OverSeas AG said:

---

WE WANT TO OFFSHORE... THAT WILL BE PRODUCTIVE! (even though it is half way around the world)

YOU CANNOT BE PRODUCTIVE WORKING FROM HOME A FEW DAYS A WEEK, BUT BEING IN THE SAME TIME ZONE AS YOUR WORK COLLEAGUES AND STILL SEEING THEM THREE DAYS A WEEK!



LOLZ If your company offshores... then please be quiet about WFH.

---

Exactly. My company 15 years ago off-shored work to India and we got shoddy work that we had to fix costing the company more. But that was okay because some VP up there got money, gifts and women as kickback. But now the same company CEO (he is still around) is vocal about RTO.

Quote:

---

Why do folks on F16 seem to hate WFH?

---

It is an interesting phenomenon.

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Why do folks on F16 seem to hate WFH?

---

I don't hate it. I typically WFH one day a week on Friday and WFO or travel the other four days. Really like the flexibility of my current arrangement and would be very reluctant to give it up.

That said, I also managed a large organization during the pandemic and dealt with several cases of employees who abused the model at that time, which was essentially 100% WFH.

There aren't any absolutes here. It works well in some cases and poorly in others. Works better for some functions (IT) and less so for others (customer service, product development). Works better for some employees vs. others in the same function.

Execs and managers will have to make choices based on what's best for the organization, as will employees for what's best for them, and it will shake out accordingly. Que sera, sera.

I don't think we're going all the way back to the world before covid, and I also don't think we'll remain frozen in the covid world of majority WFH either.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

AggieVictor10 said:

---

Why do folks on F16 seem to hate WFH?

---

I don't hate it. I typically WFH one day a week on Friday and WFO or travel the other four days. Really like the flexibility of my current arrangement and would be very reluctant to give it up.

That said, I also managed a large organization during the pandemic and dealt with several cases of employees who abused the model at that time, which was essentially 100% WFH.

There aren't any absolutes here. It works well in some cases and poorly in others. Works better for some functions (IT) and less so for others (customer service, product development). Works better for some employees vs. others in the same function.

Execs and managers will have to make choices based on what's best for the organization, as will employees for what's best for them, and it will shake out accordingly. Que sera, sera.

I don't think we're going all the way back to the world before covid, and I also don't think we'll remain frozen in the covid world of majority WFH either.

---

I agree with what you say.
Only change is Execs usually don't do what is best for the org. They do what is best for themselves personally. The only way to make them not take selfish decisions is to set their benefits in the right way. If you incentivize the exec on stock price, he will take actions to juice the stock in the short run but kill it in the long run.

A lot of this is definitely generational, exacerbated by the covid limitations of the last 4+ years. The biggest issue comes down to all of the younger, newer employees that came out of school and started their work life in the current work from home climate. They don't know anything else. Not an excuse, but it adds a factor of whininess and entitlement onto an already entitled and whiny segment of the population.

It's funny, my sister has a friend who works as a pharmacist (Albertsons, I think), and his entire job is done at home. He is given a pile of scripts to approve, and that's it. Cushy ass job. Any moron can do it (and I knew many morons back in undergrad who failed at everything else, but have done well being pharmacists; kind scary knowing those guys now, but it's a good safety gig that pays well). Well...one day his boss tried to get ahold of him during the work day for some reason, but since he was working from home he was out playing with his dog instead of being available, which was 100% part of his job requirement. Being available, at a minimum, should always be a component to being able to "work" from home, even if you've finished your assigned work. Because you know that there's a significant percentage of their time that is spent goofing off at home, if additional work comes along that needs to be done, they should have plenty of time to do it as long as they are not away from their computers/phones. Also, if they have never had anyone looking over their shoulder, or making sure they're at least pretending to work, then they feel there's no accountability involved. Which is sad to say, pretty much the most significant part of management these days...making sure your millennials always have something to do, otherwise the second they finish what's been assigned, they instantly turn off. Yes, I've managed many many millennials, and while they've been some of the best I've had, 99+% are the worst I've had to deal with compared to all other age groups, including teenagers.
Well...long story short, this friend got in trouble for goofing off with his dog instead of being available during the time he was supposed to be working, and is now required to be in the office instead of at home as part of his punishment. And of course, he is all upset about it and wants to quit and find another job. In his very limited world experience, he had a pretty good deal, but didn't even realize it. Then he screwed up, got caught, and now is in mid-tantrum. Ive kept quiet about it with my sister, but he is absolutely not in the right on this situation. As has been repeated on here many times, if he truly feels wronged and unappreciated, then he can find another job that lets him play at home a good chunk of the day, pays damn well for the amount of work required, while hiding behind the logic that "well I got the work done, so what's the big deal?" He's probably most upset because now he'll actually have to work a full day for the first time in his adult life. My response to that is, if you work 6 hours of an 8 hour day, then we're cutting your pay 25% and you can keep your cushy set up at home. Fair is fair.

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Oh no!

The E-mail class will now have to REALLY pretend to work after sending the two e-mails a day that their "job" demands of them instead of sending two e-mails and then putting their mouse on a random click program and doing whatever they wanted while "working" from home!

The Essentials weep for you and your loss

---

What is this mouse clicker you speak of…? Asking for a friend.

Meh. My corporate overlords have been good about flexibility. It is though a general rule that nothing gets to be delayed while you're WFH. You get your butt to the office if you're so much as sorta needed.

infinity ag said:

---

OverSeas AG said:

---

WE WANT TO OFFSHORE... THAT WILL BE PRODUCTIVE! (even though it is half way around the world)

YOU CANNOT BE PRODUCTIVE WORKING FROM HOME A FEW DAYS A WEEK, BUT BEING IN THE SAME TIME ZONE AS YOUR WORK COLLEAGUES AND STILL SEEING THEM THREE DAYS A WEEK!



LOLZ If your company offshores... then please be quiet about WFH.

---

Exactly. My company 15 years ago off-shored work to India and we got shoddy work that we had to fix costing the company more. But that was okay because some VP up there got money, gifts and women as kickback. But now the same company CEO (he is still around) is vocal about RTO.

---

Execs look stupid paying for expensive real estate that is sitting empty. Plus it's a shi$ economy (and yes, that is a fact for you Bidenomics idiots) and you know what's an easy way to get rid of people?
Get them into the office, even if it makes no sense.

Bottom line

1) WFH works fine for some, not for all. Not every situation is the same and it doesn't come down to just age and fear driving the back to work push, despite what Infinity Ag says.

2) if there is constant grab-assing and screwing around in your office that's just a plain and simple lack of leadership in your branch. Totally different issue.

3) yes IT nerds, there is tremendous value in actual face to face social time amongst team members. I don't mean hours long chit chats and it doesn't need to be every day. But yes it is important for a functioning team.

4) no one forces you to live where you live nor take a job hours from there. Your choice in both of those. Live with your choice.

The company my son works for (large Aerospace company) just brought everyone back in the office full time yesterday.

Good, there are some discreet fields remote work can be successful (especially if there is a automated method for production validation) other than that it's usually just laziness and theft, which seeing this in the Federal sector your taxpayers dollars are the "side hustle" to whatever they consider their real job. It's rampant and disgusting

Logos Stick said:

---

Looks like they will be losing major talent.

---

They will be losing employees, but let's tap the brakes on calling anyone that works for Amazon "major talent".

Ramdiesel said:

---

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

Only losers, freaks and lazies that sleep all day want to stay in their houses all day.

This is truth.

---

Their's plenty of those that showed up to the office I worked in for years. Just because they were showing up, doesn't mean they were doing things most days; unless ping pong, or foosball tournaments, or endless in face meetings that could have been handled with a couple of google chats or emails count as productivity?

I generally work from home 5 days a week, but when I do go to the office occasionally, it's a real pain in the arse because all the social butterflies want to catch up half the day, and it is just loud with all the joking around, long winded stories, and BS I hear all day unrelated to our work. Then you have a-holes that want to go sit on all the crappers in the building for 30 minutes or more playing on their phones. Why they want to sit in a stinky bathroom for that long is beyond me..I guess anything to keep the bosses from finding out they aren't working...

I'm not anti-social, I just normally have a lot of work to do every day, and it gets old having to play catch up with all the distractions, plus deal with stressful traffic to and from work every day...I think Work from Home is a blessing for people like myself who are self motivators and can be way more productive at home than in an office environment, but I can see where it's a bad thing for some that were always lazy and unproductive to begin with. It just provides cover for those types.

---

I used to work with this guy in an earlier job during before and during COVID. He told me the secret. He said he spent work hours socializing and talking to people. And taking them out for beer. And then after work hours he spent 2-3 hours getting work done. In contrast I spent my work hours getting work done.

Result is he is still there and I left because the politics and culture was too toxic for me.

For me, my fully remote direct reports work the hours they would be spending the the car commuting plus the normal work hours and thus the company benefits. But there are still executives that think the office is a magical place where wonderful things happen that wouldn't happen otherwise.

I actually heard C-Suite guy say how wonderful it was on an office day to see people chatting in the breakroom and at each other's desks. "There was so much interaction and collaboration".

What a bunch of BS. Those are prime examples of people in the office and not working. So much time is wasted in the office on chit-chat, sports discussions, general interruptions, and distractions. And the goof off's still don't work in the office. They hide in the bathroom, take smoke breaks, talk to their friends "about a difficult account", etc.

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

Only losers, freaks and lazies that sleep all day want to stay in their houses all day.

This is truth.

---

Offices are for the undisciplined who can't succeed without "the office" to give them a sense of direction and purpose.

This is truth.

Note: statements like yours and mine are absurd and add no value at all to a discussion. I'm guessing the only difference here is I'm being absurd to make a point and you believe what you posted.

Matt_ag98 said:

---

Good, there are some discreet fields remote work can be successful (especially if there is a automated method for production validation) other than that it's usually just laziness and theft, which seeing this in the Federal sector your taxpayers dollars are the "side hustle" to whatever they consider their real job. It's rampant and disgusting

---

You simply cannot compare the work ethic of federal employees to those in the private sector. That's apples and carburetors.

Cromagnum said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Looks like they will be losing major talent.

---

They will be losing employees, but let's tap the brakes on calling anyone that works for Amazon "major talent".

---

I think he meant a lot of people will leave.

Amazon hired a bunch of people from around the country. So your team might consist of people from Seattle, Dallas, Atlanta, Nashville, and NYC. They're getting this RTO process out of order, they should really have focused on having teams in only 1 or 2 locations.

A lot of the older guys in my office struggle with technology, have no idea how to make a Zoom meeting, share their screen, etc.

I think a lot of the WFH hate stems from the fear of inadequacy of working solely through technology.

WFH threads on Texags are the greatest. Poor schleps that have to work in the office and commute yell at the lucky ones that can work from home. Some of yalls posts should be lit up green because the envy is showing

OregonAggie said:

---

WFH threads on Texags are the greatest. Poor schleps that have to work in the office and commute yell at the lucky ones that can work from home. Some of yalls posts should be lit up green because the envy is showing

---

What? I can work from home every day of the year if I want to. I choose not to do so and think it's better that way. I don't envy WFH people at all.

The majority of people are not able to be as productive doing WFH as they are in the office. Just because 10% are able to maintain that productivity doesn't make WFH a good blanket option for employees.

This was always going to get clawed back. I'm surprised it took this long, really.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Bottom line

1) WFH works fine for some, not for all. Not every situation is the same and it doesn't come down to just age and fear driving the back to work push, despite what Infinity Ag says.

2) if there is constant grab-assing and screwing around in your office that's just a plain and simple lack of leadership in your branch. Totally different issue.

3) yes IT nerds, there is tremendous value in actual face to face social time amongst team members. I don't mean hours long chit chats and it doesn't need to be every day. But yes it is important for a functioning team.

4) no one forces you to live where you live nor take a job hours from there. Your choice in both of those. Live with your choice.

---

On Point 4, I find this attitude odd coming from this board that generally and rightfully so warns against the dangers of living in the city. It's considered virtue around here to live "in the country" away from all the liberals and failed democrats policies. Yet at the same time we want to discourage this and force normal people to live in some blue hellscape so they can be closer to their desk?

Tergdor said:

---

The majority of people are not able to be as productive doing WFH as they are in the office. Just because 10% are able to maintain that productivity doesn't make WFH a good blanket option for employees.

This was always going to get clawed back. I'm surprised it took this long, really.

---

There is zero evidence to support that assertion. Conventional wisdom - and truth - has always been, pre WFH: 20% of the employees do 80% of the work. The 80% are not productive regardless of location. I think this is a whole lot about managers wanting to look out of their office and see their little chicks sitting in their cubicles. It makes them feel like they are actually contributing something.

Logos Stick said:

---

Tergdor said:

---

The majority of people are not able to be as productive doing WFH as they are in the office. Just because 10% are able to maintain that productivity doesn't make WFH a good blanket option for employees.

This was always going to get clawed back. I'm surprised it took this long, really.

---

There is zero evidence to support that assertion. Conventional wisdom - and truth - has always been, pre WFH: 20% of the employees do 80% of the work. The 80% are not productive regardless of location. I think this is a whole lot about managers wanting to look out of their office and see their little chicks sitting in their cubicles. It makes them feel like they are actually contributing something.

---

Lol, you can't assert the percentages he threw out are wrong and then go throw out your own percentages based on "conventional wisdom"! Show me the studies backing up your "conventional wisdom" please.

And my god there's a lot of bitterness and resentfullness towards managers from the WFH crowd. Just a coincidence I'm sure though.

Ed Harley said:

---

OregonAggie said:

---

WFH threads on Texags are the greatest. Poor schleps that have to work in the office and commute yell at the lucky ones that can work from home. Some of yalls posts should be lit up green because the envy is showing

---

What? I can work from home every day of the year if I want to. I choose not to do so and think it's better that way. I don't envy WFH people at all.

---

Same here. I could have WFH the past four years if I wanted. No jealousy here. In fact I see the opposite. A lot of WFH people have some serious envy and resentment towards management.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Bottom line

1) WFH works fine for some, not for all. Not every situation is the same and it doesn't come down to just age and fear driving the back to work push, despite what Infinity Ag says.

2) if there is constant grab-assing and screwing around in your office that's just a plain and simple lack of leadership in your branch. Totally different issue.

3) yes IT nerds, there is tremendous value in actual face to face social time amongst team members. I don't mean hours long chit chats and it doesn't need to be every day. But yes it is important for a functioning team.

4) no one forces you to live where you live nor take a job hours from there. Your choice in both of those. Live with your choice.

---

On Point 4, I find this attitude odd coming from this board that generally and rightfully so warns against the dangers of living in the city. It's considered virtue around here to live "in the country" away from all the liberals and failed democrats policies. Yet at the same time we want to discourage this and force normal people to live in some blue hellscape so they can be closer to their desk?

---

Not at all. I've said the whole time that there are plenty of jobs which can be done remotely. But if you don't have one of those jobs, and you need to be in the office for your job to be done effectively, then you have a choice. If you value living remotely, that may require a long commute to work. That's a choice, a sacrifice that you choose to make. And if you value living remotely enough then it'll be a worthwhile sacrifice.

But some people want their cake and wanna eat it too. They want to perform jobs which by their nature require an office presence, but they also want to live remotely an hour and a half from the office and reserve the right to complain about the commute.

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

BenFiasco14 said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Bottom line

1) WFH works fine for some, not for all. Not every situation is the same and it doesn't come down to just age and fear driving the back to work push, despite what Infinity Ag says.

2) if there is constant grab-assing and screwing around in your office that's just a plain and simple lack of leadership in your branch. Totally different issue.

3) yes IT nerds, there is tremendous value in actual face to face social time amongst team members. I don't mean hours long chit chats and it doesn't need to be every day. But yes it is important for a functioning team.

4) no one forces you to live where you live nor take a job hours from there. Your choice in both of those. Live with your choice.

---

On Point 4, I find this attitude odd coming from this board that generally and rightfully so warns against the dangers of living in the city. It's considered virtue around here to live "in the country" away from all the liberals and failed democrats policies. Yet at the same time we want to discourage this and force normal people to live in some blue hellscape so they can be closer to their desk?

---

Not at all. I've said the whole time that there are plenty of jobs which can be done remotely. But if you don't have one of those jobs, and you need to be in the office for your job to be done effectively, then you have a choice. If you value living remotely, that may require a long commute to work. That's a choice, a sacrifice that you choose to make. And if you value living remotely enough then it'll be a worthwhile sacrifice.

But some people want their cake and wanna eat it too. They want to perform jobs which by their nature require an office presence, but they also want to live remotely an hour and a half from the office and reserve the right to complain about the commute.

---

I agree with you and should've clarified my response wasn't necessarily directed at you, but more just a general statement to "the board". These threads are always interesting because there's a lot of folks here I agree with on most issues yet they are vehemently anti work from home.

I would like to provide a counter point to the statements in here talking about the impact WFH can have on economies where work centers are (restaurants etc). Couldn't WFH be a blessing in disguise that can maybe decentralize where we have all the activity? In other words, if people aren't coming into Dallas or Houston as often, why not focus more on placing amenities farther away from the city core instead of focusing on high rises and the like? What if this could resurrect formerly dead small towns with small businesses - coffee shops for remote workers to work at and a way to reinvigorate formerly dead local economies.

My son recieved an offer for a full time accounting gig with one of the big 4 after he graduates this May. A lot of his internship was remote and I assume a lot of his job will also be remote, but I think it's a tough ask for big corporations force talented professionals to commute to a hell-hole, live with reasonable proximity to that hell-hole, and pay rent out the rear.

Bird Poo said:

---

My son recieved an offer for a full time accounting gig with one of the big 4 after he graduates this May. A lot of his internship was remote and I assume a lot of his job will also be remote, but I think it's a tough ask for big corporations force talented professionals to commute to a hell-hole, live with reasonable proximity to that hell-hole, and pay rent out the rear.

---

We require newbies to be on prem for a couple of years where we have our offices. I think that makes a lot of sense. At that point, you know what you have and can allow remote office, etc... if you want to keep the individual.

bmks270 said:

---

FL_Ag1998 said:

---

Bottom line

1) WFH works fine for some, not for all. Not every situation is the same and it doesn't come down to just age and fear driving the back to work push, despite what Infinity Ag says.

2) if there is constant grab-assing and screwing around in your office that's just a plain and simple lack of leadership in your branch. Totally different issue.

3) yes IT nerds, there is tremendous value in actual face to face social time amongst team members. I don't mean hours long chit chats and it doesn't need to be every day. But yes it is important for a functioning team.

4) no one forces you to live where you live nor take a job hours from there. Your choice in both of those. Live with your choice.

---

Weird how companies love hiring overseas foreign workers, but don't want Americans to work remote.

---

Offshore labor doesn't work remote.

Offshore labor is also a hell of a lot cheaper than onshore labor, so if you are going to pay for sub-par labor you may as well use offshore labor.

Logos Stick said:

---

Tergdor said:

---

The majority of people are not able to be as productive doing WFH as they are in the office. Just because 10% are able to maintain that productivity doesn't make WFH a good blanket option for employees.

This was always going to get clawed back. I'm surprised it took this long, really.

---

There is zero evidence to support that assertion. Conventional wisdom - and truth - has always been, pre WFH: 20% of the employees do 80% of the work. The 80% are not productive regardless of location. I think this is a whole lot about managers wanting to look out of their office and see their little chicks sitting in their cubicles. It makes them feel like they are actually contributing something.

---

What I said has nothing to do with the Pareto Principle.

Anecdotally, both the 20% and 80% are less productive when WFH overall. Maybe the 80% is so much less productive that the 20% can't pull the additional weight, but WFH seems to be leading to less production overall. The "conventional wisdom" supporting that is the fact that so many companies are mandating and reinstating office time now. You don't think Amazon, the most sophisticated logistics and IT company on the planet, doesn't have the data showing WFH has hurt their production?