Economic pain train's a coming (Boston: dorms, transfer, living)

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

For WFH most/all the time to work, you need employees that know what they are doing.

That's actually a very good point to make.

We are interviewing Co-ops for the fall, and most do not have secured housing due to school not reopening this fall. They are asking if we can offer work-from-home for the co-ops. Keep in mind most of these students have never worked in a lab, nor have much CAD experience to hit the ground running. Many don't want to come into the building.

I had to decline some of those requests on WFH co-ops as I don't see any effective way for me to train a "green" co-op who is working from home while i'm trying to manage my team.

My current co-op is WFH as she had to return home to NY when campus housing closed down. She had 3 months of experience in the office and was VERY good at CAD work, but even now after a month or so it's been difficult to keep her occupied due to not being fully trained on many of our projects/processes. He term ends at the end of July.



It's a very good point to be aware of

[audemars]

[quote=mdovell;57929834]I was listening to a podcast that Goldman Sachs officially says they can work at home but then says there's only so much you can do at home. That might be more to some of the systems. Having wifi to a modern laptop is one thing. A bloomberg terminal is another (20-25K per seat)


This part has been surprisingly easy/smooth. Not only is there Bloomberg Anywhere with full functionality, but via VPN you can remote into your machine and use a virtual turret. Technology's come a long way in the last few years and it seems like we're finally at a point where you can have full functionality while keeping it within a robust compliance ecosystem. I know dozens of folks doing this right now.

Check out the recent comment from James Gorman at Morgan Stanley that now that it's proven that this is possible, they're going to require a lot less office space when this is over. Some shops will always prefer to have everyone in one place (check out the WSJ articles on the resulting spread of COVID-19 at JPM and BofA as a result). From where I sit, this is going to become yet another benefit that firms can use to compete for talent. The degree of adoption will initially depend on firm culture, but in the long run, businesses that spend an extra $30k per head for office space will have a hard time competing with those who don't.

[mdovell]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

There's a huge difference between:
WFH when it snows
WFH once a week, maybe on Friday
WFH most of the time, maybe a couple meetings every so often (I am familiar with this)
WFH 24/7 (like it is now basically)

For WFH most/all the time to work, you need employees that know what they are doing. People who know what they are doing typically want more money. I'm telling you, in a WFH most/all situation companies won't be here and "Middle Class"+ won't be either because they either want cheaper housing or better weather.

Right but isn't that simply a duplication of what we've seen with jobs in the past 40 years?

Production usually went to where it was cheapest and the cost of transportation was cheapened. Online ordering replaced stores, long shipping times with prime etc. Even in government contracting out got into full gear in the 1990s. Sometimes you don't need as much.

Email changed all office communication from the 80s onward. By the time broadband changed it meant you didn't need to send actual photography or graphics. There's quite a bit we used to do that we can do faster. Apps have replaced not just jobs but entire industries. This isn't new. I haven't even touched a phone book let alone used one in ten years (he was a packrat and had dozens in his office).

In terms of things being off the record there's always phone calls.

Read the Cluetrain Manifesto. It's free albeit a tad cultish but it was all of these internet predictions before mainstream broadband and bluetooth.

https://www.inc.com/scott-mautz/a-2-...from-home.html

I've been to Shanghai and yes it can get pretty expensive. If someone is going into work taking more than a half hour or worse an hour they might already be tired by the time they get to work. Then checking up on kids once school gets out around 2pm onward doesn't help either.

[NewfieMama]

I work in a suburban corporate setting that has traditionally not been WFH friendly--not because our jobs require it--in fact, we've all been more productive than ever while WFH in the past several weeks. But our CEO likes the culture that comes with being face-to-face every day. And we have a building large enough so that, if needed, we could be socially distant with no issue.

There was a meeting today where it was stated that we would all be back in the office as soon as it was safe to do so. This will likely happen in phases and since our office is in the 'burbs, most of us are parents, so will need to be at home with our kids. But there was talk that as soon as restrictions were lifted, the office would be open and employees would be coming back.

I talked with my manager about the possibility of working from home 2 days/week indefinitely and he was open to it, but said it likely wouldn't be allowed. He said that remote work 1 day/week long term may be an option, but couldn't be sure.

I think that being forced to WFH will open a lot of companies' eyes to the possibility of having more remote work. But for some companies it's likely going to go back to business as usual at some point.

[timberline742]

I think this situation will not help WFH advocates at all. Why? The data. The business consultants I know well say their metrics are showing drastic reductions in productivity under this imposed WFH situation. Personally, I suspect it is because a lot of the employees aren't working from home as a stand alone, but working from home, parenting, teaching, etc simultaneously. And doing so under high stress. It would make sense that productivity would be down, and I suspect the powers that be will utilize that (flawed) data as a strike against WFH.

[Bridge781]

Originally Posted by NewfieMama

I work in a suburban corporate setting that has traditionally not been WFH friendly--not because our jobs require it--in fact, we've all been more productive than ever while WFH in the past several weeks. But our CEO likes the culture that comes with being face-to-face every day. And we have a building large enough so that, if needed, we could be socially distant with no issue.

There was a meeting today where it was stated that we would all be back in the office as soon as it was safe to do so. This will likely happen in phases and since our office is in the 'burbs, most of us are parents, so will need to be at home with our kids. But there was talk that as soon as restrictions were lifted, the office would be open and employees would be coming back.

I talked with my manager about the possibility of working from home 2 days/week indefinitely and he was open to it, but said it likely wouldn't be allowed. He said that remote work 1 day/week long term may be an option, but couldn't be sure.

I think that being forced to WFH will open a lot of companies' eyes to the possibility of having more remote work. But for some companies it's likely going to go back to business as usual at some point.

Ugh I don’t like your boss.

[Bridge781]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I think this situation will not help WFH advocates at all. Why? The data. The business consultants I know well say their metrics are showing drastic reductions in productivity under this imposed WFH situation. Personally, I suspect it is because a lot of the employees aren't working from home as a stand alone, but working from home, parenting, teaching, etc simultaneously. And doing so under high stress. It would make sense that productivity would be down, and I suspect the powers that be will utilize that (flawed) data as a strike against WFH.

There may not be a choice for a while regardless of whether people like it or not. We had a meeting today and while there’s no date on when we’ll return it was agreed this could go for a few months. Like maybe all summer and perhaps the only people who would go back is our creative media/video team

[Bridge781]

I just don’t think people are realizing the complications of this and they’re going to outweigh the uptight manager who feels productivity has decreased or just wants butts in chairs. If it isn’t safe for people it won’t happen.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by Bridge781

There may not be a choice for a while regardless of whether people like it or not. We had a meeting today and while there’s no date on when we’ll return it was agreed this could go for a few months. Like maybe all summer and perhaps the only people who would go back is our creative media/video team

Obviously short term government imposed situations is not what I'm talking about.

[id77]

Originally Posted by timberline742

I think this situation will not help WFH advocates at all. Why? The data. The business consultants I know well say their metrics are showing drastic reductions in productivity under this imposed WFH situation. Personally, I suspect it is because a lot of the employees aren't working from home as a stand alone, but working from home, parenting, teaching, etc simultaneously. And doing so under high stress. It would make sense that productivity would be down, and I suspect the powers that be will utilize that (flawed) data as a strike against WFH.

The management and colleagues I've interacted with all generally accept that there's a level of background noise affecting work, be it direct noise (kids crying or screaming while you're on a call) or indirect (have to step away to check homework or change diapers). They themselves have to do the same multitasking as the rest of us, after all.

The issue I'm encountering is that some people seem easily distracted at home. It's easy for them to turn on the TV or fire up a video game or browse Youtube videos because nobody's around to see them slack. Set your corporate chat status to active and kick back. More than once I've heard a manager grumble that they messaged so-and-so almost 40 minutes ago with no response, wondering why someone who should be at home isn't responsive. Had the employee responded to the message within 5 minutes saying they were tied up dealing with their child and would get back to them in 30 minutes, there's a level of leniency accepted, but radio silence tends to cause one to jump to the more nefarious conclusions.

The "All doing so under high stress" part doesn't make sense to me. The act of multitasking is causing high stress? Or is the person highly stressed while multitasking?