But where did they go? Did they start startups? Join another big tech (if so, who competes with Apple for pay)?
There aren’t that many opportunities for people these days, especially at the senior level where titles and compensation is still inflated due to 2020-2022 grants.
> There aren’t that many opportunities for people these days, especially at the senior level where titles and compensation is still inflated due to 2020-2022 grants.
You are joking, right? Apple, SpaceX and Microsoft are not the only game in town.
Personally, I don't care about branding at all but for the money and atmosphere. From career PoV, it's also important that the company, or its tech department if it's not pure tech, is very large. This has several benefits: I deal with technologies at scale, I can migrate to other big company, I can also migrate internally if I wish. And, since there are many folks around, there is usually no high pressure on working 110% like in (some) startups. There are many companies like these and the pay for seniors is excellent.
They may have retired. Past a certain point you are in it because you love it, and if you no longer love it, there are better things in life than gilding the lily of a nest egg.
A lot of people in my demographic have amassed roughly "fuck most people" money rather than "fuck everyone" money. Beyond a certain point, it's easier to coast on your nest egg and do other things like family, volunteering, or living a slower life rather than relent to reactive, rudderless corporate bullshit like RTO.
I think the outcome of all of this is going to be much more aggressive cost-of-living adjustments.
It provides real, non-negligible value to sit in the same room as your coworkers. If companies want to reap that value though, they are going to have to pay for it. I think the days of setting up shop in downtown SF and just expecting talent to show up are over.
> It provides real, non-negligible value to sit in the same room as your coworkers
Please cite a reputable source for this unsubstantiated and unsubstantiatable claim. eg: to me it provides a negative value (commute, noise, lack of my cat). To my employer it also provides negative value: my lower productivity, my much higher chance to GTFO to a more sane workplace.
I can and do communicate with my coworkers over slack and zoom just fine. As my job does not require touching them, no problems are created by this arrangement.
My counter to this - why do people pay to go to a concert when they can just watch a video? Do you not pay to fly to places that you could see in pictures? Do people not find some sort of value in this? And would you need to find a "reputable" source to prove it?
Clearly there are some amount of intangibles that the corporations care about, otherwise why would they bother with RTO at all instead of just firing everyone and offshoring the entire team? This is kind of the argument we are making for them.
My counter to you. When you hear a few songs by the performer and like them, do you not want to go to the concert to hear them live for once? Or do you start tracking their every performance and go to every concert they ever perform at? When you see a picture of a place you like, do you only go to that particular place and nowhere else from that point on, or possibly you want to explore more? Although your analogy is absolutely flawed in that it compares leisure with work, by following up with it, I guess everybody should be fine meeting their colleagues for a drink a couple times a year rather than going to see them every day whether you like them or not.
Why? Preferences. And I don’t mind if YOU go to the office. I mind if you make me do it. I have voted with my feet on this issue before and I would again.
When I interned at MS in 2021, I was forced to be remote. I sat in calls with heavily-accented people with crying babies in the background. It was unbelievably bad. I was catching every third word from my “mentor”.
That’s why I’m not there today. (I turned down a full time offer)
The question is not “do some people prefer offices”, the problem is “some people prefer offices and then require everyone else to be there to support them as well”
Since the purpose of a company is to function as a whole, and not to accommodate individual employees, the actual question and issue at hand is whether companies and company teams function better working remotely or working in office. This is also a matter not simply of the state of being in office, but of office work. Coming to the office to only talk to remote employees is not office work, but remote work with more steps. Office work isn't possible unless the team is present.
Which means you are making the assumption that working in an office is better, so you need to be able to back that up.
I could just as easily ask why everyone is having to go to an office to accommodate people who can only work in office environments. Especially given the overwhelming evidence that office environments reduce productivity, morale, and employee health?
You're just repeating the "I can't do my job unless I'm in an office, therefore I need everyone else to spend hours every week coming into an office to coddle me". Me not spending hours of unpaid time coming to the office does not prevent you from going into an office. You requiring me to drive for hours to come to the office has a direct and measurable cost, that solely benefits you.
It does not benefit productivity. It does not benefit morale. It actively harms the health of everyone, including you.
> Office work isn't possible unless the team is present.
Well yes, you've just said "everyone being in the office is only possible if everyone is in the office". My job, and the job of most people in tech (or jobs where being in the office is not required to work), is not to heat a seat in an office.
The fact that you use work as a proxy for a social life, or find it necessary to interrupt other people who are working, does not mean that being in an office is necessary to do our jobs. It means it is necessary for you to do your job.
So please stop presenting your own requirements as if they (1) apply to everyone universally, and (2) supporting your requirements is free for everyone else. (1) is demonstrably false, (2) is just selfish - why do you get to demand your coworkers give up a significant fraction of their lives and a significant amount of money to support your requirements?
What I am saying is that going to the office is not up to you nor myself. If a company decides that it is better for the company, then that company may reason that they should mandate in office work, as I mentioned in the first sentence of the previous comment. I've known people, as has almost everyone, that has had this happen at their companies. If a company crosses a threshold of workers doing office work, but still has remote workers, then the company may decide that they want to facilitate full office work for everyone, and may implement measures to incentivize office work, or else punish those who remain remote. This will be simply a business decision, as despite all the talk of it, businesses are not family, and do not care about anyone's feelings.
Many people would counter the suggestion of back to office mandates with the idea that it will work if the people who want to come in can come in and the people who do not want to can stay remote. My previous comment was a response to this idea from a business's perspective, that in office work may not be possible for individuals, unless the rest of their team is also in the building. As I mentioned, it is up to the companies to decide what is best for the business. If they decide return to office is best for business then it will be return to office mandates, otherwise they may allow remote work indefinitely.
This other argument of the only point of people pushing office work due to being a proxy for "social life" as you put it is one of the most common things I hear get thrown around. Again, I'm not sure why you decided to attribute this to me, as I'm not in charge of the mandates and never implied I'm in office. I was just offering up the reasoning on the other side. However, from my perspective, I don't think that upper leadership in any company which is considering a return to office mandate, is going to find this criticism convincing in the least.
And now, people go back to the office and I hear other people in the background instead of babies because companies have mandatory office days when they have all employees there at the same time. I can tell you, it's easier to phase out baby than other people in the background :)
If you want to have people go to the office you need to pay them for the time to commute to that office. There is negative value to requiring people be in the office, especially given all these companies have opted for open plan BS - every study ever performed has found open and “shared” office plans reduce productivity, reduce collaboration, reduce morale, and increase disease.
The value businesses get from putting employees in the same room is making it harder to go elsewhere (creating a fake “family”), and managers get to feel like they have control and ownership of their plebs.
There are also people who use office life as surrogate social lives, and they seem to be the employees they were most in favour of mandatory RTO - “I can’t deal with not having a forcefully created social environment, so I’m going to demand that everyone come back”
I know people that were having friends scan their badge to meet company guidelines on return to office (their manager and teams were okay with remote work). But then Amazon added cameras on badge scans from what I heard.
I'm not aware that Microsoft has a "return-to-office" mandate. Maybe that's only for some employees? I know quite a few people on product teams who are 100% remote.
They reportedly have an RTO mandate for all employees. Managers can override the mandate, and can withdraw their approval forcing them back to the RTO mandate default.
I expect driving senior talent away is part of the strategy - the senior talent demands the highest compensation, which is what these employers are combatting industry-wide and in coordination. They want to hire them back at lower wages later on.
If we read the article instead of just the headline, we see that it makes clear that Microsoft has a hybrid arrangement, and that said hybrid arrangement has still resulted in a loss of employees.
>Microsoft, which also enacted a hybrid RTO approach, saw a decline of 5 percentage points.
Qualified yes. Unions are one leg to ensure fair treatment of workers in the long-term, but are ultimately a half-measure to address the perpetual conflict with unreasonable adversaries, e.g., corporate owners. What is needed for knowledge workers like SWEs, SREs, etc. is to band together as worker-owned co-ops to ensure the stability of morale and products/services, vigilant ethics and excellence in products/services, and fairness in profit sharing based on a thoughtful characterization of and measurement of total performance.
It should look something like: hiring should be slow, retention should be longer-than-average, morale should be excellent (inc. devoid of toxic negativity and toxic positivity), and the burden of leadership undertaken by preselection coupled with sortition and a governance body comprised of representative workers.
These employers are certainly coordinating on wages, RTO policy, etc. They do it via third party compensation research firms. It's suspicious that people downvote your suggestion that workers also coordinate.
This stuff is in plain daylight. It's not hard to see it from inside the companies that people here work at. I think most people just don't connect the dots or something, since execs and HR certainly don't do that for them in how they talk about it and why.
I'm talking about the legal ways it happens, too. It's not only some "isolated cases of bad actors" as some put it.
on the face of it, it sounds like a flavor of anarchism, along that spectrum and with some similar appealing points. but then there comes all this state and state police stuff, and endless domination and role based subjugation in a variety of legalized ways that rely on state violence to preserve. I can't understand the coherency so the results are suspicious
(also, unions are not the only way for labor to organize. there are lots of ways to do this.)
I don't know about you, but I've been working in three workplaces where union had the power - no more. From my experience, the union staff consists of people that work in their own interest and who don't really have any interest at all to do work related tasks.
They may have a role in factories, but not in the tech areas where us, users of Hacker News, belong.
This makes sense considering senior talent has significantly more flexibility in switching companies in today's tech job market. If you are entry-level or mid-level and your company mandates RTO, well suck it up, because there are thousands more ready to take your place in a heartbeat.
There aren’t that many opportunities for people these days, especially at the senior level where titles and compensation is still inflated due to 2020-2022 grants.