I’ve been looking for a new job as a software developer. The huge majority of job listings I see in my area are hybrid or remote. I just had an introductory phone call with Vizio (which didn’t specify the location type in the job listing). The recruiter told me that the job was fully on-site, which I told her was a deal breaker for me.
It makes me wonder how many other people back out after hearing that the job is on-site. And it makes me wonder why this wasn’t specified in the job description. I assume most people only want hybrid or remote jobs these days, right?
Anyways I was just wondering how many of you guys apply for on-site IT jobs? Hybrid is so much better, I don’t know why people would apply for on-site jobs unless they have no other options.
The office is 3 day a week onsite, w Mon and Fri remote.
I have to be on site Tue - Thur to support the users.
I go in most Mon and Fri because it’s the only time I know I have physical access to the systems.
My support work is largely “remote”, in that I can manage my systems 99% of the time better from my office than in the room, and I really like my setup.
Aside from physically rebooting hardware that’s too frozen to reboot remotely, or replacing defective hardware, I can work 100% from anywhere I have internet.
Thing is, I love the company I work for, the end users and various IT and facilities staff that support my work are all great people.
The only close friends I have all moved far away decades ago, so the “water cooler” is the only real social interaction I get.
I do spend a ridiculous amount to live 15 minutes from the office so the commute isn’t a concern.
I have to be on site Tue - Thur to support the users.
My current day-job went from 100% get-in-that-chair-and-straighten-that-tie to 100% get-out-now on CoViD day 1. It was a rapid adjustment, to say the least; and the shit managers who needed to stare at asses all day to feel better just … left. They’ve since sold most of the office space but for some meeting space, 2 hotel spaces for those who prefer it, and one rotating helldesk dude to receive Fedex.
Supporting users? Onsite? Nope. It’s 100% remote service, and for the rare cases where it needs physical interaction with a component, the user and gear comes to the office and the onsite helldesk stuckee works it over. For those of us far-remote (regs are anywhere in the country, so long as the internet’s clean) we cross-ship for cheap or bring it to one of a very few deputized-for-secret-squirrel shops. I have a docking port-replicator I’m waiting on a shipper label for, for instance.
TL;DR - you don’t need to be onsite to support remote workers. That whole “bodies in the same room” thing is gone.
I hope to never go back to office. Remote has been a life changer. I have time to keep weeds out of my garden. The flexibility to have workers at my house whenever they are available. The freedom to set up my desk how I like it. Time to eat breakfast. I don’t get headaches every day any more from the lighting. I get to go outside during breaks for some sunshine time. I’m here when the kids come home.
My work is more focused. No more road stress. I may be able to move to a place I can tolerate. No more wearing makeup that is bad for my skin. No more having to pack a lunch. My life is infinitely better without having to commute.
Software developer here. I only apply for onsite jobs if I believe I will be able to formally or informally switch to hybrid once I build some trust.
I’ve been remote for over a decade; not going to stop now.
Not even for a “Fruity Tuesday”???
Same here. There is no reason to make me far less productive other than I’m pretty and people want to gaze at me adoringly in an office setting. It’s a weird fetish I guess, but I’ve seen weirder.
Shit i just realized I’ve been doing remote for about 7 years now.
Also not going to stop. No reason to especially since my team is spread across the states.
My ask is 4x salary for in office.
It’s usually met with “Well, that’s not going to happen…”
To which I reply “I know, right?”
My ask is
You mean ‘request’, right? You need to leave the used-car-salesbro jargon at the lot, man.
But I run a surcharge as well, and it’s prohibitive for some. It’s about 40% more for the first day in the office, and 20% more for each day-per-week after that, to 120% surcharge at most. I put the interview answers in the spreadsheet, and when they ask about Salary I tell them how it’s based on the per-person rent of a 2-bedroom condo closest to the work location and a percentage surcharge or rebate based on the job attributes. Either that’s too offbeat or detailed for them, and they sometimes get sad for one or both of those reasons.
Software update policy, dress code (there’s a difference between ‘casual’ and ‘business casual’), a tax for Teams or Office or Outlook, mandatory standby, forced field work, 9x9 schedule, etc. I don’t have a tax for ‘distance from nearest commuter train station’ but it’s coming.
Absolute.com (security not vodka) was down to $85k, though, as it was so awesome. But ohhh, if MDA or the BoC had bit, it would’ve been nearly $500k as they had SO many problems.
No, I mean “my ask.”
Not jargon. Recognized by the Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. Perhaps your understanding of English is not “advanced”.
It is what I am asking. It is my ask.
What an absurdly pointless hair to attempt to split. It’d be one thing if you were being inquisitive, but you’re out here just confidently incorrecting people lmao.
Stay in school, kiddo.
“how bout that” lol
Instead, the people offering the largest salaries are mostly remote-only.
People that value your work value your work, I guess.
How to win against the dead-sea effect, I guess.
I’d consider one, but it’d have to pay considerably more. Like, 50% or more above what I’d otherwise expect for a fully remote position, and it would have to be an easy commute.
In most cases it’s adding 20-30% to the length of the work day when the commute is included, plus costs of transportation itself. Plus the general inconvenience and the fact that it’s almost always going to mean a more toxic culture. But if the pay and benefits were absolutely fantastic, I’d consider it, at least short-term.
Another user was demanding 4x salary for in office, I would consider a 20% pay bump per in office day a reasonable request that likely results in a remote contract. It’s essentially saying it will cost you double to make me come in for that day.
And the commute is considered working hours. An hour commute means I’m in the office 9-3. With a lunch break.
the commute is considered working hours.
I think in Germany that’s part of the labour code: the clock runs the entirety of the time you’ve left the house on their instruction.
Doesn’t that encourage urban sprawl?
My company went remote first in April 2020. Even if I left here, there’s no way in hell I’m going back to an office.
Keep this in mind, some places raises will barely cover inflation.
Now factor in gas and, most importantly, time spent commuting.
All that on top of effectiveness in working with social interruptions, trips to the coffee machine, bathroom breaks, lunch, etc.
Any of these businesses that are pushing for on-site are locked into costs from renting space - guarantee it. I get wanting to do the occasional face showing or in person meetings, but they should be concise and few in number - if they’re an efficient shop. Plenty of new blood that get the value of hybrid/remote work.
From what I’ve heard, most people that are for in office work like having the separation between work and home.
That being said, I think most folks want remote work or at least remote hybrid. It just makes more sense especially for me. I live far from my office (140 mile drive roundtrip), and working 3 days a week from home has been a god send.
I did notice that the only people not opting for WFH/hybrid at my last job were all the married-with-kids types who hated being around their family and used work as an escape. It was really sad to see lol
There’s also a huge value to people working in the same space.
Random conversations solve a lot of problems.
And I’m someone that finds being in an office around people constantly to be exhausting. I just recognize the value.
Random conversations solve a lot of problems.
Trends indicate no. The odds of that vs the costs of the distractions - because Mike, I swear to god, you keep clicking that pen and I’m gonna find a new home for it - don’t make it a winning choice.
In 2002 we solved this with an open skype call where everyone was muted. Convos were easy to start (alt-space to unmute and start talking), which created some distraction but not like Larry and his goddamned sad cowboy music.
because Mike, I swear to god, you keep clicking that pen and I’m gonna find a new home for it
Hahahahah, oh man, I hear ya!
Seriously, I’m as anti-social as they come, but I’ve learned the value of people being in the same space. It’s the way we’re wired, and no, calls/video/virtual stuff is no replacement.
And I’ve had a million random conversations between calls/meetings that have solved many issues, or provided opportunity for improving relationships, etc. These conversations just don’t happen when you’re remote - I say this as someone who’s worked hybrid since the 90’s - there’s no replacement for being in the same space. Again, I’m someone that finds being in the office exhausting - I’d rather be remote.
You can replicate that remotely. I’ve had days where 2-3 people joined a call to share something and then kept that call in the background for hours, chatting about random things while working.
I can chat with someone for hours on end, but I also like using my own toilet, and having access to a tea, snack, etc.
For me, what blocks having random conversations is having 1-3 hours of status updates daily - it doesn’t leave much leftover to do the work especially when my firm declaration that it was going to take twice as long as someone else estimated (and then sure enough it did, at minimum, and maybe taking 10x) is ignored. That would block conversations regardless?
Anyway, the conversations are the content, but them being present physically is only the medium, so WFH does not need to block them, and if anything can help facilitate them e.g. working one in-between other meetings whereas the time taken to physically walk over would have been prohibitive.
There’s also a huge value to people working in the same space.
Random conversations solve a lot of problems.
If only we had decent VR headsets that were comfortable to wear all day I wouldn’t mind replicating that in a “virtual office”
Unfortunately, even Apple wasn’t able to solve the comfortability problem.
That’s understandable but like… you could go to a coffee shop or literally rent office space nearby to where you live - it doesn’t have to be all one way or the other. Anyway, if they truly do enjoy being surrounded by people then I don’t want to knock their totally valid preferences, just to say that there are other ways.
There’s a psychological stress with work that can take some time to slough off.
Some people don’t want to log out of work and be grumpy or distracted during family time.
That being said having a process or system as a habit to denote work/home is a good alternative.
A 10 minute walk, a change of clothes, or some song you play, anything that creates a mental delineation. So the annoyance from that way too long meeting asking why something isn’t done (4 hours a day giving out status updates isn’t helping) doesn’t come out on the family.
Not wanting to work in a crowded home has nothing to do with disliking your family. Kids are loud. They run around the house. They watch TV with the volume set too high. They have excited calls with their friends. Many home builders skimp on noise insulation for interior walls.
From my open office experience, it is often not better with colleagues. A lot of noise, distractions, useless conversations. That is not as bad as kids, but this is why I always dreamt to WFH. I will always be grateful to the person who under cooked that bat in 2019.
most people that are for in office work like having the separation between work and home.
My apartment offers wework-style glass cube space, as well as (totally unused) conference space on the 30th floor. Big conference TV, kitchenette, global supra high-back seating (good-not-amazing) and panoramic river views.
My brain definitely focuses better with environmental cues. I mean, I can work just about anywhere, but if I’m not in the mood, then having the environmental cues displaces alternatives. Subjectively, I feel more productive at work. Never had a really bad commute, so I was never motivated to try to set up a ‘work-only’ space at home, but I’d only do a 70 mile one-way drive for very special occasions.
I guess I’m rare in that I like working in an office. My house is for relaxing and enjoying my time, so the few times I did WFH I really just want to curl up on the couch instead of work.
About a third of the developers in my office choose to come into the office every day because they do not have a home office setup or they prefer to have that separation between work and home.
I would any day. I need my work life and home life to be separate or I go nuts.
It makes me wonder how many other people back out after hearing that the job is on-site. And it makes me wonder why this wasn’t specified in the job description
They’re trying not to get filtered by having it listed as on site up front, and banking on people saying “well, I’m already foot in the door i guess i could settle” once the interview process starts.
Which is already a red flag right there. Too bad there are no real consequences for their attempting to lie & cheat their way towards finding someone willing to put up with their BS, and at this point I don’t mean the on-site factor that is perhaps a legit need that they may have. It’s just how capitalism works, except that they’d really rather it work for rather than against them…:-(
There is one reason I think onsite works, and that’s for relocation.
If you are from the US and you want to move to the UK, how do you intend to move via work if your work is remote?
I love remote work, but I’ve not heard a rebuttal for this other than “don’t let foreigners move here” or “let’s let people move based on their level of education”.
It’s entirely possible that people can work remote but still relocate to an area where the company has a presence. For example, they may not be set up to pay taxes in a certain jurisdiction. For example, my company could not hire Canadian residents until we had a legal entity in Canada. Thankfully we bought a cabadieb firm.
Why would a company decide to grant you a working visa when you will primarily be remote? Furthermore, why would the government grant you a visa when you could, in theory, work from your own country?
As I said, they may not have support to pay or provide benefits in the area where they live. So perhaps you need to move to a different state or country but can still work remote. E.g. Maybe I take a remote job with a company in the UK but I decide to live in Glasgow instead of London.
Web marketer here. If it says hybrid or on site, it’s an automatic no for me. Nobody is taking me away from watching my son grow up.
