Hacker News Reader

Comment by ysavir | Hacker News Reader

Not sure why this is being downvoted. True, not all coworkers are there for building a social life, but many are. The GP was just as single-sided in its evaluation of workplace comradery.

What we would benefit from is workplaces having a strong stance on which culture they belong to, and applicants understanding that, respecting it, and seeking employment in the desired culture.

View on HN

Because it’s a self perpetuating trap that a lot of young workers fall into and forces others to adopt it for career purposes. Companies love this behavior but it’s unhealthy as there is always a layer of work layered over those relationships. I’ve seen it many times where those friendships disappear when the gig is done, or where a night out veers back to work topics. Not to mention where is the variety in perspective in your social circle if it’s all work friends? I know better now to seek most friendships outside work so I’m not accidentally linking my entire social existence into the company I work for.

I’ve always felt the “coworkers can’t be your friends” argument was as silly as saying “school mates can’t be your friends.”

Make friends where you make them.

Of course they can be your friends. But demanding they leave their families behind to hold your hand in an office is creepy.

no one is “demanding” someone “leave their families behind” to hold anyone’s hand in an office.

The context here is of 'work from home' vs 'go to the office' because coworkers need you to socialize with them, so yes, some are indeed demanding that workers leave their families behind to come hold their hand in the office.

Where I work, family time is family time and work time is work time. Working from home should very little difference, and if it persistently does then that's a problem.

It's pretty normal for people to take breaks. The last office I worked in had video game consoles that people used during the day, or they'd go on a walk to get coffee. No one cares as long as people are getting their work done.

Now that I work from home, I can take a break to go on a walk with my family, and we can eat lunch together. It's a huge difference even with no change in time spent working.

I don’t they’re saying you must go to the office because people need you to socializing them, I think they’re saying some people prefer the office because they have the opportunity to socialize. And at least for my part I was agreeing that these folks exist.

Actually it does happen and it is awful because those making the demands are really lame people that never grew out of high school mentality - all their work friends or school friends are their only friends. If you don’t join them you are to be expunged.

The snark in me wants to say "you live in a society". It's a free market of jobs. Want to be a yeoman, head to the farm.

> Want to be a yeoman, head to the farm.

How about "Want a friend? Go find one. We're at work." Work is the only place where people who aren't wealthy can get their pay. Work, a place where people are locked in for 8 hours a day under pain of starvation and homelessness, is the only place where some minority of people can make "friends." We shouldn't tailor everything around those people, even though they're likely to be the most vocal.

One of my arguments is that in the long term, full remote will hamper the ability for people to cross train, quickly pick up new skills, or network and be able to find new jobs effectively.

I feels like you're saying "fuck you, I got mine" to new entrants to the field.

I know wfh is great for others. It's terrible for others. No one is forcing you to do a thing. WFH is certainly here to stay for many companies.

And when you need to fire your friend, or report them for inappropriate behavior in the workplace, how is that going to go for you? What if you share something important with a coworker-friend and they dislike it? You are now stuck with that person.

I don’t want to be in management, so I just have to not report my friends’ inappropriate behavior. I wouldn’t do that to a friend anyway, short of something like murder.

You wouldn't report someone for accepting bribes, falsifying paperwork or sexually harassing someone just because they are your friend?

no.

I think it is reasonably to maintain professional distance from your reports for that reason.

I’m not sure what you mean by “something important” but I don’t think that’s significantly different than a risk you might take with a neighbor or a classmate. You can be stuck with those as well.

> What we would benefit from is workplaces having a strong stance on which culture they belong to, and applicants understanding that, respecting it, and seeking employment in the desired culture.

That just sounds like a strong stance that minorities (of any type) should be restricted to a tiny number of companies and fields, and that companies should be very opinionated and strict about aspects of applicants that are completely unrelated to their technical, organizational or communications skills.

That's a very unfair take. My point was that some companies can say "we're adopting a WFH policy so that people can prioritize their out-of-work wants and needs" and other companies can say "we have an in-office policy so that people can fraternize during work". Both are valid policies that can be enriching to employees, and the key to preventing frustration is to maintain proper expectations--don't hire people that want a policy out of line with what you offer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com