You Know What Really Grinds My Gears? Now with 3x more gears...

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Except they do if you measure on output because they contribute to output.

Not in terms of individual output. There was a podcast I can’t remember which one that was discussing some studies that found that the in office people output drops as they take on more of the mentoring, checking and training tasks as compared to WFHs whose individual output improves. This was in the programming space. I’ll see if I can find it.

So like all KPIs they only measure exactly what you want to measure.

[Erick Estrada]

Management is out of my control. All I’m concerned is about my projects getting done on time and getting through inspections without issues. WFH has made that a little more challenging at my workplace.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Do you think the average person’s experience with the corporate world is that it’s rational and well-managed? Why do you think the baffling absurdity of the modern corporate world is parodied so often in film and television?

I’ve worked at four mid to large sized tech companies in this city. Three of them had comically dumb management and corporate cultures. It’s the norm.

Not at all. I don’t think there’s a situation out there without quirks and I think there’s upsides and drawbacks to anything (I go into the office sometimes just because I feel like it, it’s not without personal value).

I just think any company that has issues with WFH has issues that were being masked by in-office, not issues specifically related to WFH, because it allows management to be worse and processes to be less effective.

If someone isn’t pulling their weight it really doesn’t matter where they’re working.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Gotta think some of these banking stories and horrendous customer service stories that are leading to huge delays of things being done would start to form a claim. Certainly a small claims court kinda issue where you don’t need a lawyer and can just show up. Sue them for like 8k of wasted time. Track your hours, sue them your equivalent wage in time and psychological distress. And here’s this date and here’s this call and here’s this meeting where nothing was resolved, but if I had that money on that date I could have done this or that with it, opportunity costs, losses, bills, late payments, because banks are white collar criminals in Canada.

You know the judges will side with you because they, too, have been ####ed by the banks.

And if everyone starts suing these #### faces then maybe they figure it out. INSANE the power Canada gives our banks, telecoms and railroads, these 3 industries are legit things that being taken over by America would improve upon and yes I’m aware of the 2008 crisis. Still better. Come at me.

Yes I’m joking. Kinda. #### the Canadian banks.

this is why you put all your money in crypto bro /s

[fotze2]

And TD is blocking me again. Unbelievable

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not at all. I don’t think there’s a situation out there without quirks and I think there’s upsides and drawbacks to anything (I go into the office sometimes just because I feel like it, it’s not without personal value).

I just think any company that has issues with WFH has issues that were being masked by in-office, not issues specifically related to WFH, because it allows management to be worse and processes to be less effective.

If someone isn’t pulling their weight it really doesn’t matter where they’re working.

Isn’t that saying than in office work is more effective because the quality of your processes can be worse, the quality of your management can be worse and your quality of employee can be worse and something about in office work masks all these flaws allowing stuff to still get done.

Like if you can have worse managers by working in the office then that’s a feature of WIO and a challenge in WFM.

Most employees fall in the 5-7 range and you can’t just PIP them all and get rid of them. Most managers are poor at managing ok employees.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

Isn’t that saying than in office work is more effective because the quality of your processes can be worse, the quality of your management can be worse and your quality of employee can be worse and something about in office work masks all these flaws allowing stuff to still get done.

Like if you can have worse managers by working in the office then that’s a feature of WIO and a challenge in WFM.

Most employees fall in the 5-7 range and you can’t just PIP them all and get rid of them. Most managers are poor at managing ok employees.

No.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

No.

You don’t have to be a dick

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

You don’t have to be a dick

…wut

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I just think any company that has issues with WFH has issues that were being masked by in-office, not issues specifically related to WFH, because it allows management to be worse and processes to be less effective.

If someone isn’t pulling their weight it really doesn’t matter where they’re working.

Agreed.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Agreed.

I think it’s way more nuanced. When our staff are in the office the casual conversations, cross functional aha moments I witness daily just can’t be happening on teams. On teams you talk to the people you need to or are scheduled to. There is also a cultural element and knowledge transfer aspect that just isn’t as effective remotely.

My opinion is wfh has sort of worked because we are borrowing from the relationships and culture we had before. That said, 5 days a week is not necessary and don’t see the need to return to that.

[fotze2]

Ya, it’s more nuanced, everyone jumps to the rockstar employee or the dogfataer employee. It’s those mushy middle ones.

It’s so much more. Handy to just yell “we using 6 inch or two four inch lines”

I got a good bonus this year because my new boss first and foremost put “is usually the first in and last to leave”. I do that because I know it’s bullcrap but it’s so massively important. First to tell my guys “you can leave at two to go golfing, I’ll cover for you”.

The systems need to be up to snuff. Using mapping software like geoscout is a nightmare at my current company as is everything remotely. I ask people how they work from home effectively and they say they just answer emails on fridays. I dunno about that.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by fotze2

...
It’s so much more. Handy to just yell “we using 6 inch or two four inch lines”
...

Let's schedule a teams meeting to look into that and we can loop in the rest of the group to confirm those details. Just let me check my golf times first to avoid a conflict. I'll get back to you in a few days with a schedule.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are legitimate reasons to encourage employees to come into the office. People tend to communicate better and trust one another more if they have even a casual face-to-face acquaintance. It’s not even about technical collaboration so much as relationships built up over having lunch of coffee together, and conversations in the hallway.

But one of the main reasons companies are pushing back to the office is they don’t know how to measure productivity. If people are slacking, it should be evident regardless of whether they’re working at the office or at home. And if they are, then deal with it.

If the only way management be reassure themselves that people are doing their jobs is to plant them at a desk under their watchful eye 40 hours a week, then the company has a lot bigger problems than its WFH policy.

This. WFH is mostly effective for task based work. And at that point the WFH worker in Calgary becomes expendable if you can hire a guy from Winnipeg or Regina for 20% less.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

This. WFH is mostly effective for task based work. And at that point the WFH worker in Calgary becomes expendable if you can hire a guy from Winnipeg or Regina for 20% less.

Until you get sick of the incessant whining about the Riders, Bombers, mosquitos and windchill. Then you'd rather pay the extra 20% to not have to put up with that #### constantly.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

This. WFH is mostly effective for task based work. And at that point the WFH worker in Calgary becomes expendable if you can hire a guy from Winnipeg or Regina for 20% less.

That’s why casual hybrid situations are so effective. The best of both worlds.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

There are legitimate reasons to encourage employees to come into the office. People tend to communicate better and trust one another more if they have even a casual face-to-face acquaintance. It’s not even about technical collaboration so much as relationships built up over having lunch of coffee together, and conversations in the hallway

Get to work, slacker! So much time wasted in office with the coffee room BS.

[surferguy]

I’ve been sick this week,

I did walk in clinic mid week. Five days later and the drops for my ears just are not cutting it so I’m back at the walk in.

I showed up first (25 mins before clinic opens) three other cars pulled up behind me… I missed the OPEN sign turning on by a split second (scrolling CP) and the three other cars all unloaded and raced in in front of me. Ok fine I get it.

Now I’ve been waiting for about an hour and the clinic is playing the Jesus rock station.

Ugghhh. I hate being sick.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

This. WFH is mostly effective for task based work. And at that point the WFH worker in Calgary becomes expendable if you can hire a guy from Winnipeg or Regina for 20% less.

I wonder if we won’t eventually see a job market where WFH comes with a reduced salary. Because yes, if you’re working strictly from home there’s no reason you should expect to be paid more than someone doing your job from a lower-cost job market.

[Whynotnow]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I wonder if we won’t eventually see a job market where WFH comes with a reduced salary. Because yes, if you’re working strictly from home there’s no reason you should expect to be paid more than someone doing your job from a lower-cost job market.

That’s one thing people should think about the ramifications of. If it doesn’t matter whether I ever see you and there’s no value to that then I can definitely look for the lowest cost option/jurisdiction to do your job,.