can do, boss!”, but it doesn’t actually get done because there isn’t a triggered deliverable to verify. You may have junior staff doing what they’re being told, but it isn’t what the CEO wants because it is going through several layers of telephone and, because everyone is remote, it is harder to identify where the problem is.

            • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              When I worked an old job in the office, the game of telephone from the CEO down was so bad. People would get in their head that some things were MUST HAVE, but if I sneakily just asked the CEO directly he’d be like “no that’s not important”. But the designer thought he wanted it so she told the product lead it was important so our team product guy was told this was “straight from the top”.

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    There are decades of case studies showing people interact with people they have never met with more hostility, skepticism and less patience compared to people they have met in person. I am very much in favor of flex and hybrid work, but people who work in teams need regular face time to maintain the rapport.

  • HubertManne@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I had an employer that took a survey and had managers get feedback from their teams. The most common thing seemed to be wfh from it was not all of it. In discussions many would not mind having an office option for those who preferred it and as an emergency place to go if one lost power/internet and for some big time meetings (project scope type of things). Ultimately the companies formal policy was work where you want to but they rented so they basically stopped renewing contracts. By the time I left they had three offices. One was the original office of the company in the stix that they owned. The other was a new headquarters on the east coast and the last was in atlanta and im pretty sure that would go away once it contract ended. Would not be surprised if they sold the original office if they could get a good price.

  • ShadowRam@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    If you accepted a remote job, you should have it in writing that the job is ‘remote’ work.

    If your job wasn’t remote initially, but assumed it would be remote going forward, you should have demanded that the job has changed to ‘remote’ in writing.

    If your job wasn’t initially remote, was temporarily made remote, and they are now changing back. Be prepared to walk.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      In the US we have like no laws protecting labor. They’ll just tell you to go into the office, or fire you.

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I hate this line of reasoning. It’s not something I subscribe to. We’re not robots. We’re not blindly following some set of logic rules. There’s no humanity in that.

      My job was remote to start. Even if it wasn’t, this line of reasoning isn’t something I would ever use. Just because it was or was not a thing does not mean we’re forced to just accept things and not want life to be better. Especially if it’s a business decision based on things that do not make sense. Squeaky wheels get the grease. C suite makes decisions on information and if all people never spoke up just because things were a certain way when they arrived then nothing would change.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          There might be a written agreement of what the work, hours, compensation agreed to is, but that’s not a contract for employment to the degree of “if the employee fulfills the conditions of this contract, they can’t be terminated.”

        • Bronzebeard@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          I did. That’s not the same thing as an employment contract. And whatever is on that letter can be changed without much, if any, notice.

    • etchinghillside@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think you’re still kind of screwed if they want you in the office and you’re officially remote.

      But - yes - if your manager changes that does kind of protect you from sudden expectations from them of coming in.

      • ShadowRam@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I think you’re still kind of screwed if they want you in the office and you’re officially remote.

        Depends on what you mean by ‘screwed’. If they hired you with certain expectations, like in writing job is ‘remote’, then you can refuse.

        If they fire you as a result, yes, you are ‘screwed’ in the case of you’ve lost your job,

        But you then sue for wrongful dismissal, in which case you have some recourse.

        But if you live in a country/state that doesn’t allow you to do that, and offers no employee protections,

        You were screwed from the beginning by accepting work in such a place to begin with.

        • Nougat@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 months ago

          But you then sue for wrongful dismissal, in which case you have some recourse.

          Not in the US. “Remote worker” is not a protected class.

          But if you live in a country/state that doesn’t allow you to do that, and offers no employee protections, you were screwed from the beginning by accepting work in such a place to begin with.

          Yes, definitely the fault of every worker in the US for accepting work … checks notes … in the US.

          • ShadowRam@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            2 months ago

            It doesn’t need to be a ‘protected class’.

            If you were hired as an accountant, and job description explains what the job entails.

            The boss can’t tell you to go out front and mow the grass, and fire you if you refuse.

            It’s not in your job description.

            Same with remote work. If the job description said 100% remote work.

            It would be the same as hiring someone in one city, and then demanding they move to another city, and firing you if you refuse.

            Sure, they can let you go, but they’d be on the hook for compensation. (in most civilized places anyway)

            • Nougat@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              It doesn’t need to be a ‘protected class’.

              [In the US,] Yes it does.

              The boss can’t tell you to go out front and mow the grass, and fire you if you refuse.

              Yes they can.

              Sure, they can let you go, but they’d be on the hook for compensation. (in most civilized places anyway)

              Not compensation, but unemployment incsurance claims. If you’re let go “without cause,” you get to claim unemployment, and the business that let you go has to pay some portion of that. Unemployment insurance barely pays anything, though, so that’s not going to be a very high amount for the business.

            • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              2 months ago

              It’s not in your job description.

              I’ve noticed a lot of job offers say like “Other duties as required”

              You are not going to outsmart the corporate lawyers.

              The rich have class solidarity.

    • Suck_on_my_Presence@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’m grateful for being hired on during COVID for this. My job description specifically says remote.

      Bonus is that I work for a union and they have our backs. Even as the company tightens down on cyber security and starts forcing people to use the Ethernet or else apps on their personal phones (big no from me) to log into certain things - even with that, the union has our back and is making the company give us options to remain fully remote.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Having that in writing won’t help a great deal. Even if somehow you make it binding, you’re still employed at-will. Unless you’re saying to make sure you have a full employment contract in place. Which, yeah, wouldn’t that be nice?

  • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 months ago

    I can’t speak to what’s said in the meetings, but in a similar vein, we were told we needed to come back to the office 2-days a month because other people had to work from the office, and it wasn’t fair to them.

    That’s it. That’s the rationale. Because it wasn’t fair to the people who had to be here. Mind you, my team has been successfully working remote since COVID.

    🤦‍♂️ fml

    • Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      It’s funny to me because of the return to office policy, the price of parking is going up, a lot. Like now I have to fight for an extra $2000 + $1000 for meals + whatever day care will be.

      • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Yep. I suspect that where I work, parking has some role to play in the RTO. I can imagine the department in charge of collecting parking fees saw a dramatic decrease in revenue.

        Not that what I think matters to anyone (where I work), but any company that owns and manages their own parking facilities should not make employees pay for parking. It’s just bad form. But what do I know?

          • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            Yep. Not counting the time I spent in traffic, nor the gas it took to drive, today I spent $59 just for the privilege to do the same job I could’ve done at home. Tomorrow I don’t plan on forgetting my lunch, so that’ll save me $13.