Hacker News Reader

Comment by 010a | Hacker News Reader

I would take an 8% raise. If I'm working from home, that is one less capital expense the company has to invest in me, in the form of office space and office perks. I would not volunteer to work from home if it had any chance of decreasing my productivity. As such, that is more money in the company's pocket that they should reinvest back into the employees so they have the option of replicating office perks back at home (equipment, coffee, snacks, things like that).

View on HN

Really? You dont consider working from home a perk?

Is it a perk to work in a company's office? Where you work should not modify your compensation.

My company probably spends millions to rent it's office. It also has a kitchen with a lot of free food and coffee available. So, they'd probably save a lot of money to have a smaller office with fewer people in it, and I'd spend more money on coffee if I worked from home. There are certainly pros and cons for both, and costs associated with those things.

I admit, I'm biased. My day job is fully remote (the entire company), and the company treats us extremely well. In return for saving them rent on an office space, we have no commute, the ability to work from anywhere with an internet connection, and so on (vacation time is easier to use when you're already living somewhere exotic versus having to travel from some major metro in the US). Saved office expenses are dollars that can go into growing the business or employee perks. I don't mind paying for the coffee; I'm still ahead thousands of dollars a year from not needing a car and commuting each day. To each their own of course!

In and of itself? No, not really. But in my case, I've got in-person access to coworkers, drinks+snacks, a nicer desk and work area than I have space for at home, occasional catered food and social events, etc. So I feel like it's a perk in my situation, even if it isn't in someone else's.

Would you not say then that employees who opt in to going to an office should make less then? As they're costing their employer significantly more than a remote worker.

It's easier to quantify the costs than the benefits, IMO. I think it's easier to collaborate when I'm sitting right next to my coworkers. I think it's reasonable to say that it saves 30 minutes a day for each employee on the team. So, for costs: a couple bucks a day in drinks, the floorspace I take up, electricity, climate control, etc. Benefits: increased communication efficiency, mental separation between home and work, and fewer work-irrelevant distractions.

It's not clear to me whether the pros outweigh the cons or not.

Being able to work from home when I need to is a perk.

Having to work from home is not, because I enjoy being able to quickly reach out to my coworkers face-to-face (especially when I need to talk to more than one), I enjoy having a delineated work/home demarcator, and I enjoy all of the perks that my employer provides (snacks, drinks, weekly catered lunch) and ones that come for free with the office location (a nice view, a good selection of places to eat, a convenient commute).

Not personally, at least from a social aspect. I work from home. I haven't spoken to people in so long that when I finally saw my friends from out of town (everyone moved away), my face hurt from talking and laughing so much I could't flex a muscle in my face for a week.

Those with families and already established social circles, and significant others, are in a great position to work from home.

It's great for me because I have a lot of anxiety and do better in solitude but the social aspect is depressing.

I mainly went this route when I got a job in an open office that drove me absolutely insane. Every little sound and interaction would distract and subsequently infuriate me. Plus watching a bunch of 20 year olds line up 3x a day with their plates in their hands was disgusting, having employers infantilize their employees to such a degree, I couldn't take it anymore. It went far beyond the food but that's a story for another time.

I agree with the raise.

No. I get paid to do a job on a computer screen. The location of that screen is irrelevant as long as the job gets done.

The 'perk' is for the company. They don't have to pay electricity for my computer, provide desk space, commuter benefits or have me drinking their coffee, or using their bathrooms. They also don't have me on premises, so that's one less employee to insure. One less 'head' to add to their on-premises liability insurance. Less heating and cooling expenses and less expense for real estate. You have productivity gains because rarely is someone late for work when they're already at work. You also have fewer sick days because if I'm contagious but still functional, that means I can keep working whereas otherwise, I'd have to stay home.

It's a win-win for both parties, despite many employers trying to frame the conversation as an employee 'benefit.'

Obviously some jobs won't work (for example hardware or physical goods,) but for a job where you're on a phone or in front of a computer screen -- what's the difference?

> but for a job where you're on a phone or in front of a computer screen -- what's the difference?

I like the work-home separation and don't have a space that I could reasonably use as a home office, right now. Also, meetings have much lower friction in person than over a phone. My coworkers and I are often in each other's cubes, collaborating and switching off between who's at the keyboard.

I agree with the general statement, though: If I'm doing something that doesn't inherently require physical presence, then it shouldn't matter where I'm doing the work from. In my case, working at the company-provided office is more convenient on most days than working at home would be.

I sure do. My commute is about 5 minutes. Most other jobs I've considered add at a minimum an hour of commute, and some are close to two hours. If I took public transportation it would be even worse.

I generally only work an 8 hour day unless there is a major issue at work. Just working offsite can make that a 10 hour day, 2 hours of which are going to be frustrating traffic. Screw that.

The social aspect can be a downside, but it is possible to have friends outside of work.

When I work from home I tend to be more productive: I start earlier, finish later, and take more breaks away from the keyboard and screen so my work later in the day is better than it would have been otherwise.

In my case I save an hour a day commuting, I'm not subject to the bunch of network operations staff in the next aisle who punctuate their day with loud conversations about computer game, politics, pranking and trolling each other. The office I work is in a noisy, crowded environment which is entirely distracting and frustrating to me.

The computer I have at home is ideally suited for the work I do (I bought it specifically for the task). The computer I have at work is about six years old, underprovisioned for the work I do.

My employer should consider it a perk to have me work from home, and should pay me extra to do so since I'm happy to provide a comfortable work environment with adequate infrastructure for the work I'm doing.

I think 10% extra for working from home is a suitable compensation given everything the employer gains.

We used to enjoy work from home at the discretion of our immediate supervisors, but due to a falling out between senior management and one of my colleagues who was working from home when one senior manager wanted to drop by their desk to talk about an issue that was being actively discussed on email and HipChat, all staff lost their work from home privileges.

Which highlights another benefit of working from home: more of my communication will be via email and other recorded formats, so it is harder to forget what I've communicated to you, and you have to take time to formulate your questions rather than simply walking into my personal space, interrupting whatever I'm working on, and asking a question I already answered yesterday.

Allowing work from home indicates that management is competent. Retracting work from home privileges already granted indicates the opposite.

No I'm not bitter, why do you ask?

They save money by not having you at the office while it costs you more; electricity, food, home office etc.

And you tend to work longer even if it's just the commute time.

This isn't about it being a perk or not, it's about who is making a financial gain and who is baring the costs.

In this case the company is transferring some of the expenses to you while eliminating others, adding a pay cut to this is not a wise decision.

The problem I have with working remotely is that you're not part of the conversation. I work with a co-located team and I'm based in satellite office and could work from home 100% of the time. It works fine within the team, but when politics starts happening outside of the team, we don't know about it until things hit the fan and we are playing defense.

Even not regarding the politics, it's a lot easier just to walk over to someone's desk to get their input then reach them on Slack and try to do a hangout.

So yeah having the option to work from home is great when you really need to be heads down, you are contagious but you are able to work, etc., but I wouldn't want to be in situation where I'm always remote.

Plus you are spending on extra heating/cooling,

Reply on news.ycombinator.com