Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
We either provide or re-reimburse for these expenses unless someone wants something crazy. The desk itself is the only thing we don't cover.
Weird to single that one out, generally the longest lasting piece and pretty valuable to the efficiency equation. But, I suppose, it'll last so long that it's like investing in their next job.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
Most of ours do, of course most of our people will work from home here and there on some days (we allow a lot of flexibility as a family first company) such as work from home when kids or sick, out of school etc. plus, we have a lot of people that will do work after hours from home (like myself) because we just simply get more done without the distractions.
And your salary - so you like to just give your time to your employer? I mean i know that professional (to scott at least) means you're putting in 50-60 hrs/wk, but if you have any self respect, wouldn't you demand that your company provide you all the resources to get that job done, even if that means working at home?
Perhaps one argues that since the pay for these professionals is 6 figures plus, that is the self respect that you have, and it's "understood" that you will spend some of that money maintaining a home workstation to do work while at home?
OK, I can accept that. I'm not accustomed to working with/around people at that level, so I don't see it. I'm more akin to the blue collar worker Scott mentioned earlier.
Actually I'm only salaried in the sense I get paid 40hrs if I work under 40hrs. I worked out a deal with my employer serval years back. I get paid overtime or for extra straight hours if not overtime (like if working extra on a week with a holiday when it's not technically overtime).
I'm pretty sure, at least in the US, we've agreed that most IT work would still qualify for OT. though I'm fully prepared to be wrong.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
Most of ours do, of course most of our people will work from home here and there on some days (we allow a lot of flexibility as a family first company) such as work from home when kids or sick, out of school etc. plus, we have a lot of people that will do work after hours from home (like myself) because we just simply get more done without the distractions.
And your salary - so you like to just give your time to your employer? I mean i know that professional (to scott at least) means you're putting in 50-60 hrs/wk, but if you have any self respect, wouldn't you demand that your company provide you all the resources to get that job done, even if that means working at home?
Perhaps one argues that since the pay for these professionals is 6 figures plus, that is the self respect that you have, and it's "understood" that you will spend some of that money maintaining a home workstation to do work while at home?
OK, I can accept that. I'm not accustomed to working with/around people at that level, so I don't see it. I'm more akin to the blue collar worker Scott mentioned earlier.
Actually I'm only salaried in the sense I get paid 40hrs if I work under 40hrs. I worked out a deal with my employer serval years back. I get paid overtime or for extra straight hours if not overtime (like if working extra on a week with a holiday when it's not technically overtime).
I'm pretty sure, at least in the US, we've agreed that most IT work would still qualify for OT. though I'm fully prepared to be wrong.
On average, it does, when not salaried.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
I wonder why they have such nice setups pre-covid work from the office - why bother with a nice setup at home, unless they are spending a ton of time on that system doing non work things.
Think about people you'd actually want to employ in non-manual labor jobs... you want people who are driven, creative, interesting, etc. Whether you write, do art, play games, code, design, etc. you need that setup at home. If you don't have one at home, how do those people do 95% of what is interesting out there?
I grew up in the 80s and all my friends had this at home just to be able to do homework. My kids have an office setup in their room. I did as a kid. All my friends did. How do you effectively even do your homework as a student, your taxes as an adult, communicate with other people (assuming you are social), etc. if you don't?
I know it's a millennial thing ot be inefficient and out of touch intentionally. but outside of "failure culture" it's always been ubiquitous.
a typical worker doesn't need a nicer than in office setup at home to do taxes.. that's just crazy!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
I mean i know that professional (to scott at least) means you're putting in 50-60 hrs/wk
I like how "US Department of Labor" means "to scott at least" around here.
I don't recall reading anywhere that states something like that.
everything I recall reading specifically works around 40 hours. because of you are exempt, then the number of hours is actually meaningless. But if you are salary non-exempt, then you still get OT, and I'm only aware of OT happening at 4+ hours, not 50-60+.Now that comment was slated toward the exempt folks, so really it again, makes it irrelevant.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
Most of ours do, of course most of our people will work from home here and there on some days (we allow a lot of flexibility as a family first company) such as work from home when kids or sick, out of school etc. plus, we have a lot of people that will do work after hours from home (like myself) because we just simply get more done without the distractions.
And your salary - so you like to just give your time to your employer? I mean i know that professional (to scott at least) means you're putting in 50-60 hrs/wk, but if you have any self respect, wouldn't you demand that your company provide you all the resources to get that job done, even if that means working at home?
Perhaps one argues that since the pay for these professionals is 6 figures plus, that is the self respect that you have, and it's "understood" that you will spend some of that money maintaining a home workstation to do work while at home?
OK, I can accept that. I'm not accustomed to working with/around people at that level, so I don't see it. I'm more akin to the blue collar worker Scott mentioned earlier.
Actually I'm only salaried in the sense I get paid 40hrs if I work under 40hrs. I worked out a deal with my employer serval years back. I get paid overtime or for extra straight hours if not overtime (like if working extra on a week with a holiday when it's not technically overtime).
I'm pretty sure, at least in the US, we've agreed that most IT work would still qualify for OT. though I'm fully prepared to be wrong.
On average, it does, when not salaried.
This is where salary's breakdown becomes important - exempt vs non-exempt.... and this isn't generally up to the company, it's up to the law. No one is just "salary" they are either of the above type of salary.
-
@RandyBlevins said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
COVID-19 has push large tech companies like Microsoft, Google, and Amazon to be WFH (at least at the moment). These companies decided against it, even though they deliver technologies that make it possible.
Microsoft has really been push Teams though all this and pushed companies in every industry to use at as remote collaboration solution. Amazon just made a deal with slack and will be delivering slack video calls through Chime. Amazon will also license slack for every employee in their company. Not to mention the advantages that AWS and Azure already provide to 100% remote workforce.
In addition to these companies pushing their customers to adopt WFH, they have hired tens of thousands of IT employees during the pandemic. These companies will have to provide relocation services for these employees. Sure they have the money to provide relocation, but the challenge of providing the service means they have to provide housing which may be very difficult to do in headquarter areas in a short period of time. 10k people looking for a house in Redmond, WA would be challenging to say the least.
With a rapid hire rate, push for customers to adapt WFH, and challenges related to relocation; will these companies go remote?
I think they will. Facebook is planning to do wfh/remote work indefinitely now. Amazon already has positions that are completely remote so it's not a stretch that they would have more.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
Most of ours do, of course most of our people will work from home here and there on some days (we allow a lot of flexibility as a family first company) such as work from home when kids or sick, out of school etc. plus, we have a lot of people that will do work after hours from home (like myself) because we just simply get more done without the distractions.
And your salary - so you like to just give your time to your employer? I mean i know that professional (to scott at least) means you're putting in 50-60 hrs/wk, but if you have any self respect, wouldn't you demand that your company provide you all the resources to get that job done, even if that means working at home?
Perhaps one argues that since the pay for these professionals is 6 figures plus, that is the self respect that you have, and it's "understood" that you will spend some of that money maintaining a home workstation to do work while at home?
OK, I can accept that. I'm not accustomed to working with/around people at that level, so I don't see it. I'm more akin to the blue collar worker Scott mentioned earlier.
Actually I'm only salaried in the sense I get paid 40hrs if I work under 40hrs. I worked out a deal with my employer serval years back. I get paid overtime or for extra straight hours if not overtime (like if working extra on a week with a holiday when it's not technically overtime).
I'm pretty sure, at least in the US, we've agreed that most IT work would still qualify for OT. though I'm fully prepared to be wrong.
On average, it does, when not salaried.
for us Desktop support & Sys Admins are non-exempt, but as Systems Engineers and Lead Architects we are exempt normally, but you can always negotiate your pay and terms. Software Engineers are exempt as well.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
I wonder why they have such nice setups pre-covid work from the office - why bother with a nice setup at home, unless they are spending a ton of time on that system doing non work things.
Think about people you'd actually want to employ in non-manual labor jobs... you want people who are driven, creative, interesting, etc. Whether you write, do art, play games, code, design, etc. you need that setup at home. If you don't have one at home, how do those people do 95% of what is interesting out there?
I grew up in the 80s and all my friends had this at home just to be able to do homework. My kids have an office setup in their room. I did as a kid. All my friends did. How do you effectively even do your homework as a student, your taxes as an adult, communicate with other people (assuming you are social), etc. if you don't?
I know it's a millennial thing ot be inefficient and out of touch intentionally. but outside of "failure culture" it's always been ubiquitous.
a typical worker doesn't need a nicer than in office setup at home to do taxes.. that's just crazy!
Need? no. But every little thing you do in life works better when you have a place to do it. It adds up. People without home offices generally struggle to even do shopping easily.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
I mean i know that professional (to scott at least) means you're putting in 50-60 hrs/wk
I like how "US Department of Labor" means "to scott at least" around here.
I don't recall reading anywhere that states something like that.
everything I recall reading specifically works around 40 hours. because of you are exempt, then the number of hours is actually meaningless. But if you are salary non-exempt, then you still get OT, and I'm only aware of OT happening at 4+ hours, not 50-60+.Now that comment was slated toward the exempt folks, so really it again, makes it irrelevant.
Is the US, to the extent that it even is used in legal contracts, "Professional Day" is 10 hours and "Professional Week" is 50.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
Most of ours do, of course most of our people will work from home here and there on some days (we allow a lot of flexibility as a family first company) such as work from home when kids or sick, out of school etc. plus, we have a lot of people that will do work after hours from home (like myself) because we just simply get more done without the distractions.
And your salary - so you like to just give your time to your employer? I mean i know that professional (to scott at least) means you're putting in 50-60 hrs/wk, but if you have any self respect, wouldn't you demand that your company provide you all the resources to get that job done, even if that means working at home?
Perhaps one argues that since the pay for these professionals is 6 figures plus, that is the self respect that you have, and it's "understood" that you will spend some of that money maintaining a home workstation to do work while at home?
OK, I can accept that. I'm not accustomed to working with/around people at that level, so I don't see it. I'm more akin to the blue collar worker Scott mentioned earlier.
Actually I'm only salaried in the sense I get paid 40hrs if I work under 40hrs. I worked out a deal with my employer serval years back. I get paid overtime or for extra straight hours if not overtime (like if working extra on a week with a holiday when it's not technically overtime).
I'm pretty sure, at least in the US, we've agreed that most IT work would still qualify for OT. though I'm fully prepared to be wrong.
On average, it does, when not salaried.
for us Desktop support & Sys Admins are non-exempt, but as Systems Engineers and Lead Architects we are exempt normally, but you can always negotiate your pay and terms. Software Engineers are exempt as well.
That's weird, the demands on and salaries for admins, being so senior to engineers, normally makes them exempt long before engineers. Engineers don't have the "decision making" demands on them that admins do.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.I know no one who didn't. Of course, I tend to know real workers more often than not, and not like doctors or other "professionals". Those often don't even have computers at home. But they can't work from home generally, either. But basically anyone with working value that isn't blue collar, you know their home setups are better than work because the office almost never cares and at home, they always do.
Most of ours do, of course most of our people will work from home here and there on some days (we allow a lot of flexibility as a family first company) such as work from home when kids or sick, out of school etc. plus, we have a lot of people that will do work after hours from home (like myself) because we just simply get more done without the distractions.
And your salary - so you like to just give your time to your employer? I mean i know that professional (to scott at least) means you're putting in 50-60 hrs/wk, but if you have any self respect, wouldn't you demand that your company provide you all the resources to get that job done, even if that means working at home?
Perhaps one argues that since the pay for these professionals is 6 figures plus, that is the self respect that you have, and it's "understood" that you will spend some of that money maintaining a home workstation to do work while at home?
OK, I can accept that. I'm not accustomed to working with/around people at that level, so I don't see it. I'm more akin to the blue collar worker Scott mentioned earlier.
Actually I'm only salaried in the sense I get paid 40hrs if I work under 40hrs. I worked out a deal with my employer serval years back. I get paid overtime or for extra straight hours if not overtime (like if working extra on a week with a holiday when it's not technically overtime).
I'm pretty sure, at least in the US, we've agreed that most IT work would still qualify for OT. though I'm fully prepared to be wrong.
On average, it does, when not salaried.
for us Desktop support & Sys Admins are non-exempt, but as Systems Engineers and Lead Architects we are exempt normally, but you can always negotiate your pay and terms. Software Engineers are exempt as well.
That's weird, the demands on and salaries for admins, being so senior to engineers, normally makes them exempt long before engineers. Engineers don't have the "decision making" demands on them that admins do.
That's bacwards actually. Systems Admins just do day to day operations and keep things running they don't have an descision making whatsoever.
Or as Google says:
A systems administrator manages the systems, while a systems engineer has more power over their design: what OS to use, what infrastructure and software is going to be used, what's the best solution for certain problem, etc etc.The systems administrators have everything already decided, they just need to troubleshoot, fix, update, monitor.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
Yeah I agree with this. When I'm at home I can just focus on whatever tasks I need to until each is done. At the office, I have 50 different requests/favors/distractions a day. I also bounce from building to building and each takes a while to walk to. I'm far more efficient at home.
-
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@black3dynamite said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
some employees just can't do it - they can't stay on task while at home
But can they in the office? These are the same people who derail others in the office.
Studies show that people stay MORE on task at home. If we cared about people being on task, the office would have been ruled out long ago. So clearly, no one using an office is concerned with this, so this is moot.
Sure, a few people are useless anywhere, but the majority work better at home.
I'm 50/50, I prefer to work from home but with an option to work at the office.
why? because as scott mentioned you want company sanctioned waste time to talk to fellow employees? lol
Of course, why else would someone go to the office? Not that there are no reasons. But let's be honest, offices rarely have the nice desks, computers, monitors, chairs, etc. that we have at home. Plus you have to commute. When I worked in hedge funds, people openly talked about how they worked long hours to avoid their families that they didn't like. So there are clearly alternative reasons, and everyone wants a change of scenery sometimes, but you get that with WFH anyway as you can work anywhere.
nice desk/chair - what?
I personally know no one who has a nicer WFH that was working from an office before Covid, than what they have at work.
Hell I only have one example of someone who comes close, and it's not as good - he has a dual monitor setup on a tiny 3 ft wide x 28 in deep desk he's working from... He has a reasonable chair, similar to what he has in is office.
I hate to say this but I have a much nicer wfh environment than my school will provide.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
@Dashrender said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
You're right, those people won't at the office either.. so really, they should likely just be unemployed, but we don't have a system for those people - we don't have a wellfare system to keep them at home yet having money to live.
Right now we do, they are called welfare companies and they use public funds to put people who have no value to the economy in seats. The military heavily subsidizes these companies, as an example, like Lockheed. They hide the true unemployment numbers by making fake jobs for useless people.
Even normal companies, like MS, Google, McDonalds, etc. are given huge sums of money to employ the otherwise unemployable. Normally in tax advantages or some kinds of contracts.
At the end of the day, you, as an American, pay double for these people than you would if they were just on straight welfare.
I'm currently at a Goodwill office, the irony isn't lost on me.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Systems Admins just do day to day operations and keep things running they don't have an descision making whatsoever.
They do the BUSINESS decision making - the stuff that matters in real time. Engineers get to plan and take it easy. Admins deal with the live customer-impacting world.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
The systems administrators have everything already decided, they just need to troubleshoot, fix, update, monitor.
Right, they do the expensive and hard stuff. Choosing an OS, application, etc. is relatively easy compared to supporting it and dealing with live issues.
Not to trivialize engineering, because it's still hard when done well, but the building of a server is a tiny effort and risk compared to the running of that server.
Same with software - it's cheaper to create new software than it is to properly support and maintain existing software. Same with systems. It costs very little and requires relatively little expertise to pick out the pieces and even set something up in most cases. And then throw it over the wall for the real experts to deal with when it counts.
-
@thecreaitvone91 said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
Or as Google says:
A systems administrator manages the systems, while a systems engineer has more power over their design: what OS to use, what infrastructure and software is going to be used, what's the best solution for certain problem, etc etc.Exactly what I'm using as the same basis. Engineers have the power over design.
On Wall St. there are more tiers to admin than to engineer. Engineers get the soft benefits like flexible hours and lots of meetings. They deal with politics and budgets. Admins deal with the businesses, make the critical company-impacting choices, get woken up in the middle of the night, carry the keys, etc.
Engineers can be criminals or unreliable because they are just designing the systems. Admins carry the keys and have to be trusted with access to data and access to shut down the business and have to be reliable to be able to be reached and capable of responding anytime.
Engineers get to work in pristine, predictable environments. Admins have to work with "what they are given" and all the unknowns and changes that happen when what engineers design get put into the real world.
-
Typically we see engineers cap out around $225K. But admins head closer to $500K.
Also, CIOs were more likely to be pulled from the admin ranks, not the engineer ranks. Because engineering was nearly all technical while admins had to be able to do everything an engineer could do, but apply it to the business in real time, deal with active security, and fix what the engineers broke all with the pressure on.
Also, in the SMB space, engineering is the low cost afterthought that admins do. It's maybe 5% of the job, and the easiest 5%. Consider how little knowledge or effort goes into installing a new server, and how much goes into supporting it after it is installed. We often have the most junior staff do the engineering parts because typically it requires the least experience or knowledge, and it can be double checked so doesn't matter even if they get something wrong - there is a chance to fix it before it goes live.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Will Tech Giants actually adopt WFH?:
I know it's a millennial thing to be inefficient and out of touch intentionally. but outside of "failure culture" it's always been ubiquitous.
Funny and sad but true!
Could it be some kind of student mindset that keeps lingering in their brains, even 10 years after they left school?
