Who is back in the office? (Boston: to move, title, commute to)

[BostonMike7]

Ironically my company lifted it's last covid era protocol this week. Back to pre-'20 policies here, and most folks in my particular location are in 5 days a week.

WFH/Hybrid seems to be the exception on a case-by-case basis, and more driven by seating availability. We do have a shortage it seems. So there's a (small) list of folks that do not need to be on site that have been given the option to move to a satellite location about 2-3 miles away. Nobody wants to go.

The argument is "why drive in to an office building that's not even where your team/lab is, just to sit there and have meetings with them remotely? Might as well WFH" Unfortunately the company won't offer these folks the permanent WFH option just yet. It's a bit of a quagmire as i can see their point, but its reaching a boiling point as all the office seats from 2020 were turned into lab space, and now that these folks are back, there's nowhere for them to sit.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

Ironically my company lifted it's last covid era protocol this week. Back to pre-'20 policies here, and most folks in my particular location are in 5 days a week.

WFH/Hybrid seems to be the exception on a case-by-case basis, and more driven by seating availability. We do have a shortage it seems. So there's a (small) list of folks that do not need to be on site that have been given the option to move to a satellite location about 2-3 miles away. Nobody wants to go.

The argument is "why drive in to an office building that's not even where your team/lab is, just to sit there and have meetings with them remotely? Might as well WFH" Unfortunately the company won't offer these folks the permanent WFH option just yet. It's a bit of a quagmire as i can see their point, but its reaching a boiling point as all the office seats from 2020 were turned into lab space, and now that these folks are back, there's nowhere for them to sit.

It does seem insane to me to make someone drive to an office only to have zoom meetings.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by BostonMike7

Ironically my company lifted it's last covid era protocol this week. Back to pre-'20 policies here, and most folks in my particular location are in 5 days a week.

WFH/Hybrid seems to be the exception on a case-by-case basis, and more driven by seating availability. We do have a shortage it seems. So there's a (small) list of folks that do not need to be on site that have been given the option to move to a satellite location about 2-3 miles away. Nobody wants to go.

The argument is "why drive in to an office building that's not even where your team/lab is, just to sit there and have meetings with them remotely? Might as well WFH" Unfortunately the company won't offer these folks the permanent WFH option just yet. It's a bit of a quagmire as i can see their point, but its reaching a boiling point as all the office seats from 2020 were turned into lab space, and now that these folks are back, there's nowhere for them to sit.

My fiancee's firm has this issue. They consolidated space during the pandemic, and now don't have enough space for the people they're demanding come back to the office. She received a notice that they'll be placed on a "rotating schedule" during the summer months when interns and seasonal staff are in. I get the desire to get folks back into the office, but wouldn't be in the company's best interest to do it as seamlessly as possible?

[msRB311]

What exactly is the 'desire' to get people back to the office? Do you miss them?

[robr2]

Originally Posted by msRB311

What exactly is the 'desire' to get people back to the office? Do you miss them?

Lots of reasons:

• expensive real estate that is underutilized
• desire for more cooperative work environment
• need to keep an eye on employees
• expensive to maintain big internet pipe
• expensive to pay for online meeting license
• expensive to maintain data security.

Not saying that forcing people back is the right move but I can see some reasons.

[msRB311]

Originally Posted by robr2

Lots of reasons:

• expensive real estate that is underutilized
• desire for more cooperative work environment
• need to keep an eye on employees
• expensive to maintain big internet pipe
• expensive to pay for online meeting license
• expensive to maintain data security.

Not saying that forcing people back is the right move but I can see some reasons.

[*]expensive real estate that is underutilized


lots of places have teamed up with other groups to share the space and are hybrid/remote. Expensive real estate is not the problem of the employee though

[*]desire for more cooperative work environment


I can see where face to face is useful sometimes, but not 5 days a week

[*]need to keep an eye on employees


then those employees should never have been hired

[*]expensive to maintain big internet pipe


that is getting paid for whether people are remote or in the office.

[*]expensive to pay for online meeting license


that is getting paid for whether people are remote or in the office.

[*]expensive to maintain data security.


that is getting paid for whether people are remote or in the office.

[BostonMike7]

Originally Posted by robr2

Lots of reasons:
[*]expensive real estate that is underutilized

That one is a major driver.

We own all our buildings, and there are several in the area. One is a satellite office that is somewhat local, and the rest are combined lab/office spaces. The lab/offices are full. Beyond full. The satellite office is empty. Literally a ghost town. However, nobody wants to go there because why commute to sit remote from the team?

upper management doesn't want to invest in increasing office space at the labs (very expensive) when there is an empty office 2 miles away that is underutilized.

So we are stuck in a catch-22.

[simplexsimon]

Originally Posted by msRB311

What exactly is the 'desire' to get people back to the office? Do you miss them?

It's about culture and engagement. Remote work has changed people's disposition towards work and the employer. Even the most disengaged person pre-pandemic had some connection to the employer or coworkers that has diminished with WFH. One may disagree and choose to communicate that by leaving, but it is a high level concern to management.

[lrfox]

Originally Posted by msRB311

[*]expensive real estate that is underutilized

lots of places have teamed up with other groups to share the space and are hybrid/remote. Expensive real estate is not the problem of the employee though

It may not be the employee's fault, but it's going to be their problem if their employer has a 10 year lease on 100,000 square feet in a downtown office that they can't sublet or get out of.

[*]desire for more cooperative work environment

I can see where face to face is useful sometimes, but not 5 days a week

Broad brush strokes here... it's extremely important in many jobs, not important at all in others; and there's a big spectrum in between. Each employer has to determine what their needs are.

[*]need to keep an eye on employees

then those employees should never have been hired

Supervision is a pretty standard component of the the workplace and has been since the beginning of time. If nobody needed supervision, there wouldn't be "supervisors."

[*]expensive to maintain big internet pipe

that is getting paid for whether people are remote or in the office.

Probably true. We invested a lot in new hardware, software, and IT support in order to enable people to work remotely. But I don't think we did anything to increase our bandwidth.

[*]expensive to pay for online meeting license

that is getting paid for whether people are remote or in the office.

Yeah, I think that for most workplaces, those are going to be pretty standard going forward.

[*]expensive to maintain data security.

that is getting paid for whether people are remote or in the office.

Yep, this is here to stay. Frankly, it's a bit overdue. People at my workplace were careless with email and information on their personal phones and their company issued laptops prior to COVID. There's much better oversight now.

[msRB311]

Supervision is a pretty standard component of the the workplace and has been since the beginning of time. If nobody needed supervision, there wouldn't be "supervisors."

In a corporate office they're not really called supervisors anymore and they're certainly not there to make sure someone behaves. People have people they report to and it should be obvious if someone isn't doing what they should be doing.