Non-Federal Workers Return to Office

[wawa]

Feb 1, 2024 20:29:07 GMT -5 lolalolalola said:

We have been in the office for almost 2 years by now, started with 3 days/week and have been 4 days/week for the past year. It surprises me when so many companies are not “back to the office”. By now haven’t orgs figured out if full time work from home works for their business or not?

I think part of the issue is what other alluded to earlier - very few firms are going off data for this.  it's all vibes. 

Big Bosses who feel better seeing butts in seats vs. people who may or may not care if they're actually productively getting work done as an organization because FUCK PANTS.  
And plenty of other folks in there trying to make better decisions than that...but those two camps are not small.

So few of these decisions seem like they're being made on any actual data or business footing - it's just feels and wants. 

[jlt19]

I read somewhere that it’s “creativity” that is lacking with WFH, not necessarily productivity. That is completely irrelevant to my position so why our entire office has to go back 3 days is beyond me. Last year it was a department dependent decision, with a recommendation of 2 days minimum.

I don’t mind going in. It’s a 30 minute drive, but no traffic and I get up early because my dogs are annoying. So I’m in around 7/7:30 most days. Personally, I’ve noticed 3 levels of productivity, in order of the highest: in office when most others AREN’T there, home, office with others.

People are distracting and they stress me out which then leads to me being antsy and less focused.

Most of my team goes in T-Th now, so I’m finding M-W the best balance. But I really did like my M/T office days when everyone else did T/W. I have a feeling attendance will slowly decline if we notice no one’s actually enforcing it.

[pixy0stix]

For my current job, the downsizing and accepting people not coming in is purely because they are having a hard time hiring locally. So if a bunch of your team is already remote, it doesn't make sense to come in. They're tired of being understaffed.

[wawa]

Feb 1, 2024 21:13:32 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

I read somewhere that it’s “creativity” that is lacking with WFH, not necessarily productivity. That is completely irrelevant to my position so why our entire office has to go back 3 days is beyond me. Last year it was a department dependent decision, with a recommendation of 2 days minimum.

I don’t mind going in. It’s a 30 minute drive, but no traffic and I get up early because my dogs are annoying. So I’m in around 7/7:30 most days. Personally, I’ve noticed 3 levels of productivity, in order of the highest: in office when most others AREN’T there, home, office with others.

People are distracting and they stress me out which then leads to me being antsy and less focused.

Most of my team goes in T-Th now, so I’m finding M-W the best balance. But I really did like my M/T office days when everyone else did T/W. I have a feeling attendance will slowly decline if we notice no one’s actually enforcing it.

I'd buy that.  The main thing that was REALLY hard for us to do while fully remote was (nearly) literal back of the napkin sketches. Like, just drawing stuff.  On paper.  Together.  People who had that as a core job function had goofy camera setups so you could watch them draw, some folks got tablets and taught themselves how to do digital art, but like, I'm not a designer so none of that would have made sense for me, but I just have a bunch of colored pens at my desk and sometimes I make little sketchy sketches of what roads might want to look like!  My coworker being able to snatch my paper and add things to them is so so fast compared to anything we can do online.  We can workshop 5 design options in like 30 minutes in person on the fly.  That takes prep and setup to do online.  not insurmountable prep and setup (I collaborate a lot of with other offices, so....we're doing that anyway sometimes), but it's so easy in person.  

Lots of jobs don't have aspects to them like that.

So then you're into the totally nebulous "engagement" and "culture" which all just boil down to retention and have OBVIOUS trade offs where if you're forcing people into the office for the "engagement" and they REALLY don't want to do it then you're probably going to lose them anyway.

[redheadbaker]

Feb 1, 2024 20:29:07 GMT -5 lolalolalola said:

We have been in the office for almost 2 years by now, started with 3 days/week and have been 4 days/week for the past year. It surprises me when so many companies are not “back to the office”. By now haven’t orgs figured out if full time work from home works for their business or not?

I think a lot of companies are locked into leases of office space and want people in there. Then tell people "productivity!" "collaboration!" even though it's just money. 

[mrsukyankee]

My H goes into his bank office 2x a week and that's good for him. He's in IT so doesn't really need to be in the office but he's such a social creature that it feeds his soul to be around people. (unfortunately, he was going overboard with socialising for a while and luckily, after many harsh discussions, he's pulling back a bit - no 50+ yr old needs to come home at 1am on a Tuesday night or 4am on a Thur)
I am a homebody, so being at home is something I love. BUT, I'm also a therapist. I prefer to see students face to face, if possible. We go in 3x a week. It should be 4x a week but we don't have enough office space to accommodate that. I find it's a good compromise and I've made it work so that I do a short day on Fridays (it's intense to see that many people in a row but it works for me). I do love collaborating with my teammates in person, having lunch catch ups, etc. Our team is fabulous and I enjoy spending social time with them as well.

[kadams767]

Feb 1, 2024 21:10:48 GMT -5 wawa said:

Feb 1, 2024 20:29:07 GMT -5 lolalolalola said:

We have been in the office for almost 2 years by now, started with 3 days/week and have been 4 days/week for the past year. It surprises me when so many companies are not “back to the office”. By now haven’t orgs figured out if full time work from home works for their business or not?

I think part of the issue is what other alluded to earlier - very few firms are going off data for this.  it's all vibes. 

Big Bosses who feel better seeing butts in seats vs. people who may or may not care if they're actually productively getting work done as an organization because FUCK PANTS.  
And plenty of other folks in there trying to make better decisions than that...but those two camps are not small.

So few of these decisions seem like they're being made on any actual data or business footing - it's just feels and wants. 

Also, are we even at a point yet where we can effectively analyze actual data and affirmatively attribute it to WFH?  I mean, we had basically 2-3 years of chaos.  I wouldn't consider 2020 or 2021, possibly even 2022, as "good data" for this purpose, because there are so many other contributing factors to productivity.    

[kadams767]

Feb 1, 2024 21:59:03 GMT -5 wawa said:

Feb 1, 2024 21:13:32 GMT -5 jlt19 said:

I read somewhere that it’s “creativity” that is lacking with WFH, not necessarily productivity. That is completely irrelevant to my position so why our entire office has to go back 3 days is beyond me. Last year it was a department dependent decision, with a recommendation of 2 days minimum.

I don’t mind going in. It’s a 30 minute drive, but no traffic and I get up early because my dogs are annoying. So I’m in around 7/7:30 most days. Personally, I’ve noticed 3 levels of productivity, in order of the highest: in office when most others AREN’T there, home, office with others.

People are distracting and they stress me out which then leads to me being antsy and less focused.

Most of my team goes in T-Th now, so I’m finding M-W the best balance. But I really did like my M/T office days when everyone else did T/W. I have a feeling attendance will slowly decline if we notice no one’s actually enforcing it.

I'd buy that.  The main thing that was REALLY hard for us to do while fully remote was (nearly) literal back of the napkin sketches. Like, just drawing stuff.  On paper.  Together.  People who had that as a core job function had goofy camera setups so you could watch them draw, some folks got tablets and taught themselves how to do digital art, but like, I'm not a designer so none of that would have made sense for me, but I just have a bunch of colored pens at my desk and sometimes I make little sketchy sketches of what roads might want to look like!  My coworker being able to snatch my paper and add things to them is so so fast compared to anything we can do online.  We can workshop 5 design options in like 30 minutes in person on the fly.  That takes prep and setup to do online.  not insurmountable prep and setup (I collaborate a lot of with other offices, so....we're doing that anyway sometimes), but it's so easy in person.  

Lots of jobs don't have aspects to them like that.

So then you're into the totally nebulous "engagement" and "culture" which all just boil down to retention and have OBVIOUS trade offs where if you're forcing people into the office for the "engagement" and they REALLY don't want to do it then you're probably going to lose them anyway.

I think the nebulous "engagement" and "culture" arguments are definitely real for some fields and not for others.  I worry about new hires and newly minted grads from 2020 onward, because, similar to my comment above, I don't think we've hit a point in time yet where there is enough data or evidence to show whether or not they are progressing normally or are stuck in early-career stagnation.  I can give anecdotal evidence in my field (private law practice) that it seems like a lot of new law grads that have mainly WFH or gone in once in a while haven't progressed professionally as fast or as much as prior new associates did in the past.  Is that solely due to WFH though and missing out on the in-office mentoring that my generation of attorneys had?  Maybe.  Is it a combination of all of the pandemic era issues, plus WFH?  Maybe.  It's a really hard place to be to actually quantify some of these issues, IMO, and the constant "show me the data" is kind of frustrating for management and ownership, honestly.  

[glw]

Feb 2, 2024 10:52:15 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Feb 1, 2024 21:59:03 GMT -5 wawa said:

I'd buy that.  The main thing that was REALLY hard for us to do while fully remote was (nearly) literal back of the napkin sketches. Like, just drawing stuff.  On paper.  Together.  People who had that as a core job function had goofy camera setups so you could watch them draw, some folks got tablets and taught themselves how to do digital art, but like, I'm not a designer so none of that would have made sense for me, but I just have a bunch of colored pens at my desk and sometimes I make little sketchy sketches of what roads might want to look like!  My coworker being able to snatch my paper and add things to them is so so fast compared to anything we can do online.  We can workshop 5 design options in like 30 minutes in person on the fly.  That takes prep and setup to do online.  not insurmountable prep and setup (I collaborate a lot of with other offices, so....we're doing that anyway sometimes), but it's so easy in person.  

Lots of jobs don't have aspects to them like that.

So then you're into the totally nebulous "engagement" and "culture" which all just boil down to retention and have OBVIOUS trade offs where if you're forcing people into the office for the "engagement" and they REALLY don't want to do it then you're probably going to lose them anyway.

I think the nebulous "engagement" and "culture" arguments are definitely real for some fields and not for others.  I worry about new hires and newly minted grads from 2020 onward, because, similar to my comment above, I don't think we've hit a point in time yet where there is enough data or evidence to show whether or not they are progressing normally or are stuck in early-career stagnation.  I can give anecdotal evidence in my field (private law practice) that it seems like a lot of new law grads that have mainly WFH or gone in once in a while haven't progressed professionally as fast or as much as prior new associates did in the past.  Is that solely due to WFH though and missing out on the in-office mentoring that my generation of attorneys had?  Maybe.  Is it a combination of all of the pandemic era issues, plus WFH?  Maybe.  It's a really hard place to be to actually quantify some of these issues, IMO, and the constant "show me the data" is kind of frustrating for management and ownership, honestly.  

Sufficient: "Of the new hires who worked remotely in the first year, 10% reached their expected goals, compared to 25% of the new hires who worked in the office in the first year. The reasons most commonly given by managers for new hires working remotely not meeting their goals were "lack of engagement" and "lack of interpersonal skills," therefore we are requiring new hires to attend in-person scheduled mentoring sessions 2x a week for the first year."

Not sufficient: "People hired since the pandemic are not progressing normally, so everyone should be required to go back to the office."

[ETA-- Sufficient because it cites actual evidence not feelings/anecdotes, and because the solution is directly targeted at fixing the demonstrated problem.]

[kadams767]

Feb 2, 2024 11:13:07 GMT -5 glw said:

Feb 2, 2024 10:52:15 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

I think the nebulous "engagement" and "culture" arguments are definitely real for some fields and not for others.  I worry about new hires and newly minted grads from 2020 onward, because, similar to my comment above, I don't think we've hit a point in time yet where there is enough data or evidence to show whether or not they are progressing normally or are stuck in early-career stagnation.  I can give anecdotal evidence in my field (private law practice) that it seems like a lot of new law grads that have mainly WFH or gone in once in a while haven't progressed professionally as fast or as much as prior new associates did in the past.  Is that solely due to WFH though and missing out on the in-office mentoring that my generation of attorneys had?  Maybe.  Is it a combination of all of the pandemic era issues, plus WFH?  Maybe.  It's a really hard place to be to actually quantify some of these issues, IMO, and the constant "show me the data" is kind of frustrating for management and ownership, honestly.  

Sufficient: "Of the new hires who worked remotely in the first year, 10% reached their expected goals, compared to 25% of the new hires who worked in the office in the first year. The reasons most commonly given by managers for new hires working remotely not meeting their goals were "lack of engagement" and "lack of interpersonal skills," therefore we are requiring new hires to attend in-person scheduled mentoring sessions 2x a week for the first year."

Not sufficient: "People hired since the pandemic are not progressing normally, so everyone should be required to go back to the office."

[ETA-- Sufficient because it cites actual evidence not feelings/anecdotes, and because the solution is directly targeted at fixing the demonstrated problem.]

OK?  I never said or implied that we are requiring everyone to come into the office FT.  I am literally telling you that this is a struggle because we cannot confirm if this issue is strictly due to WFH or the other factors at play during the pandemic.  Unfortunately, further impeding the data includes having had to adjust goals during this time.  It isn't a reasonable expectation for a first-year associate that started in 2020 to have the same progression as one hired in 2018, for example.  There are too many external factors at play.  We are trying to be accommodating and using hybrid models.  I am just expressing frustration from the other side as well.  Everyone wants the data, but in plenty of fields, the data is all over the place, and for multiple different reasons.  I am just asking how companies are supposed to use the data and come up with a definitive measure of what is strictly attributable to WFH vs. other external factors.  I don't think we are in a snapshot of time yet where there is enough data to actually quantify.  

[glw]

Feb 2, 2024 11:35:56 GMT -5 kadams767 said:

Feb 2, 2024 11:13:07 GMT -5 glw said:

Sufficient: "Of the new hires who worked remotely in the first year, 10% reached their expected goals, compared to 25% of the new hires who worked in the office in the first year. The reasons most commonly given by managers for new hires working remotely not meeting their goals were "lack of engagement" and "lack of interpersonal skills," therefore we are requiring new hires to attend in-person scheduled mentoring sessions 2x a week for the first year."

Not sufficient: "People hired since the pandemic are not progressing normally, so everyone should be required to go back to the office."

[ETA-- Sufficient because it cites actual evidence not feelings/anecdotes, and because the solution is directly targeted at fixing the demonstrated problem.]

OK?  I never said or implied that we are requiring everyone to come into the office FT.  I am literally telling you that this is a struggle because we cannot confirm if this issue is strictly due to WFH or the other factors at play during the pandemic.  Unfortunately, further impeding the data includes having had to adjust goals during this time.  It isn't a reasonable expectation for a first-year associate that started in 2020 to have the same progression as one hired in 2018, for example.  There are too many external factors at play.  We are trying to be accommodating and using hybrid models.  I am just expressing frustration from the other side as well.  Everyone wants the data, but in plenty of fields, the data is all over the place, and for multiple different reasons.  I am just asking how companies are supposed to use the data and come up with a definitive measure of what is strictly attributable to WFH vs. other external factors.  I don't think we are in a snapshot of time yet where there is enough data to actually quantify.  

I understand that. It's literally my job to find the data and to help leaders make decisions like this one, either through new research or using existing sources. I'm not saying that everyone does or should have tons of data to make these types of statements right now, but rather that when a decision is being made there should be data to cite and if there is no data to support a decision, it shouldn't be made yet. So many places are not citing anything at all or (like some PPs) they are openly saying that the data does not support the decision they are making.

[livinitup]

On Wednesday, I was in the office where we have 2 departments and an open work style plan. It was unusual in that everybody was also in-office + 2 people from our other location.

Our “collaboration” & “spontaneous face-to-face” time was next to zero percent. This is what I observed:

- everyone stayed in their work station and worked.
- one meeting occurred where everyone (but me) attended, brought their laptops and worked from their laptops during the meeting. I think this 45 minute meeting was the reason everyone came in? It was a skills session, so it was web-based.
- I had one face-to-face meeting with my supervisor in a conference room. It’s 50/50 if we do this in person or over Teams.
- Anyone who needed to talk on a phone or in meeting went into a conference room.
- I still received and answered questions over Teams chat (from the people sitting in the same open office as me).

In the morning, when I noticed that the office was full of people, I suspected that there was a push or general inclination to get people together. So, I asked the 2 supervisors if there was a good time to take lunch together and maybe order a pizza together? They both said “no, but you’re welcome to ask around” (they said it nicely but still). I did not ask around and ate lunch alone, as usual.

I like in-office days just fine. I have an easy commute and do find it productive. I REALLY value and am more productive on my 2 remote days.

From my observations, last Wednesday is pretty typical for even the best in-office days. Any push for doing it 5 days a week is not rooted in any sort of reality of “best practices” for an org.

[breezy8407]

I'm in the office every day. I actually prefer it. My job is very collaborative and its just harder to do things via Teams/Webex. I actually get FOMO when I have to WFH since most of my coworkers are in the office. However, I think covid proved I was more productive at home and also worked longer hours. I don't have a ling commute, but getting presentable, preparing food, coffee, etc takes a lot of time.

We don't have a formal policy but there is an expectation people are here everyday. We are flexible though, and some people still WFH one or two days a week. I also like that more people seem to stay home when sick because the stigma of pre-covid of showing up when sick seems to have lessened.

I think we proved we can WFH during covid, so I think companies should allow flexibility and I don't agree with mandates.

[wawa]

Feb 2, 2024 12:08:00 GMT -5 livinitup said:

On Wednesday, I was in the office where we have 2 departments and an open work style plan. It was unusual in that everybody was also in-office + 2 people from our other location.

Our “collaboration” & “spontaneous face-to-face” time was next to zero percent. This is what I observed:

- everyone stayed in their work station and worked.
- one meeting occurred where everyone (but me) attended, brought their laptops and worked from their laptops during the meeting. I think this 45 minute meeting was the reason everyone came in? It was a skills session, so it was web-based.
- I had one face-to-face meeting with my supervisor in a conference room. It’s 50/50 if we do this in person or over Teams.
- Anyone who needed to talk on a phone or in meeting went into a conference room.
- I still received and answered questions over Teams chat (from the people sitting in the same open office as me).

In the morning, when I noticed that the office was full of people, I suspected that there was a push or general inclination to get people together. So, I asked the 2 supervisors if there was a good time to take lunch together and maybe order a pizza together? They both said “no, but you’re welcome to ask around” (they said it nicely but still). I did not ask around and ate lunch alone, as usual.

I like in-office days just fine. I have an easy commute and do find it productive. I REALLY value and am more productive on my 2 remote days.

From my observations, last Wednesday is pretty typical for even the best in-office days. Any push for doing it 5 days a week is not rooted in any sort of reality of “best practices” for an org.

For an org, or for yours?  (honestly asking if that was a typo or if you're generalizing from how in-office vs. WFH days work at your job vs how it might work elsewhere)

[gt7301b]

Our policy is a minimum of 2 days a week with some groups mandating 3 days.

I am located in a different office than the rest of my team but we tend to meet in my building because it has a better collaboration space. I think my team is doing a good job in the hybrid world because leadership isn't sticklers about maintaining your in office days and everyone is flexible about coming in the office in order to collaborate. We probably end up in the office together once a week but do to the nature of our work it may look different every week.

[SusanBAnthony]

We have a policy that you have to be in person 3 days a week unless your job is classified as WFH. Examples of WFH jobs include our customer service reps and some IT people- basically jobs that are completely individual and that don't require any collaboration.

I think 3 days a week in office is great. It's plenty of flexibility to be home. And as a manager I see huge benefits to being in person because our work requires collaboration. We are regularly doing spontaneous white boarding or looking at a part and physically moving it around to brainstorm. Can it be done remotely? Sure but not as well or as efficiently.

I also see big benefits for new employees, both new to the company and new college grads. I thought there was some research that WFH is great for mid career, but detrimental for early career. Our new college grad hires are learning what working full time as en engineer even actually is on a day to day basis, as well as the technical parts of how to do their job. It's become very clear over the last 4 years that they need to be in person.

There is long standing research that having a work best friend increases happiness at work. More power to you if you can develop that remotely, but I can't. I have multiple work friends and it brings me happiness and is an avenue to express frustration or bounce ideas off of. I wouldn't be as good at my job if I didn't have that.

But we have collaborative jobs. The work isn't one person doing a thing by themselves. So I think it's pretty evident why the above is all true for us. It's very job and company dependent and painting broad strokes either way is foolish. Some jobs are better done remotely. Some jobs are better done in person. Some companies will make you work in person no matter what; others are fully remote. Can we stop debating it and whining about it (general we as a society) and just let everyone find a job that fits what they want?

[redheadbaker]

Feb 3, 2024 15:58:34 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

But we have collaborative jobs. The work isn't one person doing a thing by themselves. So I think it's pretty evident why the above is all true for us. It's very job and company dependent and painting broad strokes either way is foolish. Some jobs are better done remotely. Some jobs are better done in person. Some companies will make you work in person no matter what; others are fully remote. Can we stop debating it and whining about it (general we as a society) and just let everyone find a job that fits what they want?

Seriously? 

My job is collaborative. And even with me returning to office, it's going to remain collaborating remotely because my colleagues are spread all over the country. So why the fuck should I have to return to the office? 

So, yeah, I'm going to keep fucking whining about it. 

[SusanBAnthony]

Feb 3, 2024 23:01:14 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

Feb 3, 2024 15:58:34 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

But we have collaborative jobs. The work isn't one person doing a thing by themselves. So I think it's pretty evident why the above is all true for us. It's very job and company dependent and painting broad strokes either way is foolish. Some jobs are better done remotely. Some jobs are better done in person. Some companies will make you work in person no matter what; others are fully remote. Can we stop debating it and whining about it (general we as a society) and just let everyone find a job that fits what they want?

Seriously? 

My job is collaborative. And even with me returning to office, it's going to remain collaborating remotely because my colleagues are spread all over the country. So why the fuck should I have to return to the office? 

So, yeah, I'm going to keep fucking whining about it. 

Sorry not sorry that I didn't explicitly say that we collaborate in person. I would've thought "it's very job and company specific" covered that but apparently not.

[fortnightlily]

I am very interested to see how this distributed workforce thing plays out. I work for a software company, and I am also one of those in a boat where my team is geographically all over the country. Neither my manager nor my direct reports are out of my home office. There is no point in me spending the time and money on the commute because no one I'd be collaborating with would be there, physically. We have 1000 people, two offices, and a majority remote workforce of people disbursed all over the US and the world. Reverting back to just having people local to the two offices and organized in location-based teams is something that would be very difficult to put back in the bottle. And they want to hire more overseas, because it's cheaper. They're also talking about doing away with geographic-based pay. Because if everyone's remote and you're not having to pay HCOL pay in order to entice people to come work in your office in a HCOL city, what's the justification for someone in the same role making a different salary just because they happen to live in Little Rock instead of New York? Or Romania instead of London?

For me, though, much as I like working from home and feel plenty productive, I think my ideal would actually be hybrid 3 days home/2 days in office as long as I had a short commute and at least some co-located coworkers. Or a quarterly week-long in-person meet up (which my company keeps planning then cancelling for budget reasons). Because I miss the camaraderie, the spontaneous conversations. I'm not sure if it was better for my output, but it was definitely better for my morale. And I don't force myself to leave the house enough on WFH days, which is not healthy for me.

So whenever I move onto my next job, I'm prioritizing companies with headquarters that are local to me.

[redheadbaker]

Feb 4, 2024 9:23:06 GMT -5 SusanBAnthony said:

Feb 3, 2024 23:01:14 GMT -5 redheadbaker said:

Seriously? 

My job is collaborative. And even with me returning to office, it's going to remain collaborating remotely because my colleagues are spread all over the country. So why the fuck should I have to return to the office? 

So, yeah, I'm going to keep fucking whining about it. 

Sorry not sorry that I didn't explicitly say that we collaborate in person. I would've thought "it's very job and company specific" covered that but apparently not.

So, you post about your specific office's situation and tell "general" society to stop whining about RTO? 

[pixy0stix]

I figure the work places that are perpetually understaffed because they absolutely can be done from home but insist on RTO will eventually die out, and we can stop having this convo. But for now that's not happening, so here we are.

[ellipses84]

I’m in a collaborative industry and even though we were supporting changes for clients to go to hybrid WFH, 2 employees sharing 1 workstation or no assigned desks, etc. it was something I never thought I’d see happen in my own industry. Covid proved it could work and I think most companies in my industry at least allow some WFH. Like everyone else, we spend a lot of time on teams meetings when we are in the office and we use teams messaging constantly to collaborate. We work with a lot of other industries and in certain industries I think it most negatively impacted new hires straight out of college, as they weren’t getting the mentorship and oversight they needed to learn and catch mistakes before they went out to the rest of the world, but I think part of that is because everyone was overworked / overwhelmed during Covid WFH and weren’t taking the time to mentor or there weren’t procedures in place to account for that professional relationship when WFH was new.

[momof2ms]

I’m very convinced that RTO initiatives are due to ensuring office capacity of the property they own or rent to make the taxes and finances work. COVID policies allowed for businesses to continue writing off their property expenses, regardless of capacity, because everyone was forced to lower their capacity, but those are gone and businesses are trying to figure out how to make the numbers optimal again. It is extremely difficult to sell office buildings and properties even when you want to. It can take several years. If you’re lucky you can find somebody to lease them out, but that’s still a huge transaction and rigmarole, and that renter may also have similar struggles with employees wanting to work at home, which makes potential renters harder to come by.

I’ve seen enough of my own share about productivity and working remotely firmly believe it’s better in the vast majority of cases. But to leverage that you really need to be able to do business in several states around the country to find proper talent. It’s a very different business model.

[meanie]

My company did the same back in November, but they were met with a lot of push back for the same reason. Pre-COVID they asked for volunteers to give up their desks and go remote so they could consolidate office space when their leases were up. Now they expect all those people to RTO with so much less space available, one of the higher ups suggested working from a cafeteria as a solution, and others have suggested working from flex center desks that are outside of your home office - so away from the people you actually work with.

They just punted this to mid 2024 because they are still "reviewing" the alternative work arrangements people had, AKA they are scrambling because they didn't actually think any of this through.