Hacker News Reader

Comment by evo_9 | Hacker News Reader

No they’re not; some of us have become managers during all this and won’t stand for it. Not to mention we’ve hired quite a few out-of-state resources and simply can’t afford to lose them.

Some shitty companies will pursue this but the smart companies will stay the course and hire away their talent. It’s a competitive advantage and companies need to view it that way or suffer.

Also - this will now provide us with a very simple test, is this a shitty company that does not truly value its employees, or are they one of the good ones worthy of my attention.

View on HN

My question about these policies is are they actually applying them to everyone in the org, or is there a political mess of exceptions and 'key people' who can muscle their way out of the requirement? It seems like a lot of the recent layoffs are intended to give an attitude check to those who think they are essential, but surely these businesses actually have essential teams and specific engineers that would harm the org if they left?

Yes. At GE (yes, the real GE Aviation that still exists) we just said "Yessa master" and then ignored the three day per week in-office "requirement." The managers (directors and lower C-levels) in the trenches had zero interest in enforcing it. Though, that place is a den of malicious compliance throughout.

Just nod, and then do what you want. No need to keep bringing it up.

I agree that some of these instances won't have teeth. I think for companies who already have aggressive attrition policies like Microsoft, Amazon, and perhaps Walmart they will though.

Long before covid I did the same thing, I just started working from home and got some flak for it, but it never entered into my performance equation and I remained employed there.

> Yes. At GE (yes, the real GE Aviation that still exists) we just said "Yessa master" and then ignored the three day per week in-office "requirement." The managers (directors and lower C-levels) in the trenches had zero interest in enforcing it. Though, that place is a den of malicious compliance throughout.

Sounds like Kodak in the 90s. The CEO would announce company wide job reductions and the department heads ignored it and kept hiring.

Apple is giving verbal notices for not complying 3 days RTO, I heard on blind. Here, HR is forcing the attrition: either come 3 days to office or quit.

Everyone’s situation is different, but I know people at a big tech company you’ve heard of who are infamous for being, well, kind of assholes, who when given a similar offer by HR have said no I’m not coming to the office and no I’m not quitting and that has worked for over a year so far.

Of course that’s all predicated on your manager wanting to keep you and at least somewhat go to bat for you. Otherwise I expect it’ll lead to dismissal rather rapidly.

I know some people at amazon, which also has a long-standing RTO policy, that it effectively doesn't apply to engineers, since they were too important to risk attrition.

I don't know why anyone would voluntarily quit though: force them to make a scene and fire you for WFH. Best case you call their bluff, worst case you get severance.

In a large company like Walmart, do the managers really have enough power here to sway outcomes? Without a union, managers seem powerless here unless enforcement falls to them.

Well they’re still going to, no matter how much you fight. WfH will be an exception rather than the default, that’s what they are trying.

they way I see it, having in-person workers is a competitive advantage for the company. those who figure out a way to keep their workers in office will be more competitive than those who don't. from the company perspective it definitely makes sense to push for in-person work as much as the workforce will tolerate.

There's a good deal of debate over if in-person or remote is more productive but there's zero debate that paying for physical offices is much more expensive than paying for a VPN connection.

Rents will find a level for this. It seems interesting that in NY, which overindexes for executives, the office market is not coming back and will have to reduce supply significantly. Is this rule being applied outside the c-suite?

I think there are massive practical issues with remote work. But I am not sure there weren't significant issues with the: paying $10m/year in rent, so your manager can look up and see if you are at the desk...and, presumably, working.

That’s only if being in the office gives you a competitive advantage. I don’t think I’ve seen anything that bears that out so far.

I think it is an advantage if you are building new, complex systems and need to move fast. In that case, you won't need to ask anyone to come in...they just will. Most places don't have that requirement but some managers drool over any chance to cargo cult.

Myself and two other devs are building everything from scratch for a new company involving US direct deposits. We come into the office one or two days per week to demo and meet with managers and operations people.

If I were just supporting a system I would never go in.

There are quite a few non-"shitty" companies mandating RTO for those not hired as remote workers. Classifying good companies as "shitty" because one doesn't like the original terms of employment agreed to by both parties is hyperbola. Sure, it's not your preference, but it does not make it a "shitty" company.

> Classifying good companies as "shitty" because one doesn't like their terms of employment is hyperbola.

I think most people care quite a lot about their "terms of employment": pay, working hours, work location, etc.

No doubt, but the companies being referred to are generally companies people are looking to be hired at, you know, the FAANG sort who are now bringing up the original terms as agreed upon.

Now, if the poster is referring to some contract shop, sure, their terms are usually lousy, but here the poster is referring to the FAANGs of the world who are now asking many employees to RTO on some frequency basis.

Which companies are you referring to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com