Hacker News Reader

Comment by ResearchCode | Hacker News Reader

They have plenty of other office workers to talk to. For some reason, that is not enough, and the office workers need a better argument than "real product development happens at the water cooler". For the employer to make an informed decision it's better if the arguments are honest.

It can be a large win-small loss situation too. Remote workers gain two hours of commute back and forty hours of focused work. Office workers lose the open floor plan vibe (it's called back to office but tech workers don't have offices) and ability to push around their colleagues, or whichever the actual reason is. I don't understand it fully. It doesn't seem morally justifiable to me, and they encroach more on the professional autonomy on the remote worker than the remote worker does to them. The office workers wouldn't like it if they were being coerced to work from home for some BS reason.

View on HN

> For some reason, that is not enough, and the office workers need a better argument than "real product development happens at the water cooler".

Here's the thing: they don't need a better argument. They don't need an argument at all. It's their preference.

> I don't understand it fully. It doesn't seem morally justifiable to me, and they encroach more on the professional autonomy on the remote worker than the remote worker does to them.

Here's the thing: it doesn't need to be morally justifiable to you or anyone else. It's a preference for working in-office with other people in-office.

I think you do understand this it's just that you don't like it because you have your own preference.

You don't need an argument for a preference. If you try to coerce other people according to your preference, you need an argument, as you would in any other context. For some reason, the RTO arguments are very bad. Is there some part the proponents can't say out loud?

No. It's possible my stock options would be worth more if the office workers adopted the more efficient form of work from home. Maybe the hybrid meetings would be more enjoyable fully remote. I still wouldn't think about trying to coerce them into that with talk about synergy or the online version of water coolers. That's a bad thing to do. Let them enjoy the office, and others remote.

> If you try to coerce other people according to your preference, you need an argument, as you would in any other context.

You may think you're more likely to get your way if you have a compelling argument but history has proven that's not always true.

The argument is, "I would like this better."

> For reason, the RTO arguments are very bad. Is there some part the proponents can't say out loud?

No, I believe the part being said out loud is, "We prefer to work at a company where all employees are in office." That's all you need to say. The only people I've ever heard talk about water coolers are the dismissive WFH people.

It has nothing to do with getting your way but working efficiently and with respect for the autonomy of your colleagues.

That's a bad argument. Sounds like we should not work from the office then. What comes after the "I like making others work in the office, because"? That's the quiet part not being said out loud. I'm interested.

That's not what I'm hearing or what you would read in an announcement for one the partial RTOs that have happened at some tech companies.

They exist: a managing director and an executive director at my last place of employment used the words "water cooler" on all-hands meetings among their justifications for RTO. "Coffee machine" was another variation. Swiss financial institution. I no longer work there, because I don't need to waste 2 hours/day on trains and buses just to spend my entire day on video calls with other international management. I'd rather raise chickens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com