SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?
-
Something I've found interesting is that given that we DO have passionate staff, because we prioritize passion when hiring, that something like half of our staff decline work equipment!
What's most telling is our two most senior managers (both in Mexico, coincidentally only) who are both budget authorizers (meaning they can simple authorize anything that they need without needing further approval including office equipment, travel expenses, etc.) choose to provide their own equipment because they just want to have personal gear, of a certain type, and not have extra work equipment around the house. Why have extra gear that you don't need, as it takes up space when you already have what you like to use? Honestly, I'm the same personally, I use my own desktop for work (but work provides my mobile additional equipment in case it fails, so I'm only partway.)
-
So for those who feel that everything necessary for doing IT on your own is not something that you want to provide, that your job should provide it and that's it, here are some questions I'd have because this becomes a conceptual problem for me:
Basically where do you draw the line?
- If you don't use a computer at home or own one, do you have Internet at home (sure, you might, streaming video or whatever... but this is a recent change) or do you expect the employer to provide that, too? If you feel that using your own computer would make you hate your career, does using your own Internet? If not, why not? What's the difference?
- What about office space (quiet, thinking / working space) at home? Do you feel that you'd not want that unless work provides for it?
- Power and similar? This seems funny, but to me, having a PC is something I'd never, ever consider being without even if my career was graphic artist, classical guitarist, auto mechanic, hotel manager, etc. So because it's such a part of just being a broadly accessible, communicative, flexible adult it's hard to not see it much like having to live without power. (I have family that doesn't have computers at home and the difference in how they approach their lives is staggering to me. They are totally subject to fake news and easily swayed by marketing, they never produce anything, they don't communicate with people... it makes for a lifestyle of just work a job they hate, then watch TV till they work again. Computers are a fundamental part of researching the world whether news, shopping, or dealing with so many government resources that can't load on a phone.)
- Phone. If you don't want a computer, what about a smart phone. Do you skip that too? If not, what makes the phone acceptable but not a computer with a keyboard? Why one and not the other? Especially as phones typically cost a lot more and are dramatically more intrusive in our lives.
- College education. Or any education. How did you get into the field in the first place? You must have at some point had a different opinion to have learned enough skills to get into the job. What made you want to learn without a job at one point, but no longer? If you shouldn't have to provide the "ability" to do the job, but feel it should be provided by the employer only, how did you get here? It's essentially guaranteed that you have to not believe in this concept in order to get somewhere and then change direction once you are in the field. There could be an exception, but the difficulty of that would all but insurmountable. Remember that the point of wanting people with computers and internet at home is about showing motivation, passion, interest and the ability to grow and learn independently. All things you would mimic with any pre-job education process so to me, this would be one and the same and the arguments for not wanting to educate outside of work today would logically apply universally. So why was it okay, but no longer?
-
So this is very personal, and I know it definitely doesn't apply to everyone, but in my own experience...
My wife no longer works in IT, but uses a computer constantly for just... everything in life. Communicating with family, watching shows, shopping, projects, storing data, finances, etc. She could use a lesser device for all of that, but it would cost more and take more effort.
My sister in law always has a couple of computers, even though she's kind of an anti-computer person. She does so because of personal business projects, art work, cooking and other interests. Again, could use a lesser device, but at much greater cost and far less functionality. She doesn't have any computer at home for work. But her job requires her to provide the computer in her office, and she is not allowed to work from home (she's a teacher in the US.) So this is the extreme case that makes no sense, but so she has computers at home for herself AND provides the equipment that the school uses and takes from her.
My dad hasn't worked in decades, but always has a computer for all his projects, communicating with family, etc.
Both of my kids use computers for school, art, communicating with family, etc. They both have iPads, both have phones, both have Android tablets, but both needs PCs because there's just so much you can do better there.
All of the above also play video games and use the PCs for that, too. But only additionally and almost all have extra PCs just for that.
THe use of computers makes all of them more efficient, and lowers the cost of the technology. I've never met someone who could forego having a computer at home and remain able to easily stay in contact in a modern, efficient way; could consume and fact check news and events, could remain educated and feel functional like modern people. When I encounter people who don't have computers at home, it's always noticeable. REALLY noticeable. They tend to get their world view from TikTok, be widely out of touch with reality, be easily manipulated and emotionally driven, have little human interaction, fail to grow personally and professionally.
It's ridiculous to think that computers make any of that happen. Mostly it's just access to keyboards or other mechanisms to communicate easily and quickly. But, as a great example, if I didn't have a computer at home, I couldn't write this on a phone screen on a holiday like it is today. Today isn't a work day. It's not computers per se that make any of that true. But people who want to do any of those things almost universally then have computers because that's the main tool for all of those things.
It's not what PCs make possible, it's just a reflection of how people approach the world when they have certain behaviours. Behaviours key to good employees in nearly all cases.
-
Jaja, WHILE writing that response my wife sends me a link to the black friday sale to buy more computers for the family. Good timing.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Providing my own laptop would be a red flag for me too. After having worked at companies that either provided or didn't provide, those that's don't provide tend to violate that boundary of it being yours. One company even expected to install VeraCryptto meet SOC 2 requirements, lmao.
That's different, though. Don't conflate "expect you to have" with "expect to manage." Those are two totally different concepts.
It wouldn't be a red flag if they expected me to have a laptop, just if they expected me to use my laptop for work. Kinda of like an entry level person with a homelab is more likely to be hired, but if they expected them to start hosting work stuff in the lab that would definitely be a screw you situation.
-
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
After having worked at companies that either provided or didn't provide, those that's don't provide tend to violate that boundary of it being yours. One company even expected to install VeraCryptto meet SOC 2 requirements, lmao.
"tend to". Here when we provide equipment we do nothing like that. Yes, we can patch remotely and provide assistance, but that's about it. Same thing we do for every customer at home, too. Employees still get to request the equipment that they need, and most keep the equipment if they quit (which is rare, but these things happen.) It's rare that we try to get it back, used equipment having limited value to us and often big value to the departing employee.
If you were to go only by your trends, or most people's including my own, we could generalize that most companies are bad. And that's 100% true. So from that we can assume that most companies that provide computers are bad. Most that don't, are also bad.
It's important to look at it as "bad companies that don't provide equipment might try to steal yours in some way", sure. But that is 100% about it being a bad employer, and 0% because they expect you to provide gear that they expect you to already have.
We are an IT company primarily, so there's zero need to install anything on staff computers. We are modernized, no legacy software for us. We also have accounting and other divisions, same thing. We also provide veterinary services and call centers. Same thing, if they bring their own computers there's nothing that needs to be installed. They work from a web browser.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Using my own personal laptop for work if a good way to ensure that I don't do my own tech stuff when I'm not working. I dual booted so that my work OS was completely separate, but I still didn't want to touch that thing after work.
You only do IT at work and never because you find it fun or interesting or want to grow outside of job promotions?
I can't imagine wanting to work in IT at all, with all the drama, stress, hard work.. if I didn't love IT itself. There are so many better fields that are less demanding if it is only a job and not a career that you want to do regardless of the job.
It's about the association. If I do something on the side, it can be a fun project for me, but I don't want my purely fun projects mingling with my work. Though, having a family now and always being on the edge of everything falling into chaos, a lot of my fun learning does happen at work, but I am being paid for it. We have bookclub (and often the reading for it) during work hours. I can take whole days for person all development or just arrange certain mornings for it.
-
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Providing my own laptop would be a red flag for me too. After having worked at companies that either provided or didn't provide, those that's don't provide tend to violate that boundary of it being yours. One company even expected to install VeraCryptto meet SOC 2 requirements, lmao.
That's different, though. Don't conflate "expect you to have" with "expect to manage." Those are two totally different concepts.
It wouldn't be a red flag if they expected me to have a laptop, just if they expected me to use my laptop for work. Kinda of like an entry level person with a homelab is more likely to be hired, but if they expected them to start hosting work stuff in the lab that would definitely be a screw you situation.
So in my example... any professional IT department there would be no need to have anything at home but a web browser. So the expectation would only be that you use the web browser you already have to go to work, rather than providing an entire computer and accoutrements setup, at quite some expense, for you to do the same thing.
Here's why I think it makes sense almost always...
- You already have everything needed to work because you have it for yourself (in the example where we expect you to have it.)
- You already have it set up where you like it.
- Any additional employee expense always ultimately comes from the employee. This is universal and unavoidable. Providing a second computer is a part of your pay package under the hood. So generating an expense for that lowers the budget for your salary or other benefits. This seems like a terrible use of employee benefit funds in nearly all cases.
- If a computer is provided, now you have to provide space for your ideal setup that you already have, PLUS find space to set up a second "work only" system. Some uber rich people have lots of spare space for that, most people do not. And typically you want to work in the best spot for your long work day, so presumably where your existing setup already is (why would it be in a less than ideal spot?)
- There's basically no downside to using your own, but lots of upsides for both you as well as your employer. You are more valuable, your workspace is more custom, you are lower risk, etc. etc. As an employee, I don't want my employer wasting my pay package buying a computer I don't want that they can reclaim anytime or control however they want. I want days off, more money or some other benefit instead that actually benefits me. As an employer, I want employees who empathize with the underlying business mechanics and work towards a common goal. And those that don't arbitrarily make the work environment less flexible.
I can tell you, I generally prefer when we provide computers as an employer because we have more control and determine the operating system and update cadence and so forth. It's nice knowing exactly what is out there and moving equipment around as we like. But it's better for our staff, normally, when we don't do that and let them use whatever they like. Then there is more money for salaries, more money for vacation time, etc.
-
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Using my own personal laptop for work if a good way to ensure that I don't do my own tech stuff when I'm not working. I dual booted so that my work OS was completely separate, but I still didn't want to touch that thing after work.
You only do IT at work and never because you find it fun or interesting or want to grow outside of job promotions?
I can't imagine wanting to work in IT at all, with all the drama, stress, hard work.. if I didn't love IT itself. There are so many better fields that are less demanding if it is only a job and not a career that you want to do regardless of the job.
It's about the association. If I do something on the side, it can be a fun project for me, but I don't want my purely fun projects mingling with my work. Though, having a family now and always being on the edge of everything falling into chaos, a lot of my fun learning does happen at work, but I am being paid for it. We have bookclub (and often the reading for it) during work hours. I can take whole days for person all development or just arrange certain mornings for it.
This touches on a completely (or almost) difference subject. The concept of on/off work/personal time and mingled time. For many of us, fun and work have to mingle whether it's because of scheduling, or because the things we like to do and work are essentially the same thing. Like write now, I'm not at work but writing about work stuff.
For us, and this is different by organization and jurisdiction, we operate in an environment where we are free legally to do anything to the benefit of the employees. There aren't any strong employer organizations manipulating the government into making sneaking anti-labor laws under the guise of protecting employees (e.g. New York's unpaid lunch laws for blue collar workers that are used to guarantee longer working days at lower cost for factories - the employers benefit, the employees suffer, but they claim it's employee protection to indemnify the employers who pushed for it.) So we are able to make healthy mingled environments where employees can effortlessly mix work and personal life.
At a bad company (or in a bad country) that might sound like trying to make people work all of the time. But at a good company, in a good jurisdiction, it's making people never have to shut off their personal lives.
For us, the lengths that we go to to ensure our teams are passionate, also allows us to go to great lengths to protect their personal lives and time and space. Unlimited vacation time transparently turns into nine month maternity leaves, zero locational requirement means "full time travel options". Bring your own devices means creating your own workspaces that are best for you. People work when it makes sense, and stop when it doesn't.
-
I think a universal challenge (to touch on how crappy companies try to basically steal your equipment at home) is that...
The freedom to be a good employer or workplace, is the power to be a crappy employer or workplace.
Often the things that terrible companies do for bad reasons, are similar to what good ones do for good reasons.
Example... some companies do unlimited time off in the hopes that people fear to use it. But others do it and enforce minimum usage to make sure people have to use it and keep using it.
Flexible work hours can mean "encouraging people to never stop working". But it can also mean "work when it makes sense and we monitor to make sure you don't work too much."
Bottom line, i believe, is that you need a good employer for work to be good. Most aren't, but passion more than anything is the best path to being able to get to one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking if you watch the video, you'll notice that the primary point isn't that you shouldn't provide equipment for people, but should only do so when it makes sense. BUT that your candidates should have the resources to do IT at home, regardless of it you expect them to use them or not.
At NTG, we do provide people's work environments most of the time (unless they don't want to use our stuff.) We provide the router/firewall, desktop, phone, etc. But we only do so to people who already have that stuff, too. We just provide better, or more appropriately designed and managed, work hardware.
We look for that passion. I absolutely am not going to pay to provide work equipment to someone that doesn't want to do this kind of work. That guarantees I'll have to motivate solely with money and will never get the kind of growth and long term healthy future that we look for.
Of course, we are also a "hire for life" employer, not a "hire for a task and see if we need you after that task is done" employer. We don't hire people for a role, we hire people who are passionate and that's about
So the thing is, for 95% of the companies I would apply for, it would make sense that they supplied the computer. Most likely for security requirements. Kind of like how for most people you interview, it would make sense that they own a computer. I wouldn't rule out the 5% because they might have a good reason they don't, but
-
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking if you watch the video, you'll notice that the primary point isn't that you shouldn't provide equipment for people, but should only do so when it makes sense. BUT that your candidates should have the resources to do IT at home, regardless of it you expect them to use them or not.
At NTG, we do provide people's work environments most of the time (unless they don't want to use our stuff.) We provide the router/firewall, desktop, phone, etc. But we only do so to people who already have that stuff, too. We just provide better, or more appropriately designed and managed, work hardware.
We look for that passion. I absolutely am not going to pay to provide work equipment to someone that doesn't want to do this kind of work. That guarantees I'll have to motivate solely with money and will never get the kind of growth and long term healthy future that we look for.
Of course, we are also a "hire for life" employer, not a "hire for a task and see if we need you after that task is done" employer. We don't hire people for a role, we hire people who are passionate and that's about
So the thing is, for 95% of the companies I would apply for, it would make sense that they supplied the computer. Most likely for security requirements. Kind of like how for most people you interview, it would make sense that they own a computer. I wouldn't rule out the 5% because they might have a good reason they don't, but
I'm not a big believer in the security argument. Especially not in IT. I understand the premise, if you control the equipment tightly, you can lock it down. But we're IT, we HAVE to trust our staff already and we don't put any data on their machines (assigned... whether their machines or our machines, on endpoints that they use) anyway, so the entire point is locking down a browser or terminal. If they are going to hack that, they will do so regardless. Since we hire professionals we trust that they are securing things a bit as well. The exposure risk is very minimal as there are so many steps between them and data and always "closed glass."
-
You seem to think that if you don’t own your own computer you can’t learn, or develop, or write, or research, or be passionate? I do all of these things on my work laptop.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking if you watch the video, you'll notice that the primary point isn't that you shouldn't provide equipment for people, but should only do so when it makes sense. BUT that your candidates should have the resources to do IT at home, regardless of it you expect them to use them or not.
At NTG, we do provide people's work environments most of the time (unless they don't want to use our stuff.) We provide the router/firewall, desktop, phone, etc. But we only do so to people who already have that stuff, too. We just provide better, or more appropriately designed and managed, work hardware.
We look for that passion. I absolutely am not going to pay to provide work equipment to someone that doesn't want to do this kind of work. That guarantees I'll have to motivate solely with money and will never get the kind of growth and long term healthy future that we look for.
Of course, we are also a "hire for life" employer, not a "hire for a task and see if we need you after that task is done" employer. We don't hire people for a role, we hire people who are passionate and that's about
So the thing is, for 95% of the companies I would apply for, it would make sense that they supplied the computer. Most likely for security requirements. Kind of like how for most people you interview, it would make sense that they own a computer. I wouldn't rule out the 5% because they might have a good reason they don't, but
I'm not a big believer in the security argument. Especially not in IT. I understand the premise, if you control the equipment tightly, you can lock it down. But we're IT, we HAVE to trust our staff already and we don't put any data on their machines (assigned... whether their machines or our machines, on endpoints that they use) anyway, so the entire point is locking down a browser or terminal. If they are going to hack that, they will do so regardless. Since we hire professionals we trust that they are securing things a bit as well. The exposure risk is very minimal as there are so many steps between them and data and always "closed glass."
And the situation where no data is getting onto the system is what would be a rate situation in the tech companies I would potentially work for. It's often still a situation where the decentralized work stations providing compute is still cheaper than centralizing it. The workstation isn't a perk, the alternative of centralized compute is more expensive. That might be changing with stuff like dev containers getting traction, but regulations are also slow to change.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
@flaxking said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Using my own personal laptop for work if a good way to ensure that I don't do my own tech stuff when I'm not working. I dual booted so that my work OS was completely separate, but I still didn't want to touch that thing after work.
You only do IT at work and never because you find it fun or interesting or want to grow outside of job promotions?
I can't imagine wanting to work in IT at all, with all the drama, stress, hard work.. if I didn't love IT itself. There are so many better fields that are less demanding if it is only a job and not a career that you want to do regardless of the job.
It's about the association. If I do something on the side, it can be a fun project for me, but I don't want my purely fun projects mingling with my work. Though, having a family now and always being on the edge of everything falling into chaos, a lot of my fun learning does happen at work, but I am being paid for it. We have bookclub (and often the reading for it) during work hours. I can take whole days for person all development or just arrange certain mornings for it.
This touches on a completely (or almost) difference subject. The concept of on/off work/personal time and mingled time. For many of us, fun and work have to mingle whether it's because of scheduling, or because the things we like to do and work are essentially the same thing. Like write now, I'm not at work but writing about work stuff.
For us, and this is different by organization and jurisdiction, we operate in an environment where we are free legally to do anything to the benefit of the employees. There aren't any strong employer organizations manipulating the government into making sneaking anti-labor laws under the guise of protecting employees (e.g. New York's unpaid lunch laws for blue collar workers that are used to guarantee longer working days at lower cost for factories - the employers benefit, the employees suffer, but they claim it's employee protection to indemnify the employers who pushed for it.) So we are able to make healthy mingled environments where employees can effortlessly mix work and personal life.
At a bad company (or in a bad country) that might sound like trying to make people work all of the time. But at a good company, in a good jurisdiction, it's making people never have to shut off their personal lives.
For us, the lengths that we go to to ensure our teams are passionate, also allows us to go to great lengths to protect their personal lives and time and space. Unlimited vacation time transparently turns into nine month maternity leaves, zero locational requirement means "full time travel options". Bring your own devices means creating your own workspaces that are best for you. People work when it makes sense, and stop when it doesn't.
It may be separate from the point you were originally trying to make, but if you're looking at the whole picture trying to figure out where people make the demarcation, it's definitely part of the conversation.
Things like computers and phones and be really personal devices, stuff like your internet connection, less so.
Even when a company have unlimited vacation and actually mean it, they need to create a culture that gets people to actually use it. Super passionate people are less likely to take advantage of it, even when it would benefit them personally.
A company that provides a workstation can help create a culture where people can turn work off and on at their own time. For me, if I'm on my work computer not doing real work, seeing a notification pop up can be really distracting and consume my thoughts, even if there was no expectation for me to be working. Not that I can't think about work while I'm not at work, but some separation is definitely beneficial.
-
As with many other folk, I also disagree. Work from the office, office machine. Work from home, home machine. Laptop or desktop, I don't care - but if its for work, its must be procured by work.
An example, asking an IT person what setup they have at home is perfectly fine. Seeing what they run and why. What network and switch they use. The firewall and lab. What Internet connection they have. All fine.
Getting that person to use their own machine for work, absolutely not.
Lets say I am passionate about my car and have spent a lot of cash on something fancy. No way am I putting mileage on it for work. Buy me a company car. My own car = my use. You want me to get from customer A to customer B for projects, get me a fooking Uber, or flight, or expense me a rental. No way am I putting hundreds of miles on the car I am passionate about for the business use.
Likewise, I spend thousands on a beast of a machine for my personal use. No way am I putting wear and tear on that for business reasons. It is my device. Go pound sand, get a device for me to use to get company work done, or go find a chump who will use their own like a damn fool. Of course I can afford top end and buy a really high spec machine, but thats for my use.
Edit: my neice needs a laptop and I decide to give her my personal one to use as I want to upgrade. Great, she has my device. My top of the range laptop is on order and is going to take a week from factory. Well, sucks to be the business, its my device and I no longer have it, so cant get work done! Should have supplied me with a work machine then - I can do what I damn well want to with my own machine and im not going to go and spend my own money on something cheap already at a store because my personal machine is no longer with me. Pfft.
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
THe use of computers makes all of them more efficient, and lowers the cost of the technology. I've never met someone who could forego having a computer at home and remain able to easily stay in contact in a modern, efficient way; could consume and fact check news and events, could remain educated and feel functional like modern people. When I encounter people who don't have computers at home, it's always noticeable. REALLY noticeable. They tend to get their world view from TikTok, be widely out of touch with reality, be easily manipulated and emotionally driven, have little human interaction, fail to grow personally and professionally.
It's amazing that civilisation survived before the age of the internet, huh? How weren't people just walking around in a complete haze not knowing what was going on?
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
If you feel that using your own computer would make you hate your career,
Say what? How do you get to that conclusion?
-
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
Phone. If you don't want a computer, what about a smart phone. Do you skip that too? If not, what makes the phone acceptable but not a computer with a keyboard? Why one and not the other? Especially as phones typically cost a lot more and are dramatically more intrusive in our lives.
My phone cost $200, my work laptop $1500. But they're completely different devices, although pretty much everything you can do on a PC you can do on a phone or tablet, as millions of people around the world without a PC will testify.
@scottalanmiller said in SAMIT: Should You Provide Equipment for Work from Home Staff?:
College education. Or any education. How did you get into the field in the first place? You must have at some point had a different opinion to have learned enough skills to get into the job. What made you want to learn without a job at one point, but no longer?
Well I studied Economics. We had this thing called books, by people like Adam Smith and Maynard Keynes. But again, you seem to be under the impression that it is impossible to learn at work. I don't understand why you would think that. I am learning constantly, and taking exams and getting certs, it never ends in IT.
-
What I'm wondering is, are your employees not allowed to learn at work? Is all their learning expected to be done in their own time, at their own expense, on their own computers? Because that's a very different culture to European companies, where learning and self-improvement is an integral part of the job.
