• DacoTaco
    link
    fedilink
    26
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Hybrid does make sense. There are people who work better in an office ( like myself ) and there are people who are better working from home ( like my coworker ). The company i work for believes hybrid is the way to go so that you can supply an office for people like me, but also hire people who work remotely. However, nobody is saying you need to have an office that can house 100% of you employees. 60% is good enough as not everyone will be in the office at the same time. Money saved!

    That said, some meetings are better to have in person so once in a while a required in person meeting is needed.

    I believe in the words of my company : everyone, everywhere. And that includes an office or, which has happened, from working from spain, germany or thailand which are all remote locations in no way connected with the company. These were people who legit lived abroad or were looking after a vacation home of a friend

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        67 months ago

        Re-read that post. They didn’t say 60% of the time they said office capacity should be 60% of the workforce at minimum.

        You can make more coherent arguments arguing the actual words the other guy said.

        • DacoTaco
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          Last time im going to comment at this, This will have no use to explain to you but hey, im going to try anyway.
          No, the minimum is not set to force people to go the office. Its so people like myself, who work better in an office, to have a spot when needed. You are reading what you want, not what im saying.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            27 months ago

            Fuckin hell guy. Can NO ONE in this thread read? Go back and reread my post, I’m literally clarifying that exact thing to the other dude.

            Tf is with reading comprehension??

      • DacoTaco
        link
        fedilink
        1
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        No i didnt. You seem to have missed the spot where i said we hired and had people work remotely from completely different countries. I may have not mentioned the in person meetings are preferred in person, but can be done remotely was well by those that want to work remotely and not be in the office. However, some meetings have gravitas to them and are preferred in person. And im not talking about once a week or w/e. It all depends on the team workflow, type of job etc etc.

        Ive worked on projects that were 100% remote that ended well, but was working on a project recently that was going so bad that a (preferred) in person meeting was requested because a full day of body language reading while discussions were ongoing, was required. If a person lived far away ( which wasnt the case here ) then that wouldve been totally fine ! They couldve attended the meeting remotely ! I planned the meeting as a teams meeting incase somebody wanted to work from home, and had planned a small meeting room for those that didnt.

        I didnt shoot myself in the foot, im saying a hybrid workfloor is all about being flexible to anyone’s needs and every situation because nobody is the same and not everyone wants to be at the office 100%.
        This is what i also believe. To quote the company’s slogan again : “everyone, everywhere”

          • DacoTaco
            link
            fedilink
            17 months ago

            I can understand that frustration, and in those cases the c-suite is wrong and shouldnt push hybrid in an attempt to go back on wfh. Hell, those c-suite people should gtfo. I believe hybrid is the way but not for those reasons. I believe that because it benefits everyone and can get the best out of both, not because i want to kill wfh. Wfh is here to stay and should be encouraged if thats the way you work best!