bad timing with the rising cost of living. 2 days WFH is better than none at all I guess.
public transportation cost, parking cost, fuel cost
A recruiter I spoke to the other week told me I would be lucky to find any where that offers WFH in my field. Suspect they were just trying to lower my expectations.
I currently have a hybrid role already and I know a few companies that only have enough office space for half their staff. That said there are no shortage of managers who dislike WFH.
Quiet layoffs. They’ll soon fire everyone who refuses to come in I’m sure.
Our company hasn’t been forcing us back. We are lucky that it’s all pretty flexible.
3 days WFH over the long term, personal circumstances notwithstanding, would likely be quite detrimental to career progression. So that’ll be a benefit of having to go back to the office more.
Why would it be an issue for career progression? Work is work.
That would be nice. But we all know promotions/wage rises aren’t always based only on merit. Even if you have a case that it is totally based on merit, people won’t always notice the input of others if, in the moment, they are absent. It links to the famous ‘water cooler conversations’ idea where theres a kind of organic learning between people physically with each other, that seems hard to replicate.
If a company can’t work out how to recognise and understand quality work wherever and however it’s done, that’s a bad company and that company is going to promote worse options. There’s nothing inherent in working from home that makes progression bad, just a company that isn’t bothering to adapt.
That said I agree in person interactions are invaluable - just not that a huge amount of them are necessary to progress the best people.
