WFH in MA (Boston, Waltham, Lexington: apartments, rentals, price)

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

how do you know that it has decreased?

This argument has been had here ad nauseam. Many folks have said (and not just here but on places like linkedin/reddit as well) that there productivity level is better at home than in the office. Many people have a home office where they aren't bothered by anyone...and in the office they are bothered by people all day. If someone comes by your desk to talk to you, there is no choice but to talk to them and it's maybe not even something about your own job. could be simply to help them with their job. If someone asks the same question on slack you have some more leeway as to when you answer them. It's a win win because you don't get distracted or caught off guard and you still answer them.

I again have not heard of anyone forced back to the office because of their productivity level. Most people forced back seem to be forced back because that has simply what the company has decided to do.

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

I have heard the phrase 'productivity was down' over and over but I have never seen any actual details that back that statement up.

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

That would be the euphemism of company culture.

I don't know anything. But I also can't imagine an employer doing something they know could very well hurt morale, if it wasn't in their best interest from a business standpoint. Of course some out there might go on power trips for whatever reason and unnecessarily drive a wedge between them and their employees, but that's probably not going to end well for them as a long term strategy.



Where are you folks getting the idea that WFH hasn't hurt productivity in cases, and that it's all a matter of "company culture"? Individuals claiming that they are just as productive at home, is not proof of anything.

[newenglandgal123]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I don't know anything. But I also can't imagine an employer doing something they know could very well hurt morale, if it wasn't in their best interest from a business standpoint. Of course some out there might go on power trips for whatever reason and unnecessarily drive a wedge between them and their employees, but that's probably not going to end well for them as a long term strategy.



Where are you folks getting the idea that WFH hasn't hurt productivity in cases, and that it's all a matter of "company culture"? Individuals claiming that they are just as productive at home, is not proof of anything.

I'm def more productive WFH....between the laundry, grocery shopping, yard work, etc. that I can get done. It may not be more productive for the company but it is for me!

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by massnative71

I don't know anything. But I also can't imagine an employer doing something they know could very well hurt morale, if it wasn't in their best interest from a business standpoint. Of course some out there might go on power trips for whatever reason and unnecessarily drive a wedge between them and their employees, but that's probably not going to end well for them as a long term strategy.

Leadership whether in business or politics tends to attract the most egotistical of individuals. I think power trips are much more common than any of us we realize.

Originally Posted by massnative71

Where are you folks getting the idea that WFH hasn't hurt productivity in cases, and that it's all a matter of "company culture"? Individuals claiming that they are just as productive at home, is not proof of anything.

I haven't seen any detailed evidence proving that WFH is more or less productive than an office either way. I do know this as a WFH employee myself; I have access to the same folders, files, software and equipment that I would have in any office building. I am also closer to the toilet and kitchen at home than I would be in any office. I think it is safe to assume that my productivity is consistent whether at home or in an office building. As a remote worker now, I don't claim to be more productive at home, I claim to be equally productive from home.

Let me give an example: if my boss was to show me a new task at an office, we would either have to cram in together at one of our desks or go to a conference room and setup equipment there. As remote workers we can just do a quick TEAMs call and share screens. The remote way of learning that new task is far less disruptive than the old school office methods.

[msRB311]

I think it's simply difficult to get 'proof' of where EVERYONE is more productive.

If people claim they get more done at home why wouldn't you believe them? As has been said, many people go into the office by choice and choose to go in...when they could just as easily stay home.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by msRB311

I think it's simply difficult to get 'proof' of where EVERYONE is more productive.

If people claim they get more done at home why wouldn't you believe them? As has been said, many people go into the office by choice and choose to go in...when they could just as easily stay home.

Prior to the pandemic many office workers were allowed one or two days of WFH and employers had absolutely no issues with it and there was no questioning of productivity. That was going on for years. I don't understand why it is such an issue for some employers now? The only major difference between then and now seems to be office occupancy and its effect on the corporate real estate market. Maybe, just maybe the human race overbuilt commercial real estate!

[newenglandgal123]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

Prior to the pandemic many office workers were allowed one or two days of WFH and employers had no issues with it and there was no questioning of productivity. That was going on for years. I don't understand why it is such an issue for some employers now? The only major difference between then and now seems to be office occupancy and its effect on the corporate real estate market. Maybe, just maybe the human race overbuilt commercial real estate!

It's due to the powerplay egos you noted above. They want to see butts in seats, not up for debate so you do as they say or else! However, just don't mention that out loud to leadership....they usually don't take to well to the bold facts. Everything has to be sugar coated and politically correct before it's said out loud!

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by msRB311

If people claim they get more done at home why wouldn't you believe them?

If their employer continues to allow it, I believe them as they both seem in agreement. If an employer orders them back into the office, that means there is a disagreement. If the employee says they are as/more productive at home, and the employer says otherwise...that means there is no consensus. As one with zero skin in the game and no inside knowledge, I "tend" to believe that the employer has made a calculated decision that it's in their interest to have employees (or "that" employee) on site. I get what AtkinsonDan says about egos, but these decisions generally have to go through more than one individual. One supervisor has a supervisor above them. Board of directors. Shareholders, etc.. Most of the latter do not care where employees "check in from", as long as the job gets done. They also don't want to drive away their good employees, in a market where competition for them is so strong.

[massnative71]

Originally Posted by AtkinsonDan

Prior to the pandemic many office workers were allowed one or two days of WFH and employers had absolutely no issues with it and there was no questioning of productivity. That was going on for years. I don't understand why it is such an issue for some employers now? The only major difference between then and now seems to be office occupancy and its effect on the corporate real estate market. Maybe, just maybe the human race overbuilt commercial real estate!

Why would the employer care about the commercial real estate they occupy??? Wouldn't it be in their best interest to reduce it to decrease their overhead (and increase their bottom line)?


Maybe perhaps there is that "sweetspot" ie. 2 days WFH/ 3 days in office type hybrid schedule that works best for them, and they are just returning to that after going overboard (on the WFH days) during Covid? Makes total sense to me, for many types of jobs.

[AtkinsonDan]

Originally Posted by massnative71

Why would the employer care about the commercial real estate they occupy??? Wouldn't it be in their best interest to reduce it to decrease their overhead (and increase their bottom line)?

Certain Wall Street investment companies are invested in commercial real estate and also the majority shareholder of most publicly traded companies through the management of pension funds and mutual funds and they can influence the decision making of the C-Suite. That is the obvious link. I must also note that most of the return to office drama in 2023 seemed to be centered around publicly traded companies. Owners of privately held companies would not care one bit about the commercial real estate market unless they also owned commercial real estate.

[msRB311]

and many employers don't care where the work gets done as long as it is getting done .