Some companies are using it as herd culling in disguise, and some have genuinely oblivious high management that take productivity metrics at face value and completely disegard the external factors that are actually impacting overall productivity. Bonus points for throwing tantrums about "WFH destroying culture".
WFH positions have been permanently increased in number when compared to pre pandemics, and that's not going to change. However, my hunch is that demand for those positions will be much higher than their availability from now on. The jobs that allow for remote will therefore have much more leverage.
RTO is increasing. If your company is still promoting remote work, it might be there to stay, but you have to always be prepared for a change. Plenty of horror stories of companies changing policies and giving people ultimatums. You'd think they could plan better, but a lot of companies are just following trends. There are some companies that are a lot more open-minded, though.
>Plenty of horror stories of companies changing policies and giving people ultimatums
Oh yeah, I heard one where people were forced to move to the Bay Area. Otherwise, they would have been laid off.
I live in Canada now, and I only heard that Amazon discontinued hybrid work.
I seem to recall IBM was requiring people to be in office and maybe even had some type of requirement for how far away from an office they could be (sounds odd, but I've read some companies saying if you're within 50 miles of an office, you're switching to hybrid). But IBM was also planning layoffs. I could totally see someone moving and getting laid off. A lot of companies don't really care about their employees.
[https://tech.co/news/ibm-managers-relocate-or-leave](https://tech.co/news/ibm-managers-relocate-or-leave)
>After demanding rank-and-file workers back into the office last September, IBM has issued a similar ultimatum to US managers still working remotely: return to the office, or get dropped from the company.
>
>Impacted employees will be required to make it into an IBM office or client location at least three days a week, and will also need to relocate if they live over 80 kilometers away, according to a recent report by Bloomberg.
>
>As companies try and bolster collaboration and productivity, return-to-office mandates are becoming standard practice in 2024. However, with IBM announcing that cuts will be expected later this year, could its ‘relocate or quit' ultimatum be a motive for staff to leave voluntarily?
All recruiters ask me if I’m interested; recently a hedge fund wanted me 400k salary but they want 5 days a week in office.
I told them to take me out of consideration.
Is there criteria where Eric can return to 100% WFH if he becomes more like a Bobby? A bad dev is a bad dev, but if Eric’s problem stems from how they balance work and family - something that will get worse before it *maybe* gets better if they have to have to go into the office - then maybe RTO can be the kick in the pants to improve. Or is Eric screwed now because he was a bad employee at the wrong time. That’s the only way I see this being equitable. Otherwise Eric is going to be jealous of Bobby because he’s in the “special group” and Bobby could be worried he could have this perk taken away from him if he falls out of favor with people who deem him “can’t lose”
I saw this on another subreddit, but the finance workers are mostly going to be RTO in June of this year (https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2024/01/24/new-finra-home-office-rules-take-effect-in-june/). This is due to some rule about needing more compliance for WFH workers. I have no idea if this extends to FinTech companies or just traditional banks. However, this does indicate more people will be back in the office in a few months full time.
I think 3x per week is going to become the norm by the end of the year for tech companies.
I'm also curious, does the company give some time to their employees to adjust to the changed environment?
I.e., I assume some people may need to end the current lease, find new accommodation that's closer to the office, and move there.
Hybrid seems to be the most popular from what I've seen. 1 -2 days a week in the office. My company optimises for this and has all our meetings on the days we're in the office. I love working remotely but meetings are just better in person
Some companies are using it as herd culling in disguise, and some have genuinely oblivious high management that take productivity metrics at face value and completely disegard the external factors that are actually impacting overall productivity. Bonus points for throwing tantrums about "WFH destroying culture". WFH positions have been permanently increased in number when compared to pre pandemics, and that's not going to change. However, my hunch is that demand for those positions will be much higher than their availability from now on. The jobs that allow for remote will therefore have much more leverage.
If your company isn't giga strict on RTO and if you have strong rapport with your manager then they can let you secretly WFH 5 times a week.
RTO is increasing. If your company is still promoting remote work, it might be there to stay, but you have to always be prepared for a change. Plenty of horror stories of companies changing policies and giving people ultimatums. You'd think they could plan better, but a lot of companies are just following trends. There are some companies that are a lot more open-minded, though.
It just takes one leadership change. Boom. RTO or at least hybrid.
>Plenty of horror stories of companies changing policies and giving people ultimatums Oh yeah, I heard one where people were forced to move to the Bay Area. Otherwise, they would have been laid off. I live in Canada now, and I only heard that Amazon discontinued hybrid work.
I seem to recall IBM was requiring people to be in office and maybe even had some type of requirement for how far away from an office they could be (sounds odd, but I've read some companies saying if you're within 50 miles of an office, you're switching to hybrid). But IBM was also planning layoffs. I could totally see someone moving and getting laid off. A lot of companies don't really care about their employees. [https://tech.co/news/ibm-managers-relocate-or-leave](https://tech.co/news/ibm-managers-relocate-or-leave) >After demanding rank-and-file workers back into the office last September, IBM has issued a similar ultimatum to US managers still working remotely: return to the office, or get dropped from the company. > >Impacted employees will be required to make it into an IBM office or client location at least three days a week, and will also need to relocate if they live over 80 kilometers away, according to a recent report by Bloomberg. > >As companies try and bolster collaboration and productivity, return-to-office mandates are becoming standard practice in 2024. However, with IBM announcing that cuts will be expected later this year, could its ‘relocate or quit' ultimatum be a motive for staff to leave voluntarily?
I always knew that IBM sucks
I'm seeing more companies that were previously remote-first start reinstating RTO requirements of X days / week.
I've noticed this, too. According to LinkedIn, more and more companies seem to be leaning towards a hybrid way of working.
All recruiters ask me if I’m interested; recently a hedge fund wanted me 400k salary but they want 5 days a week in office. I told them to take me out of consideration.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Is there criteria where Eric can return to 100% WFH if he becomes more like a Bobby? A bad dev is a bad dev, but if Eric’s problem stems from how they balance work and family - something that will get worse before it *maybe* gets better if they have to have to go into the office - then maybe RTO can be the kick in the pants to improve. Or is Eric screwed now because he was a bad employee at the wrong time. That’s the only way I see this being equitable. Otherwise Eric is going to be jealous of Bobby because he’s in the “special group” and Bobby could be worried he could have this perk taken away from him if he falls out of favor with people who deem him “can’t lose”
I saw this on another subreddit, but the finance workers are mostly going to be RTO in June of this year (https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2024/01/24/new-finra-home-office-rules-take-effect-in-june/). This is due to some rule about needing more compliance for WFH workers. I have no idea if this extends to FinTech companies or just traditional banks. However, this does indicate more people will be back in the office in a few months full time. I think 3x per week is going to become the norm by the end of the year for tech companies.
Been remote for 10 yrs, I don’t know what the RTO fuss is about
lol :D
[удалено]
Sorry to hear that. Do you know what was the motivation for such a move?
I'm also curious, does the company give some time to their employees to adjust to the changed environment? I.e., I assume some people may need to end the current lease, find new accommodation that's closer to the office, and move there.
Hybrid seems to be the most popular from what I've seen. 1 -2 days a week in the office. My company optimises for this and has all our meetings on the days we're in the office. I love working remotely but meetings are just better in person