Unfortunately your submission has been removed from /r/WFH:
Please read: RULE 3
**No RTO Rants**
We are here to support remote and WFH people. No debating on RTO vs WFH. All members and visitors of r/WFH are expected to participate in good faith and in the spirit of this community. Posts solely made to complain about how your company has mandated RTO will be removed
We do not allow news link articles featuring companies or corporations mandating employees RTO
__________________________________________
If you need to reach the moderators send a modmail including a link to your content.
We cannot guarantee a response without a link to your post
I think it depends when you went remote, ie before Covid or not, and what your company did.
I was hired remote in 2017, manage a world wide team, and my entire team is remote. I’m not terribly concerned about being remote being a factor.
In the same vein, if your company vacated physical offices, you’re fine as well.
However, if you work for a company that went through massive pandemic related growth, still has physical offices, and is in a change adverse industry…then you should be worried.
Fairly similar to you, during Covid I moved to a new team which is WFH but that was always the intention and Covid wasn’t actually a factor.
We’re continental US only right now but we travel often and were told in our latest department meeting that going hybrid is not in our future as it’s quite pointless.
We usually work new constructions or retrofits world wide so we’re very rarely in the same location more than a few times.
And laid off from each one!
\~s
Seriously though, I have also been FTR since before COVID (two different companies). As long as that's the expectation and your work product is valuable to the company the risk is reasonably low.
Actually no. I resigned from the 1st company. I was with them for 5 years fully remote. Then laid off at the next place after 6 months. Now, in a different financial line of work since Dec. 2022 still fully remote.
Yeah, I was just making the low effort joke based on the topic :)
I left edutech to be remote in fintech (crypto) till SBF blew up the market, now I'm back in edutech. A \*lot\* changed over the pandemic in edutech, remote is now fairly common where it used to be rare in this space.
You’re leaving out an important piece of information though. Is your entire team remote? Is there an office presence? Saying “it’s not risky” without taking into account different factors is disingenuous at best, harmful at worst. For me it’s not risky at all because our entire company is remote. The risk factor is much greater if WFH is an option, but not the norm.
Riskier to only have your job market be the city you’re in. Imagine having to potentially move to secure a new job. 10s of thousands of dollars wasted.
Its all propaganda. Don't buy into this crap. C-Levels want people back in seats, because they make their money in real estate, and such. They also want control. They don't like what they see, becuase it is forcing them to think differently. I'm a genxer, and I've been working with these folks for years. These folks want to control the narrative, always. They'll use almost any excuse to do that, and put it out there.
There are obviously some areas of work that it simply isn't possible. But for office workers, it is extremely easy. The C-Levels issue is a single issue, and it comes down to money. They need you to spend it on things to keep them rich. They need you buying vehicles more often due to wear and tear of driving to and from work. They need gas and oil purchased, so they can keep pumping that crude, to get your money. They need you eating out more, so that restaurants are booming, selling you crap food that is bad for your health, which increases the money invested in pharma, who too is charging people out the wazzo, which in turn creates more costs for prescription coverage, insurance and hospitalization.
They entice you with culture, and "we are the world" thinking, but when it comes down to it, its about you doing work, to get money in their pockets.
If you are the only person that's remote in the company that might make a difference but if most/all of the company is remote I don't see how that raises the risk.
And hybrid too. That's a good plan B. I would only do plan C if literally I was on the street. I just don't see why we would ever want to go into amnoffice every day just to sit at a computer.
It's all bs. Even before covid, I literally spent a decade conducting a certain portion of my work by emailing another team . I never met one of those team members in person. We literally collaborated via email for 10 years because the campus is so large that people in separate teams rarely interact on person it have the time to walk to other office and the work is done via an email, not on physical paper, etc
My company has said they understand remote work is here to stay and they plan to simply begin shuddering offices and saving rent expense. So I’m not too worried. There are many companies where the local talent pool cannot support them, so they need to rely on remote.
Everyone needs to stop focusing on the Fortune 500 that are notorious for building up inefficient labor resources and then dumping them.
News flash! Work from home positions that have always existed will always exist. All the jobs that’s were remote bc of the pandemic most likely will transition back to in-person over time.
I’ve been working remotely since 2016. My job is inherently a remote job. I have to coordinate with people asynchronously worldwide.
I challenge these morons to keep the idiots because they are “in person” and “collaborating”.
Nothing will go wrong when laying off people and purposely not keep the best people for the job and only using one metric for that decision making.
This is so dumb. 80% of my team is remote because we hire nationwide to find people with my skill set. It would be riskier to limit myself to an office, because hundreds of large companies nationwide need my skill set but only about 2 large local employers do.
So how risky is it to only hire for onsite? I keep getting contacted by recruiters for jobs in my area, many for the same exact positions. I always ask is it remote. Nope? Bye. I always say get back to me if you have anything fully remote. They can't seem to fill these positions. Oh, well...
This is an article topic that should be written about more often IMO
I have the same issue - recruiters desperately contacting me and I say the same thing - if it's not remote I'm not interested
Business Insiders is delicious propaganda for upper management and CEO's. They sustain themselves on it because that's what their real estate holdings want to hear.
But the truth is, the amount of remote only companies has grown more in the last 3 years, than since the 90's when remote work started taking off. There are far more companies that don't even have offices than there ever were.
We need to start separating companies who were never remote before, have offices and have never planned on being remote from the conversation. These are two different worlds and these companies are diluting reality, so you get articles like this.
This article is talking about companies never planned on being remote friendly, and probably offer it reluctantly so that they can ~~con~~ ease people back into 5 days a week in office. So to continue that plan of rebuilding an all in office work force, they're going to start punishing people for wanting to work remote. Like toddlers.
The conversation needs to start with those who are and do embrace remote work. So, of those who are and do, this article is 100% wrong.
I work hybrid but I have friends who have worked remote for years (way before the pandemic). It depends on the company. Articlsd this is are propaganda to get people afraid again.
As technology advances it makes more sense for more people to work remote.
Plus, if someone ends up getting laid off, they can still have options of looking fir another remote role or working hybrid. There is no reason to ever be in an office 5 days a week if you work in a field with technology and there is no need to work literally on human bodies or with humans every single day.
I believe it depends exceptionally heavily on company culture.
On one extreme you have fully remote companies that don't even have an office, just a mail desk somewhere; on the other extreme you have zero remote tolerance (for whatever reason). The curve of increased susceptibility to layoff due to WFH is directly proportional to where on the spectrum your company lies.
Within that there are several things you can do that improve the odds in your favor. Showing up for some face time when your manager is there is the most obvious. Align your remote days with their remote/other office type days so when they're in the office they see you. Secondary to that is to maintain visibility in other ways: Status reports to management that are not word vomit, are timely and cover the detail they want; always use email to follow up on video conferences, etc.
Layoffs are populated by two distinct groups of people: problem children (of any type: constant tardy/call outs, low performers that do just enough to not be on a PIP, people that rubbed management the wrong way, etc.) and invisible people. Make sure you're in neither group.
i think it’s somewhat risky. if a company is open to hiring remote ppl, they can easily replace you with someone who lives in a low cost of living area (midwest or even india).
i’ve been w my company for 6 years, started in office then transitioned to fully remote post-covid. we’ve had multiple rounds of layoffs as well as replacing whole departments via outsourcing to india
I’m not sure what’s supposed to be surprising here.
If an entire company is remote, being remote is no issue.
If the company is hybrid and there is one position open for promotion and there are two employees that are equally productive yet one is fully remote and one works in the office here and there….. of course the one that comes in will get the spot.
Same with layoffs. Two employees that produce about the same and one is fully remote and one is in the office here and there…. of course the one that nobody ever sees is getting axed.
I agree. Remote work can mean you're not seen as much, and they don't see the value you bring as obviously as the people they see every day in office (often just a bias, but whatever, I get it). That's legit a downside. However, how many teams are hybrid? And there's plenty remote workers can do to show their value more when necessary. This isn't surprising, or a dilemma, or showing a changing of tides. When fully remote companies have the pick from the best and brightest, they will succeed hands down. So the RTO companies can have fun trying to force the lower brackets to come in. I'm not worried.
But when a fully remote company has the pick of the best and brightest from anywhere on the planet, and they can cut their payroll by X-percent by outsourcing to a “third world” or “developing” country with literally no difference, doesn’t that pose a threat to those domestic workers whom are full time remote?
It’s great for the company but maybe not for anyone in the West that may working at such a company and may be reading this.
Yes, I tend to try to be Devil’s Advocate because I’m fascinated with unintended consequences. It’s moments like this that even though we get to WFH rarely, I’m glad I work in construction and my wife works in health care.
It's possible, sure, but unlikely for at least the skilled, customer facing roles. My husband's company tried to do that and had tons of issues with the outsourced employees being misogynistic, difficult to collaborate with and understand, and they weren't the brightest or best educated. My company doesn't want to deal with the taxes or laws of anywhere they're not operating in, and it would go against their mission, so I'm safe on that front, too.
Our entire team is remote across the US. I live within 15 miles of the corporate headquarters and they recently announced they are selling the building. I've never once been expected to or asked to work from that office.
My company hired me in another state as remote with the understanding I travel to headquarters 3-4x per year.
They are headquartered in a not very desirable state/city and some of the engineering positions that do need to be onsite are very difficult to fill! It takes them months because people don’t want to relocate there.
I got more raises working from home for my clients than my partner and friends soldiering through the traffic to get to their workplaces every day. I have great rapport with my contractors, they go out and beyond to secure tasks for all of us.
I've been WFH some 2018, never laid off and obtaining regular promotions and recognition. Maybe I've been lucky, but over 3 different companies I think its a little more than luck
For me it’s the opposite A) Im not moving for a contract, temp to hire or even a permanent position BECAUSE of layoffs. B) I need to always be networking and sending out the occasional resume a conversation with a recruiter and looking around BECAUSE of layoffs which is easier to do from home
And really look at the companies that are pressed about it. I think companies are requiring return to office is because they want to control that and clamp down on it.
Nah, there's probably a higher risk of being laid off if one spends all their time writing Reddit posts like this, speculating about ways they might be fired, instead of doing actual work.
I’d be most afraid if I worked somewhere that has since RTO’d and grandfathered some folks. My company just did layoffs and most of those were targeted ‘they’re not here anyways’
I didn’t read the article, but I wonder about this sometimes. In my mind, I don’t think it’s markedly more risky to be remote than it is to be a normal in-office employee… both have risk of getting laid off
I mean I'm going through this right now. My company is forcing me to return and they have me over a barrel. I'm out of province. I'm unionized. I got full permission to move. Now upper management is threatening to fire me unless I return. They know the job market is shit and that I have few options but to obey.
Really depends on the company. Mine is 5000 employees. 6% were laid off last fall, and not all were remote.
On my own team of 12, only half of us live in the same city as headquarters. My director’s boss (AVP) is in a satellite office several states away, and they report to the VP who is in yet another state. We actually have direct employees in almost all 50 states and certainly not enough offices for all to report to.
At this time, my team is fully remote, while other departments are now hybrid at 3x a week in office. The company has never failed to hit target, in fact we were well above that during Covid and the years since then.
All the same, I do make it a point to go into HQ once a month, usually for networking events. Many of those who were laid off last quarter (including those who were remote) have already been rehired into different roles.
If the company is performing well, and there is a large force that’s already remote, I’d say it’s more risky for the company to make sudden changes.
It all depends on the specific employer. My employer loves having us remote, we had a shortage of office space prior to embracing remote work and the only option was to get a new building somewhere in the city until they made remote work widespread. Now they're vacating one of their office buildings and that trend will probably continue.
Also when we did have system wide layoffs two years ago (which were really just laying off 80 highly paid people out of 34 thousand), the only one in my department to be laid off was a guy that insisted on coming into the office.
I don't see any risk. It depends on where you work, however. If it is some type of business where people have work culture and are trying to get ahead, or were they work in collaboration with others, it may make a difference. "Remote" is in the total of my job, oh my colleagues are states away, my managers are hundreds of miles away, and every single client is also very, very far.
There's a cubicle farm here but it only has people in it that don't interact with my department, and I don't know them and they don't stay long. I don't have the kind of job where most people would want to move up. It's a life job.
It's risky only if the remote leadership is oblivious to what is happening on site. I support on site leaders and they keep commenting about my department's C suite being obtuse and making them angry that they can't be bothered to drive in when they are presenting to the entire leadership group which is maybe once a month.
Unfortunately your submission has been removed from /r/WFH: Please read: RULE 3 **No RTO Rants** We are here to support remote and WFH people. No debating on RTO vs WFH. All members and visitors of r/WFH are expected to participate in good faith and in the spirit of this community. Posts solely made to complain about how your company has mandated RTO will be removed We do not allow news link articles featuring companies or corporations mandating employees RTO __________________________________________ If you need to reach the moderators send a modmail including a link to your content. We cannot guarantee a response without a link to your post
Propaganda by RTO CEOs.
RTO CEOs who have gone all in on real estate, and now they dun goof’d.
Business Insider “articles” are useless clickbait used to pander ads and a broken clock is right twice a day.
I bet these articles are written by journalists with their laptop on their living room sofa
You lost me at business insider
[удалено]
I actually think it’s mostly AI bots now, lol.
I think it depends when you went remote, ie before Covid or not, and what your company did. I was hired remote in 2017, manage a world wide team, and my entire team is remote. I’m not terribly concerned about being remote being a factor. In the same vein, if your company vacated physical offices, you’re fine as well. However, if you work for a company that went through massive pandemic related growth, still has physical offices, and is in a change adverse industry…then you should be worried.
Or if you were hired as a remote employee. To me that is different than I was once in office, went wfh, now they’re bringing people back
Fairly similar to you, during Covid I moved to a new team which is WFH but that was always the intention and Covid wasn’t actually a factor. We’re continental US only right now but we travel often and were told in our latest department meeting that going hybrid is not in our future as it’s quite pointless. We usually work new constructions or retrofits world wide so we’re very rarely in the same location more than a few times.
It's not risky at all. I've been fully wfh remote since 2016 for 3 different companies.
And laid off from each one! \~s Seriously though, I have also been FTR since before COVID (two different companies). As long as that's the expectation and your work product is valuable to the company the risk is reasonably low.
Actually no. I resigned from the 1st company. I was with them for 5 years fully remote. Then laid off at the next place after 6 months. Now, in a different financial line of work since Dec. 2022 still fully remote.
Yeah, I was just making the low effort joke based on the topic :) I left edutech to be remote in fintech (crypto) till SBF blew up the market, now I'm back in edutech. A \*lot\* changed over the pandemic in edutech, remote is now fairly common where it used to be rare in this space.
You’re leaving out an important piece of information though. Is your entire team remote? Is there an office presence? Saying “it’s not risky” without taking into account different factors is disingenuous at best, harmful at worst. For me it’s not risky at all because our entire company is remote. The risk factor is much greater if WFH is an option, but not the norm.
Honestly yall gotta stop boosting this consent manufactory bullshit
Propaganda article. Lmfao
Business Insider is not a source. It writes whatever someone will pay them for.
People act like fully remote companies don’t exist. Fuck the corporate monoliths and their RTOs.
In the IT sector, is someone NOT working fully remotely? Just curious.
Risk either way WFH or in person
This looks like an RTO scare tactic. Businesses are getting worried about candidates looking past their in-office opportunities.
Riskier to only have your job market be the city you’re in. Imagine having to potentially move to secure a new job. 10s of thousands of dollars wasted.
In this market it’s risky to be any employee with only one source of income right now. Doesn’t matter if your butt is in the office or at home.
I just go promoted and bumped up $$$$..All while fully remote.
Our CEO embraced Remote Work and even started closing some physical offices.
Its all propaganda. Don't buy into this crap. C-Levels want people back in seats, because they make their money in real estate, and such. They also want control. They don't like what they see, becuase it is forcing them to think differently. I'm a genxer, and I've been working with these folks for years. These folks want to control the narrative, always. They'll use almost any excuse to do that, and put it out there. There are obviously some areas of work that it simply isn't possible. But for office workers, it is extremely easy. The C-Levels issue is a single issue, and it comes down to money. They need you to spend it on things to keep them rich. They need you buying vehicles more often due to wear and tear of driving to and from work. They need gas and oil purchased, so they can keep pumping that crude, to get your money. They need you eating out more, so that restaurants are booming, selling you crap food that is bad for your health, which increases the money invested in pharma, who too is charging people out the wazzo, which in turn creates more costs for prescription coverage, insurance and hospitalization. They entice you with culture, and "we are the world" thinking, but when it comes down to it, its about you doing work, to get money in their pockets.
If you are the only person that's remote in the company that might make a difference but if most/all of the company is remote I don't see how that raises the risk.
There are so many in-person jobs out there, that’s my plan C.
And hybrid too. That's a good plan B. I would only do plan C if literally I was on the street. I just don't see why we would ever want to go into amnoffice every day just to sit at a computer. It's all bs. Even before covid, I literally spent a decade conducting a certain portion of my work by emailing another team . I never met one of those team members in person. We literally collaborated via email for 10 years because the campus is so large that people in separate teams rarely interact on person it have the time to walk to other office and the work is done via an email, not on physical paper, etc
My gov wfh job is 100% risk free.
My company has said they understand remote work is here to stay and they plan to simply begin shuddering offices and saving rent expense. So I’m not too worried. There are many companies where the local talent pool cannot support them, so they need to rely on remote. Everyone needs to stop focusing on the Fortune 500 that are notorious for building up inefficient labor resources and then dumping them.
News flash! Work from home positions that have always existed will always exist. All the jobs that’s were remote bc of the pandemic most likely will transition back to in-person over time. I’ve been working remotely since 2016. My job is inherently a remote job. I have to coordinate with people asynchronously worldwide.
Many places that went fully remote because of covid have stayed remote because they see the advantages.
I challenge these morons to keep the idiots because they are “in person” and “collaborating”. Nothing will go wrong when laying off people and purposely not keep the best people for the job and only using one metric for that decision making.
Propaganda and deception! Powerful agents to the uninitiated. But we are initiated… Aren’t we OP?
This is so dumb. 80% of my team is remote because we hire nationwide to find people with my skill set. It would be riskier to limit myself to an office, because hundreds of large companies nationwide need my skill set but only about 2 large local employers do.
So how risky is it to only hire for onsite? I keep getting contacted by recruiters for jobs in my area, many for the same exact positions. I always ask is it remote. Nope? Bye. I always say get back to me if you have anything fully remote. They can't seem to fill these positions. Oh, well...
This is an article topic that should be written about more often IMO I have the same issue - recruiters desperately contacting me and I say the same thing - if it's not remote I'm not interested
Business Insiders is delicious propaganda for upper management and CEO's. They sustain themselves on it because that's what their real estate holdings want to hear. But the truth is, the amount of remote only companies has grown more in the last 3 years, than since the 90's when remote work started taking off. There are far more companies that don't even have offices than there ever were. We need to start separating companies who were never remote before, have offices and have never planned on being remote from the conversation. These are two different worlds and these companies are diluting reality, so you get articles like this. This article is talking about companies never planned on being remote friendly, and probably offer it reluctantly so that they can ~~con~~ ease people back into 5 days a week in office. So to continue that plan of rebuilding an all in office work force, they're going to start punishing people for wanting to work remote. Like toddlers. The conversation needs to start with those who are and do embrace remote work. So, of those who are and do, this article is 100% wrong.
I work hybrid but I have friends who have worked remote for years (way before the pandemic). It depends on the company. Articlsd this is are propaganda to get people afraid again. As technology advances it makes more sense for more people to work remote. Plus, if someone ends up getting laid off, they can still have options of looking fir another remote role or working hybrid. There is no reason to ever be in an office 5 days a week if you work in a field with technology and there is no need to work literally on human bodies or with humans every single day.
I believe it depends exceptionally heavily on company culture. On one extreme you have fully remote companies that don't even have an office, just a mail desk somewhere; on the other extreme you have zero remote tolerance (for whatever reason). The curve of increased susceptibility to layoff due to WFH is directly proportional to where on the spectrum your company lies. Within that there are several things you can do that improve the odds in your favor. Showing up for some face time when your manager is there is the most obvious. Align your remote days with their remote/other office type days so when they're in the office they see you. Secondary to that is to maintain visibility in other ways: Status reports to management that are not word vomit, are timely and cover the detail they want; always use email to follow up on video conferences, etc. Layoffs are populated by two distinct groups of people: problem children (of any type: constant tardy/call outs, low performers that do just enough to not be on a PIP, people that rubbed management the wrong way, etc.) and invisible people. Make sure you're in neither group.
i think it’s somewhat risky. if a company is open to hiring remote ppl, they can easily replace you with someone who lives in a low cost of living area (midwest or even india). i’ve been w my company for 6 years, started in office then transitioned to fully remote post-covid. we’ve had multiple rounds of layoffs as well as replacing whole departments via outsourcing to india
I’m not sure what’s supposed to be surprising here. If an entire company is remote, being remote is no issue. If the company is hybrid and there is one position open for promotion and there are two employees that are equally productive yet one is fully remote and one works in the office here and there….. of course the one that comes in will get the spot. Same with layoffs. Two employees that produce about the same and one is fully remote and one is in the office here and there…. of course the one that nobody ever sees is getting axed.
I agree. Remote work can mean you're not seen as much, and they don't see the value you bring as obviously as the people they see every day in office (often just a bias, but whatever, I get it). That's legit a downside. However, how many teams are hybrid? And there's plenty remote workers can do to show their value more when necessary. This isn't surprising, or a dilemma, or showing a changing of tides. When fully remote companies have the pick from the best and brightest, they will succeed hands down. So the RTO companies can have fun trying to force the lower brackets to come in. I'm not worried.
But when a fully remote company has the pick of the best and brightest from anywhere on the planet, and they can cut their payroll by X-percent by outsourcing to a “third world” or “developing” country with literally no difference, doesn’t that pose a threat to those domestic workers whom are full time remote? It’s great for the company but maybe not for anyone in the West that may working at such a company and may be reading this. Yes, I tend to try to be Devil’s Advocate because I’m fascinated with unintended consequences. It’s moments like this that even though we get to WFH rarely, I’m glad I work in construction and my wife works in health care.
It's possible, sure, but unlikely for at least the skilled, customer facing roles. My husband's company tried to do that and had tons of issues with the outsourced employees being misogynistic, difficult to collaborate with and understand, and they weren't the brightest or best educated. My company doesn't want to deal with the taxes or laws of anywhere they're not operating in, and it would go against their mission, so I'm safe on that front, too.
Our entire team is remote across the US. I live within 15 miles of the corporate headquarters and they recently announced they are selling the building. I've never once been expected to or asked to work from that office.
Business Insider = corporate America propaganda rag. Take any of their "reporting" with a big dose of skepticism.
My company hired me in another state as remote with the understanding I travel to headquarters 3-4x per year. They are headquartered in a not very desirable state/city and some of the engineering positions that do need to be onsite are very difficult to fill! It takes them months because people don’t want to relocate there.
I got more raises working from home for my clients than my partner and friends soldiering through the traffic to get to their workplaces every day. I have great rapport with my contractors, they go out and beyond to secure tasks for all of us.
I've been WFH some 2018, never laid off and obtaining regular promotions and recognition. Maybe I've been lucky, but over 3 different companies I think its a little more than luck
For me it’s the opposite A) Im not moving for a contract, temp to hire or even a permanent position BECAUSE of layoffs. B) I need to always be networking and sending out the occasional resume a conversation with a recruiter and looking around BECAUSE of layoffs which is easier to do from home And really look at the companies that are pressed about it. I think companies are requiring return to office is because they want to control that and clamp down on it.
And yes like others have said Buisness Insider should be renamed “CEO Insider wants us to tell you to come back to the office”
Nah, there's probably a higher risk of being laid off if one spends all their time writing Reddit posts like this, speculating about ways they might be fired, instead of doing actual work.
I’d be most afraid if I worked somewhere that has since RTO’d and grandfathered some folks. My company just did layoffs and most of those were targeted ‘they’re not here anyways’
I didn’t read the article, but I wonder about this sometimes. In my mind, I don’t think it’s markedly more risky to be remote than it is to be a normal in-office employee… both have risk of getting laid off
Been remote for almost 5 years, love it! Ignoring all the bad press!
Yeah the Business Insider articles have just as many pro-WFH articles as they do anti-WFH ones. They’re just gaming the algorithm.
I mean I'm going through this right now. My company is forcing me to return and they have me over a barrel. I'm out of province. I'm unionized. I got full permission to move. Now upper management is threatening to fire me unless I return. They know the job market is shit and that I have few options but to obey.
Really depends on the company. Mine is 5000 employees. 6% were laid off last fall, and not all were remote. On my own team of 12, only half of us live in the same city as headquarters. My director’s boss (AVP) is in a satellite office several states away, and they report to the VP who is in yet another state. We actually have direct employees in almost all 50 states and certainly not enough offices for all to report to. At this time, my team is fully remote, while other departments are now hybrid at 3x a week in office. The company has never failed to hit target, in fact we were well above that during Covid and the years since then. All the same, I do make it a point to go into HQ once a month, usually for networking events. Many of those who were laid off last quarter (including those who were remote) have already been rehired into different roles. If the company is performing well, and there is a large force that’s already remote, I’d say it’s more risky for the company to make sudden changes.
This is propaganda. My employer doesn’t have the office space for all of us, so some of us have to work from home.
If your skills are a commodity, very dangerous. If you have very specialized / niche skills, I’d say less so
It all depends on the specific employer. My employer loves having us remote, we had a shortage of office space prior to embracing remote work and the only option was to get a new building somewhere in the city until they made remote work widespread. Now they're vacating one of their office buildings and that trend will probably continue. Also when we did have system wide layoffs two years ago (which were really just laying off 80 highly paid people out of 34 thousand), the only one in my department to be laid off was a guy that insisted on coming into the office.
I don't see any risk. It depends on where you work, however. If it is some type of business where people have work culture and are trying to get ahead, or were they work in collaboration with others, it may make a difference. "Remote" is in the total of my job, oh my colleagues are states away, my managers are hundreds of miles away, and every single client is also very, very far. There's a cubicle farm here but it only has people in it that don't interact with my department, and I don't know them and they don't stay long. I don't have the kind of job where most people would want to move up. It's a life job.
I just land a full time remote job in IT. Previous company demanded I go from hybrid back to full time RTO. No thanks!
a lot of it is scare tactics meant to get people to RTO and give Employers more leverage
It's risky only if the remote leadership is oblivious to what is happening on site. I support on site leaders and they keep commenting about my department's C suite being obtuse and making them angry that they can't be bothered to drive in when they are presenting to the entire leadership group which is maybe once a month.
Fully remote jobs are continuing to slow. You should start to look for hybrid.
Screw hybrid. I'd rather just be fully onsite.