> If what makes you happy is a condition in which someone else is unhappy, that person is unlikely to react well.
I really hate zoom meetings. Unfortunately if everyone just does whatever they want, then even the in-person meetings get dragged onto zoom because there’s at least a few people who are remote and need to dial in. Early on as we returned to office we even wound up taking a lot of meetings in the office over zoom from our individual desks because there was so little point getting into a room together with so many others online.
“Everyone do whatever you want” as a WFH/WFO policy is kinda like “everyone do whatever you want” as a “no peeing in the swimming pool” policy.
> Generally, the stance of the WFH crowd is that each individual should get a choice of what makes that individual happy.
It’s pointless weighing my hate of zoom against your hate of commuting or general WFO, but it’s definitely not the case that WFH crowd just wants everyone to be happy while the WFO crowd wants to strong-arm everyone. On the contrary, as my preference is for hybrid flexibility it often seems like the most vocal WFH proponents would like to strong-arm every business to be full-WFH.
I kinda like my company the way it is—and that won’t work for everyone, but maybe it doesn’t have to, right? The full WFH folks can look for companies that do that; the WFO folks can look for that; and the hybrid folks can look for that. And everyone is free to compromise based on the other aspects of the job.
> “Everyone do whatever you want” as a WFH/WFO policy is kinda like “everyone do whatever you want” as a “no peeing in the swimming pool” policy.
Kind of, but I dont really think the analogy works because if you flip it around its just as bad. "Everyone has to swim in the piss pool because I want to piss in the pool, but also want people to swim with". That doesn't sound agreeable either. "Nobodies allowed to piss in the pool" sounds good, but then circling back to it being an analogy, there needs to be a common consensus on which one is the piss-pool and which one is the clean pool, and there clearly isn't one.
> On the contrary, as my preference is for hybrid flexibility it often seems like the most vocal WFH proponents would like to strong-arm every business to be full-WFH
Depends on your definition of hybrid. To some it means you have some days in the office, some days from home, and for a lot of WFH folks (myself included), this is just as bad as WFO. If you mean people are kicking off because your allowed to work from an office but don't have to, I'll admit thats bad but its not something I've ever seen myself. I can't see the logic to it.
> The full WFH folks can look for companies that do that; the WFO folks can look for that; and the hybrid folks can look for that
Seems absolutely fair to me, though obviously for that to work, if people leave/don't take a job because it doesn't match their WHX preference, that shouldn't be an issue.
It seems to me that there isn't a consensus because, in the post-covid era, every company had a large segment of the "prefers WFH" people and they all insisted on their current company accommodating them. I'm not saying they did anything bad, there's nothing wrong with advocating for your own interests at work, but a lot of people who like WFO are justifiably frustrated because they thought they had joined a company that did have a common consensus.
Well there are many aspects to life that probably will not do a full "before times" reset. Some good, some bad, some depends on your perspective. It's understandable that this frustrates people but it's the way it is.
(I actually find that there has probably been more of a reset than many people expected.)
>I really hate zoom meetings. Unfortunately if everyone just does whatever they want, then even the in-person meetings get dragged onto zoom because there’s at least a few people who are remote and need to dial in.
Something often missing from these discussions is that at many large companies, A lot of people are scattered around the country/world so, even if they are in an office, a lot of meetings are going to be by Zoom anyway. And frankly, if some people are going to be remote, it's good policy that people generally dial in individually if it's an interactive meeting.
So this isn't necessarily a WFH/WFO thing. Decades before there was a Zoom, at least half the meetings I was in had lots of people on a conference call.
> if some people are going to be remote, it's good policy that people generally dial in individually if it's an interactive meeting
But that's exactly what the parent posts have issues with. The false claim that the WFH people are letting everyone do what they want while the WFO's are not letting everyone do what they want.
Because the WFH people are forcing the WFO people into zoom meetings. Having to dial in individually because you say that's "good policy" takes away the thing that WFO people want: To not sit in zoom meetings all day.
Half in Boston and half in Barcelona. Standups were joined by people at both offices and were done with Zoom in 2 conference rooms because even though everyone was WFO, we still need to do video conferencing. Unless you want to restrict teams to being in the same office.
> A lot of people are scattered around the country/world so, even if they are in an office
This realization actually caused my last company to full 180 on their WFO policy to "Fuck it work wherever you want in the world, including in one of our offices. Just give us two weeks heads up if you move so we can sort out the taxes."
Exactly! The team has to be aligned, because if a critical mass of people are working remotely, the office ceases to offer any advantage. It's okay to prefer working from home—but you should find a team that also prefers working from home, so people who prefer the office have that option too.
> It's okay to prefer working from home—but you should find a team that also prefers working from home, so people who prefer the office have that option too.
This cuts both ways: It's okay to prefer working from the office—but you should find a team that also prefers working in the office, so people who prefer home have that option too.
Right now we're in the shaking-out stage where each team is deciding what kind of team it will be. Both sides of the debate justifiably want their preference to win out. In the end, we'll see people leaving the teams that won't accommodate their preferred working style, and that's okay! No one should assume a priori that their team will land on their side of the fence, and it's not on your teammates to leave and go find a [WFO/WFH] job if you're the odd one out.
Alternately find a company that supports a mix of in person and remote work and provides the tools to do "in person" things like white-boarding and the culture to provide "coffee chats" and other camaraderie building events.
I think that a lot of people who dislike WFH are missing the sense of community more than are actually missing talking with someone face to face with a cup of coffee in their hand. Not always the case, but I think those are two separate audiences that get clumped together in these conversations.
I really hate zoom meetings. Unfortunately if everyone just does whatever they want, then even the in-person meetings get dragged onto zoom because there’s at least a few people who are remote and need to dial in. Early on as we returned to office we even wound up taking a lot of meetings in the office over zoom from our individual desks because there was so little point getting into a room together with so many others online.
“Everyone do whatever you want” as a WFH/WFO policy is kinda like “everyone do whatever you want” as a “no peeing in the swimming pool” policy.
> Generally, the stance of the WFH crowd is that each individual should get a choice of what makes that individual happy.
It’s pointless weighing my hate of zoom against your hate of commuting or general WFO, but it’s definitely not the case that WFH crowd just wants everyone to be happy while the WFO crowd wants to strong-arm everyone. On the contrary, as my preference is for hybrid flexibility it often seems like the most vocal WFH proponents would like to strong-arm every business to be full-WFH.
I kinda like my company the way it is—and that won’t work for everyone, but maybe it doesn’t have to, right? The full WFH folks can look for companies that do that; the WFO folks can look for that; and the hybrid folks can look for that. And everyone is free to compromise based on the other aspects of the job.