[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by rsmurano

If you are in demand, you have flexibility to negotiate with your employer. If you are not in demand, then you follow what your employer asks of you or you quit.

The last 30+ years of my IT career I was in demand. When I was in the office, I would leave a couple times a week at 2-3 to play golf, or I’d get in around 9 because of waterskiing. The last 10+ years, I worked at home which was over 1000 miles from my boss and my coworkers were all over the world. I waterskied every day during my 2.5 hour lunch. I also played some tennis/pickleball in the mornings until 9.

Not a big deal during all those years. All my bosses knew work time would balance out in the long run. I would have midnight calls with clients/coworkers in Europe, china, and India. Or I’d have to get prepared to give a talk at a conference overseas which might have required long hours for a few weeks. What mattered most was my job output, not the amount of hours at a desk.

Some people can’t be productive working at home. I eventually had to let an employee go when they abused the privilege of working home 1 day a week 20 years ago. (Taking away the work at home privilege started a long trail of bad habits).
Also, some companies just want to micro manage their employees and the only way they can do that is to have them at their desk in the office.

Thanks. I can understand how a work at home plan works in a "for profit" business. I had a Federal Government job, and I relocated from Georgia to northern Virginia without a promotion, but I had a firm agreement that I could work from home in Virginia. This was when it was almost unheard of to work at home. It was a huge benefit to me because I no longer had to sit in an office for 8 hours doing nothing and waiting for quiting time. In the Government, there are very few employees who are "in demand" as you phrased it because many offices are extremely overstaffed and the Government doesn't need to make a profit. So the work at home plan in the Government will make it virtually impossible to measure performance.

[HospitalCoder]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

For the last 15 years of my career, I was allowed to work at home. I considered it a very significant benefit, and I was more effective and more efficient than most workers who worked in the office. Whenever someone called me, I answered the call on the first ring and I was available 24/7 to do almost anything. They would never get a voicemail that I was "away from my desk". If they needed me in the office, I could be there within 30 minutes.

I am confused by the recent news reports that some employees are refusing to come into the office to work. Really? If I was an employer, and I wanted my employees to work in the office, I would demand it, or they would be fired immediately. What is going on? I don't get it. Can someone please explain to me how an employee can tell their employer that they refuse to come into the office?

I’ve been working remotely for almost 20 years. I now work from out of state so coming on site would be impossible but if I did still live locally, I would quit before going on site as would several others. In the current job market, we are not easily replaceable so I don’t see it ever happening. That is effectively what remote workers are doing. They are saying no, if that’s what you want, I’m out of here. Find someone else. Nothing wrong with that. If an employee doesn’t stand up for what they want, they will never get it. If it’s that important to the employer and they can find someone with the same job skills, they can foolishly let skill and experience slip through their fingers and they will rue the day they had to have their own way.

[MarkD1981]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

For the last 15 years of my career, I was allowed to work at home. I considered it a very significant benefit, and I was more effective and more efficient than most workers who worked in the office. Whenever someone called me, I answered the call on the first ring and I was available 24/7 to do almost anything. They would never get a voicemail that I was "away from my desk". If they needed me in the office, I could be there within 30 minutes.

I am confused by the recent news reports that some employees are refusing to come into the office to work. Really? If I was an employer, and I wanted my employees to work in the office, I would demand it, or they would be fired immediately. What is going on? I don't get it. Can someone please explain to me how an employee can tell their employer that they refuse to come into the office?

Employees can refuse when they think they are hard to replace which often is the case. This is slowly changing as the labor market normalizes.

[Switter]

Employment today is completely "at will", meaning the employer or the employee can end the relationship (unless there is a contract) at any time for any reason that does not violate EEOC laws. So if an employee wants to refuse to come in, that is their prerogative. If an employer wants to fire that employee, that too is their prerogative. I am full-time remote and moved out of the state where my office is (with my employer's approval). If they called us back into the office I would have to decide whether to push back, find another job, or sell my house and move back. In this day and age there is zero loyalty between employees and employers and necessity dictates who holds the advantage. It's not necessarily right or wrong, it's just the nature of employment today. I am a software developer and finding qualified people is increasingly difficult for employers. That gives me the advantage (for right now at least). Before I would go through the whole mess of selling my new house in the villages and moving back to where I came from, I would definitely start interviewing for another job. I am not sure why people think I have some intrinsic duty to prioritize the needs of my employer over my own, other than to perform the duties that I agreed too when hired. It's not like a family business, it's a faceless corporation and each will do what is in their own best interest. Again, not good or bad just the nature of employment today.

[deborahcme]

I was a work from home worker before it was a thing. As a freelance writer, training consultant, I've worked both in and out of the office. Here's what I note: Productivity is a thing not easily measured. I've seen workers at their desks doing everything but work during work hours. There's a real agony associated with having to stay at your desk till 5, even though there may be no actually work to do. Efficient use of time is better served when you can work from home--not spending up to an hour or more commuting. For those with kids or who serve as the caregiver for a parent or others, the stress level associated with being an hour or more away when problems crop up is eliminated. When a good portion of the workforce is not clogging up the highways in the am and pm rush, everyone benefits. . Yes there are "cons" to it, and for some jobs (public in person facing jobs) it just won't work. But employees who have been able to experience the real benefits associated with work from home are, in my humble opinion, right to question what may seem like an employer's arbitrary demand to return the entire workforce to an X days a week, X hours a day schedule for no other reason than that's the way it used to be. The workforce is changing. Technology is making that transition better. Workers can be productive, and employers can reap benefits as well. We now have downtowns that are alive during the day and (in the business districts) mostly dead at night. We have suburban areas that are dead during the day and alive at night. it would be nice to have a better mix of use for these areas. Compromise between employers and employees seems to be the way to go.

[jojoturf]

It was a huge benefit to work from home back in the day — a rarity for the communication company where I worked. A weekly productivity report was required to management in order to prove our worth. Clearly worked harder from home, 12 hr days. No in-office social nonsense. I’ve observed remote workers now at the pool on conference calls or taking incoming calls while catching the rays. It’s a good gig if you can pull it off!

[BlueStarAirlines]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Thanks. I can understand how a work at home plan works in a "for profit" business. I had a Federal Government job, and I relocated from Georgia to northern Virginia without a promotion, but I had a firm agreement that I could work from home in Virginia. This was when it was almost unheard of to work at home. It was a huge benefit to me because I no longer had to sit in an office for 8 hours doing nothing and waiting for quiting time. In the Government, there are very few employees who are "in demand" as you phrased it because many offices are extremely overstaffed and the Government doesn't need to make a profit. So the work at home plan in the Government will make it virtually impossible to measure performance.

I'm a current Government employee working from home in The Villages...just recently relocated from Northern Virginia. You must have been out of the Government for some time because its VERY easy to measure performance. I do it every day with the 20 people that work for me....and my boss for me.

The bottom line is one measures performance, so are tasks completed, are deliverables...delivered, are mandatory tasks for employees (training, etc) completed, I can see employee metrics for the last hour, day, week, and month. With business tools such as Teams, Sharepoint, etc there is constant connectivity. As a manager, I see the calendars and schedules, and when one is online or away. I have more visibility being online than if I was a supervisor in the office.

So, to say "work at home plan in the Government will make it virtually impossible to measure performance" is a statement based on dated information. The Government from 3 years ago is not the same as today.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by BlueStarAirlines

I'm a current Government employee working from home in The Villages...just recently relocated from Northern Virginia. You must have been out of the Government for some time because its VERY easy to measure performance. I do it every day with the 20 people that work for me....and my boss for me.

The bottom line is one measures performance, so are tasks completed, are deliverables...delivered, are mandatory tasks for employees (training, etc) completed, I can see employee metrics for the last hour, day, week, and month. With business tools such as Teams, Sharepoint, etc there is constant connectivity. As a manager, I see the calendars and schedules, and when one is online or away. I have more visibility being online than if I was a supervisor in the office.

So, to say "work at home plan in the Government will make it virtually impossible to measure performance" is a statement based on dated information. The Government from 3 years ago is not the same as today.

Thanks. I think it depends on which agency you work for, and whether or not you have measurable tasks. But, the biggest difference between the Government and the private sector is that the Government can spend as much money as they want and still stay in business. That is why we have a huge national debt.

[Dilligas]

Unfortunately many of today's workers can not communicate...they can only text in short sentences or statements. Depending on the job, face to face and phone communication is very necessary, so putting the workers together in a work place is becoming necessary. Getting that accomplished is becoming challenging due to workforce shortage and worker's vision of his company's requirements and job qualifications.

[Red Rose]

It’s nice to have flexibility in the workplace. Especially when there are children involved. As long as you’re doing the work and the boss is satisfied, what difference does it make if you’re at home or in the office.

[Professor]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

For the last 15 years of my career, I was allowed to work at home. I considered it a very significant benefit, and I was more effective and more efficient than most workers who worked in the office. Whenever someone called me, I answered the call on the first ring and I was available 24/7 to do almost anything. They would never get a voicemail that I was "away from my desk". If they needed me in the office, I could be there within 30 minutes.

I am confused by the recent news reports that some employees are refusing to come into the office to work. Really? If I was an employer, and I wanted my employees to work in the office, I would demand it, or they would be fired immediately. What is going on? I don't get it. Can someone please explain to me how an employee can tell their employer that they refuse to come into the office?

Depends on the field, but many workers today just don't care what the employer wants. They want to work from home and that's it. They should be fired, in my opinion, but with a lack of replacement workers willing to commute to an office each day the employer may be stuck without enough bodies to get the work done. If it was my business I would let them go...

[Bonanza]

What started this thread, I believe, was because of the new Amazon requirement regarding returning to work. However, there are only four locations where this requirement was going to be in effect.

As I understand it, these four locations required workers to move and that was the real issue/problem. If I am wrong about this, please correct me. However, if this information is correct, I don't blame the workers who don't want to move to satisfy Amazon's wanting workers to return to an office.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Bonanza

What started this thread, I believe, was because of the new Amazon requirement regarding returning to work. However, there are only four locations where this requirement was going to be in effect.

As I understand it, these four locations required workers to move and that was the real issue/problem. If I am wrong about this, please correct me. However, if this information is correct, I don't blame the workers who don't want to move to satisfy Amazon's wanting workers to return to an office.

Not really. I am just amazed that any company cannot tell their employees to show up at the office and it is an issue. My position would be to work in the office or find another job. Period. But, apparently, times have changed.

[Bonanza]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Not really. I am just amazed that any company cannot tell their employees to show up at the office and it is an issue. My position would be to work in the office or find another job. Period. But, apparently, times have changed.

I'm not sure I understand your message. "Not really" what?
Are you saying that what I conveyed regarding Amazon's new "return to work policy" is incorrect?

I was not asking for anyone's "position," because most of the comments do that, including yours. But if what I said about Amazon's policy is correct, my opinion is that I don't blame anyone for not wanting to move, probably a pretty good distance from where they currently live, considering there are only four locations in the country where this will be a "back to work" office.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

In my experience, there are several factors around working from home vs in the office, and it’s never a black and white scenario:

1) Introverts vs extroverts
2) Client facing vs back office work
3) Micromanagers vs employee developers mgmt style
3.5) Employees who need help with home office work life balance/ separation
4) New/young employees vs experienced, above average performing employees with size of team
5) Measurement of work and trust / manager capability
6) laptops and computer software and IT skills of individuals and the company

CoachK’s team went from office 5 days to fully remote and still is, BUT the extroverts want some office time together so optional in office days together, the team member 1,000 mi away flies in one or two times a year. Meetings with other hospital teams are virtual, as they also had phone dial in meetings for nearly all major teams prior to the pandemic.

So, there are many industry unique factors as well as human factors to make these decisions. One size doesn’t fit everyone everywhere.

At my last job, extrovert micromanager VP wanted in office days all week, after his firing, introvert capable director wanted all at home days.

[b]Pick your poison![\b]