People used to make sardonic jokes about cubicles. Then cubicles disappeared in favor of the open office and somehow the jokes stopped, just as things got worse.

Gonna be honest, I prefer to be in an office over WFH, despite WFH technically having “advantages”.

Home is an awful environment to work in. I get less done, worse quality and in general dislike it more. While that’s technically a personal problem, it’s not fair to say no one would voluntarily work in an office 5 days a week. I do, and know multiple other people who do as well.

WFH when you’re just starting your career sucks. Both my internships and start of my FT jobs were WFH, and it made it near impossible to learn to work with a team, get information from senior developers, get IT help if there was hardware issues and a ton of other minor things that aren’t a problem for someone who had been working at the company prior to going 100% remote, but are huge sticking points for new hires.

Right?

To whom is this not obvious? Top talent has options.

I did, best move ever

It’s a balancing act though. A lot of top talent is going to leave either way, so over focusing on them hurts everyone else. Mandatory return to office was a lot more costly than most companies hoped for though. It was essentially a lay-off, but it left companies with pretty much only the bad employees compared to a more traditional approach.

Also, when it goes south, they can pin the blame on the consultant instead of themselves.

That sounds like a low estimate.

If a manager can’t appear useful to their superiors, that’s 100% pay cut for them.

Because of the cost of the commute? Or because you expect to get a higher salary when applying for a non-remote job?

Edit: This is a genuine question, by the way, in case that’s why this is being downvoted.

And it’s not even a week off halfway useful time. It’s a week of fucking sitting in traffic breathing in exhaust and break fumes.

And on top of it, the commute is costing money, too. Either public transport tickets or fuel and wear an tear on car.

I can so much understand my former coworker. He switched jobs because not only did they pay more, but now he has a five minute commute instead of a one hour one.

Yep. I’m willing to make 10% less to be fully remote. Given the alternative is fewer days of sleep each year, plus many more in time spent grooming and transiting, then the cost of transport and lunch, to ultimately get less done, both at home and at work (with the same deadlines) I might even take 15-20% less.

Work/life balance is more important than money.

My company is based in CA, and employs me remotely from the Midwest. They pay me above average for my area, but less than they would have to if I lived in the Bay area where they are based. I feel like this works out for both of us! They even go so far as looking at the zip code of every employee when considering raises, and thus far (3 years) I have received an annual raise which is higher than the cost of living increase for my area.

In my situation at least, me working remotely benefits both myself and my company. I just can’t understand why so many larger companies are so adamant about return to office, especially ones in larger coastal cities.

Food and gasoline prices have skyrocketed. Infrastructure is a mess in most of the country so it takes longer and longer to get anywhere at peak times. Companies have cut costs in offices so they’re just crowded and full of distraction and germs. So yeah, lots of time and money is saved by working from home.

Yup. We got a new CEO, and they did a big push for productivity and enforcing our 3-day in office policy. My team had been on 2-day since the pandemic WFH policy ended, and my boss said we’d give it a try, and if it sucked we could go back. We had worse productivity, so we went back to 2-days in-office. The company policy is still 3-days in office, we just ignore it.

It really depends on your boss. A good boss can ignore stupid company policy, and a bad boss can ruin good company policy. My boss is one of the main reasons I took the job, and it’s also why I’m still here (I’m pretty sure I’m underpaid, and my boss is upfront about that, but I like my boss so I’m sticking with it for now).

Similar to my case. My manager is based in Europe, and he basically said that to him, I’m a remote employee whether I wfh or go to the office, so it doesn’t matter. And even for other team members in the same location as him, he doesn’t force them to come in.

Our director (my boss’ boss) moved out of the US so it doesn’t make sense for him to ask us to come in when he himself is remote. And he also told us that he doesn’t care where we work from.

We’re lucky our bosses aren’t old heads with outdated work principles. Barring any explicit orders from the very top, I expect to keep the status quo. And even then, I’m sure at least up to our VP will defy those orders.

Yeah our CIO started talking bringing cubes back. My manager, his manner and our director are pretty opposed to this. We do well remote and there are things we literally couldn’t do in the office. We’re in once a week-ish if it works out and if this forced our director would have to move back from multiple states over…. I don’t think they’ll make that move back if pressed and one co-worker expressed “fire me” sentiment if it comes.

you have to be willing to accept or embrace work from wherever.

I started working my current job at the beginning of the pandemic, so about 2 years full remote. The company didn’t die, my project didn’t die (it’s just me and the QA btw). I like to use this as example whenever i tolerate WFH/BTO discussions (which is as useful as arguing about cats vs dogs) with RTO gasslighters.

Now i have to go twice a week because… reasons.

If this would have surprised no one they wouldn’t have done it and just ate the cost of office spaec. No, there’s people out there who still think company loyalty is a thing and that fostering a “company culture” is actually viable.

No, it is just incompetence. There’s a serious disconnect between the people making the return to office call and the people dealing with it. The thinking is that, over years, the talent lost will be replaced and the backlash will subside and whatever reason they have for the RTO is more important than these.

The trouble with the software industry upper management is that they have never had to deal with an industry in trouble. They’ve been working in a rapidly growing industry for their whole career. Bad decisions matter very little in such environments so they think they don’t make any.

Nobody told them that they lose the more useful people first that way?

I think it’s more these companies invested millions into either building the offices or renting them (and can’t get out of the lease) so to make it worth while they’re having people come back.

One of my offices moved to a larger building across the street because there wasn’t enough room for FTEs and contractors to come in 3 days a week. The larger building still isn’t large enough even for just FTEs so they rented a floor of another building and are making contractors go to that building 3 days a week. They’re going to an office to still be remote lol. Talk about stupidity.

If they’re ok with the resulting technical shortfalls, cool. Another company degrades back into the mire of mediocrity.

They can just mandate RTO without actually calling it a layoff and know many workers will outright quit, and the business won’t have to comply with whatever local regulations are in place around layoffs.

It depends on where you live. In some countries, if they mandate RTO but your employment contract does not specify that you must work in an office, then that’s a constructive dismissal and you can go on employment benefits like unemployment insurance.

But the reality is managers want to pick who gets laid off. It’s not that they want to just cut heads and reduce costs… upper management. may want that… but the actual managers want to keep their best and brightest. They know who the people are who get shit done, and they want to keep those people. Rto tends to have the opposite effect.

The reality is it is often the best employees, the most experienced employees, and some very high level employees who have the most confidence and are most willing to say " screw you, I know I can find a job somewhere else" And give the middle finger to the employer who’s trying to do an RTO plan.

Don’t be fooled by the headlines. Real businesses want to control who they let go. They want to have all the power in the relationship. They want to cut their lower performers and keep their superstars. RTO is about the worst head cutting program you could dream up.