My last startup was remote only since 2014, through two acquisitions until I left last year (still is afaik).
I would never go back to an office position at this point.
Now working on my next startup, I can't imagine ever requiring an in-person workforce. It just seems so inefficient for everyone involved.
Of course they would. Or at least I would.
Why would I come into an office when I can just apply on a full-time remote position?
Then again I have been full time remote since 2018, and the company I am with now has been full time remote everyone since before the pandemic. There's no office to even go into, so I don't think this is a huge risk for me.
> Why would I come into an office when I can just apply on a full-time remote position?
Because it's near impossible to get an interview at these places due to the number of applicants unless you have an in?
I can only speak for my company, but we interview every qualified candidate. Sure we may get 100s of applicants per position but 90% easily don’t read the job description and are just blasting out a resume trying to get hits.
The remaining ones will at least get a phone screen and if they have relevant knowledge and experience will proceed.
>Why would I come into an office when I can just apply on a full-time remote position?
Because they will pay more, and/or the work will be better. Because with the current RTO push, it's very likely that the only companies still offering remote work in a few years will be companies that can't get staff otherwise, either because of pay or the work itself.
You already can't get a new remote FAANG job, the mid-level organizations will be next.
You seem to misunderstand the "current RTO push": it is motivated by bad management and organization and by real estate interests, even if it prominently includes important companies which, thanks to prestige and paychecks, plan to (and probably can) retain good enough staff after losing remote employees.
Remote positions remain, for the foreseeable future, a sign that allows distinguishing mature and/or modern good companies (probably good enough to pay well) from immature and/or decrepit companies (possibly profitable enough to avoid facing problems) with managers who "need" their pigs in the sty.
Agree, been working from home since 2011
I live in the fastest growing area of the country, which means insane traffic. If it weren’t for that nightmare I wouldn’t mind returning to an office within 30 miles.
What I will never return to is an environment of fraud where people call themselves engineers and yet struggle to put text on screen and spend days to accomplish the most trivial of tasks.
Spending days to accomplish the most trivial of tasks happens in both remote and in-office settings.
That matches exactly with the recent candidate feedback I spoke about in the video, it's the hours in traffic keeping them remote.
So much focus has been put on the FANG's in how they have managed remote working since the pandemic, but many of them have clearly got it wrong or have swung large mandates either way.
The answer is simply hybrid working. I myself prefer to be in the office and I get to work with others who are also in the office. However I have other colleagues who prefer to work from home.
Do I think that you can have a better work culture if everyone is working together physically, yes I do. Do I understand that our ways of working have changed and that might not be possible for everyone every day, yes I do.
> The answer is simply hybrid working
Hybrid is NOT the answer, much like the answer to "being kicked in the balls hurts" is not "how about you get 3/5 as many kicks in the balls"?
I think hybrid is fine if they mean "if you want to have an office, fine. if you want to wfh, fine."
Which is how I took their comment.
It's not clearly defined what hybrid means, and there's different interpretation by different people (and companies).
Some may call 2-3 days in an office hybrid. Some may call hybrid when they can choose to go in or not on any day.
One problem i find is that those who do prefer to work in an office don't actually want the office itself, but the office atmosphere - including the hustle and bustle of people. I imagine that they would not prefer office, if they're the only person in the entire floor.
So instead of thinking in terms of hybrid, i would think in terms of face-to-face or audio/cam over-video.
> don't actually want the office itself, but the office atmosphere - including the hustle and bustle of people
Yes, they want to dictate to others how to live their lives. Quite an antisocial view, don't you find?
i wouldnt call it anti-social. I mean, can't you make the same argument to WFH people dictating the opposite?
WFH people do not stop YOU from going to the office. We simply do not care if you do or do not. Only the RTO people seek to control others.
> I imagine that they would not prefer office, if they're the only person in the entire floor.
I am often the only person in the office, as I am today, but I like it; the commute is a pleasant half-hour's walk, and I appreciate the clear separation between work and home life. I have a large comfortable desk here, with a killer view of the city; I genuinely prefer this to working from home. (This is convenient because my wife, also a software engineer, strongly prefers the home office.)
On the other hand, I once spent seven years working from home before this was a common thing, despite the money I could have saved if I'd moved to the lower-cost-of-living city where company HQ was located, because I just didn't want to. I liked my life as it was, and I couldn't stand the idea of a car commute.
In many workplaces where almost everyone could work remotely the number of days of work from home an employee is entitled to is an accurate, and possibly intentional, brown-nosing metric.
As someone that likes working in person it should be down to the team. Either in person or fully remote.
That sounds fine in theory, but who decides which teams are remote? How do you avoid a situation where someone comes on a remote team and gets the rug pulled out when someone else decides that team is now in person?
It's much easier if we're talking about a new company. IMO companies formed after the pandemic have a much easier job of figuring this out. You can set expectations from the beginning about which teams are remote and which are not. Some teams should be remote. I know of a hybrid company that has always had SREs be remote. They operate a global business and want people covering all timezones.
As for getting rug-pulled: that possibility exists with any management decision. You could always get an asshole boss, the company could get sold, etc. Not to fully discredit your point, but it wouldn't be my biggest concern as an employee.
Hybrid is a huge problem because it requires you to still buy a home or rent in a HCOL city.
I believe hybrid in this context means, there is an office and some people come in as little or as much as they want/need, and some people are fully remote.
That is not what any company I know of means by "hybrid" They all mean "3 days in office, 2 at home"
Sure. The company I work at is hybrid in the manner I described.
[flagged]
That music intro is way too loud.
Thanks dude, I'll reduce it next time.
[flagged]
> Software engineers would rather quit than return to the office
Either the level of entitlement is shocking or the article title is delusional. There are thousands of ppl in the market looking for a job and would happily take one to feed their family. It's high time techies get a grip of real life than live in their echo chamber.
Or they just have different experiences than you do? For the positions I've been in, the drive into the office is just a waste of time. Most of the people are in different locations resulting in virtual meetings anyhow. Companies are realizing this and are going remote where they can because they find it difficult to find people locally or convince people to relocate. The "entitled" are just exercising their option to work places which better fit them.
You probably didn't listen to the conclusion?
[dead]
[flagged]
The average job tenure in the tech industry is what, ~2 years now? If return to office means a return to precovid norms, most people aren't returning to the same jobs they had because it's been almost 5 years.
Then they're not returning to office, and the comment doesn't apply to them.
The video you're responding, as well as every other usage of the phrase, includes these people in the definition of "return to office", so I'm not sure why you're intentionally trying to use a different, somewhat nonsensical definition.
>I'm not sure why you're intentionally trying to use a different, somewhat nonsensical definition.
It's just a strawman
I'm not sure why you're intentionally trying to redefine the word "return" or miss the point.
If you were never somewhere, you can't return to it. Period. Your assertion about "every other usage of the phrase" is absurd.
If people were hired with the assurance that the job would always be work-from-home, then they have a legitimate gripe. They are the ONLY ones who have a legitimate gripe.
That is all.
I'm not sure if there's some English as a second language issue going on, but descriptive phrases don't have to be strictly literal. In this case, the subject is the workforce as a whole "returning", not the individual employees.
Yeah, I don't know. Maybe as your English studies continue you'll understand the literal and subtle meanings better.
My last startup was remote only since 2014, through two acquisitions until I left last year (still is afaik).
I would never go back to an office position at this point.
Now working on my next startup, I can't imagine ever requiring an in-person workforce. It just seems so inefficient for everyone involved.
Of course they would. Or at least I would.
Why would I come into an office when I can just apply on a full-time remote position?
Then again I have been full time remote since 2018, and the company I am with now has been full time remote everyone since before the pandemic. There's no office to even go into, so I don't think this is a huge risk for me.
> Why would I come into an office when I can just apply on a full-time remote position?
Because it's near impossible to get an interview at these places due to the number of applicants unless you have an in?
I can only speak for my company, but we interview every qualified candidate. Sure we may get 100s of applicants per position but 90% easily don’t read the job description and are just blasting out a resume trying to get hits.
The remaining ones will at least get a phone screen and if they have relevant knowledge and experience will proceed.
>Why would I come into an office when I can just apply on a full-time remote position?
Because they will pay more, and/or the work will be better. Because with the current RTO push, it's very likely that the only companies still offering remote work in a few years will be companies that can't get staff otherwise, either because of pay or the work itself.
You already can't get a new remote FAANG job, the mid-level organizations will be next.
You seem to misunderstand the "current RTO push": it is motivated by bad management and organization and by real estate interests, even if it prominently includes important companies which, thanks to prestige and paychecks, plan to (and probably can) retain good enough staff after losing remote employees.
Remote positions remain, for the foreseeable future, a sign that allows distinguishing mature and/or modern good companies (probably good enough to pay well) from immature and/or decrepit companies (possibly profitable enough to avoid facing problems) with managers who "need" their pigs in the sty.
Agree, been working from home since 2011
I live in the fastest growing area of the country, which means insane traffic. If it weren’t for that nightmare I wouldn’t mind returning to an office within 30 miles.
What I will never return to is an environment of fraud where people call themselves engineers and yet struggle to put text on screen and spend days to accomplish the most trivial of tasks.
Spending days to accomplish the most trivial of tasks happens in both remote and in-office settings.
That matches exactly with the recent candidate feedback I spoke about in the video, it's the hours in traffic keeping them remote.
So much focus has been put on the FANG's in how they have managed remote working since the pandemic, but many of them have clearly got it wrong or have swung large mandates either way.
The answer is simply hybrid working. I myself prefer to be in the office and I get to work with others who are also in the office. However I have other colleagues who prefer to work from home.
Do I think that you can have a better work culture if everyone is working together physically, yes I do. Do I understand that our ways of working have changed and that might not be possible for everyone every day, yes I do.
> The answer is simply hybrid working
Hybrid is NOT the answer, much like the answer to "being kicked in the balls hurts" is not "how about you get 3/5 as many kicks in the balls"?
I think hybrid is fine if they mean "if you want to have an office, fine. if you want to wfh, fine."
Which is how I took their comment.
It's not clearly defined what hybrid means, and there's different interpretation by different people (and companies).
Some may call 2-3 days in an office hybrid. Some may call hybrid when they can choose to go in or not on any day.
One problem i find is that those who do prefer to work in an office don't actually want the office itself, but the office atmosphere - including the hustle and bustle of people. I imagine that they would not prefer office, if they're the only person in the entire floor.
So instead of thinking in terms of hybrid, i would think in terms of face-to-face or audio/cam over-video.
> don't actually want the office itself, but the office atmosphere - including the hustle and bustle of people
Yes, they want to dictate to others how to live their lives. Quite an antisocial view, don't you find?
i wouldnt call it anti-social. I mean, can't you make the same argument to WFH people dictating the opposite?
WFH people do not stop YOU from going to the office. We simply do not care if you do or do not. Only the RTO people seek to control others.
> I imagine that they would not prefer office, if they're the only person in the entire floor.
I am often the only person in the office, as I am today, but I like it; the commute is a pleasant half-hour's walk, and I appreciate the clear separation between work and home life. I have a large comfortable desk here, with a killer view of the city; I genuinely prefer this to working from home. (This is convenient because my wife, also a software engineer, strongly prefers the home office.)
On the other hand, I once spent seven years working from home before this was a common thing, despite the money I could have saved if I'd moved to the lower-cost-of-living city where company HQ was located, because I just didn't want to. I liked my life as it was, and I couldn't stand the idea of a car commute.
In many workplaces where almost everyone could work remotely the number of days of work from home an employee is entitled to is an accurate, and possibly intentional, brown-nosing metric.
As someone that likes working in person it should be down to the team. Either in person or fully remote.
That sounds fine in theory, but who decides which teams are remote? How do you avoid a situation where someone comes on a remote team and gets the rug pulled out when someone else decides that team is now in person?
It's much easier if we're talking about a new company. IMO companies formed after the pandemic have a much easier job of figuring this out. You can set expectations from the beginning about which teams are remote and which are not. Some teams should be remote. I know of a hybrid company that has always had SREs be remote. They operate a global business and want people covering all timezones.
As for getting rug-pulled: that possibility exists with any management decision. You could always get an asshole boss, the company could get sold, etc. Not to fully discredit your point, but it wouldn't be my biggest concern as an employee.
Hybrid is a huge problem because it requires you to still buy a home or rent in a HCOL city.
I believe hybrid in this context means, there is an office and some people come in as little or as much as they want/need, and some people are fully remote.
That is not what any company I know of means by "hybrid" They all mean "3 days in office, 2 at home"
Sure. The company I work at is hybrid in the manner I described.
[flagged]
That music intro is way too loud.
Thanks dude, I'll reduce it next time.
[flagged]
> Software engineers would rather quit than return to the office Either the level of entitlement is shocking or the article title is delusional. There are thousands of ppl in the market looking for a job and would happily take one to feed their family. It's high time techies get a grip of real life than live in their echo chamber.
Or they just have different experiences than you do? For the positions I've been in, the drive into the office is just a waste of time. Most of the people are in different locations resulting in virtual meetings anyhow. Companies are realizing this and are going remote where they can because they find it difficult to find people locally or convince people to relocate. The "entitled" are just exercising their option to work places which better fit them.
You probably didn't listen to the conclusion?
[dead]
[flagged]
The average job tenure in the tech industry is what, ~2 years now? If return to office means a return to precovid norms, most people aren't returning to the same jobs they had because it's been almost 5 years.
Then they're not returning to office, and the comment doesn't apply to them.
The video you're responding, as well as every other usage of the phrase, includes these people in the definition of "return to office", so I'm not sure why you're intentionally trying to use a different, somewhat nonsensical definition.
>I'm not sure why you're intentionally trying to use a different, somewhat nonsensical definition.
It's just a strawman
I'm not sure why you're intentionally trying to redefine the word "return" or miss the point.
If you were never somewhere, you can't return to it. Period. Your assertion about "every other usage of the phrase" is absurd.
If people were hired with the assurance that the job would always be work-from-home, then they have a legitimate gripe. They are the ONLY ones who have a legitimate gripe.
That is all.
I'm not sure if there's some English as a second language issue going on, but descriptive phrases don't have to be strictly literal. In this case, the subject is the workforce as a whole "returning", not the individual employees.
Yeah, I don't know. Maybe as your English studies continue you'll understand the literal and subtle meanings better.