I’ve been looking for a new job as a software developer. The huge majority of job listings I see in my area are hybrid or remote. I just had an introductory phone call with Vizio (which didn’t specify the location type in the job listing). The recruiter told me that the job was fully on-site, which I told her was a deal breaker for me.
It makes me wonder how many other people back out after hearing that the job is on-site. And it makes me wonder why this wasn’t specified in the job description. I assume most people only want hybrid or remote jobs these days, right?
Anyways I was just wondering how many of you guys apply for on-site IT jobs? Hybrid is so much better, I don’t know why people would apply for on-site jobs unless they have no other options.
I work with a few who prefer the office over work from home. I think they need a way to escape the house/wife/kids and the office is the only quiet place they have to work.
I have only ever worked on-site jobs, so I am very used to it. The main plus for me is interacting with my co-workers. You run into the occasional jerk or someone having a bad day, but usually it is a great way to learn new things and gain different perspectives.
I work with a few who prefer the office over work from home.
It does allow for a more clean break between work and non-work mindset.
I find it helps maintain a more healthy work-life balance.
Plus, I work on hardware, so it’s not like I can do that remotely most of the time anyway.
I enjoy office work more than wfh because I genuinely like the people I work with and I think we riff off each other way better in person
I dont know if I agree with the work life balance.
Shower, groom, dress and commute starting at 6.30am, work 8.30–5.30 and commute to 6.30/7
or work 8.45-5.15ish and maybe spend an extra hour or two coupla times a week?
Huge difference.
My team moved to fully remote a month ago. I’m loving it so far.
Getting to see my little girl throughout my day makes me feel like I’m not missing out on watching her grow up.
I think I may be the only person on the face of the earth with no preference on this. My commute is immaterial, the office about 2k away, working from home is kind of a drag but I don’t have to get dressed and can keep the household going (which is part of why it’s a drag) online meetings suck even more than in person meetings, otherwise fine to work remotely. So when we were working from home, I was fine with it, then hybrid I thought would be the worst of all, no, it was fine. Now they say come in at least 3 days, I am going to put away the home workstation and just work at the office, reclaim the space at home, that’s fine too. It’s pretty much the same job either way.
I’ve been remote for the 3 years of work experience that I’ve had. I live in a city with piss poor public transportation and detest traffic, plus I enjoy waking up 10 minutes before having to clock in.
The pay and perks would have to be substantial for me to consider working on-site.
Software developer here. I only apply for onsite jobs if I believe I will be able to formally or informally switch to hybrid once I build some trust.
From what I’ve heard, most people that are for in office work like having the separation between work and home.
That being said, I think most folks want remote work or at least remote hybrid. It just makes more sense especially for me. I live far from my office (140 mile drive roundtrip), and working 3 days a week from home has been a god send.
I did notice that the only people not opting for WFH/hybrid at my last job were all the married-with-kids types who hated being around their family and used work as an escape. It was really sad to see lol
There’s a psychological stress with work that can take some time to slough off.
Some people don’t want to log out of work and be grumpy or distracted during family time.
That being said having a process or system as a habit to denote work/home is a good alternative.
A 10 minute walk, a change of clothes, or some song you play, anything that creates a mental delineation. So the annoyance from that way too long meeting asking why something isn’t done (4 hours a day giving out status updates isn’t helping) doesn’t come out on the family.
There’s also a huge value to people working in the same space.
Random conversations solve a lot of problems.
And I’m someone that finds being in an office around people constantly to be exhausting. I just recognize the value.
I can chat with someone for hours on end, but I also like using my own toilet, and having access to a tea, snack, etc.
For me, what blocks having random conversations is having 1-3 hours of status updates daily - it doesn’t leave much leftover to do the work especially when my firm declaration that it was going to take twice as long as someone else estimated (and then sure enough it did, at minimum, and maybe taking 10x) is ignored. That would block conversations regardless?
Anyway, the conversations are the content, but them being present physically is only the medium, so WFH does not need to block them, and if anything can help facilitate them e.g. working one in-between other meetings whereas the time taken to physically walk over would have been prohibitive.
You can replicate that remotely. I’ve had days where 2-3 people joined a call to share something and then kept that call in the background for hours, chatting about random things while working.
There’s also a huge value to people working in the same space.
Random conversations solve a lot of problems.
If only we had decent VR headsets that were comfortable to wear all day I wouldn’t mind replicating that in a “virtual office”
Unfortunately, even Apple wasn’t able to solve the comfortability problem.
Random conversations solve a lot of problems.
Trends indicate no. The odds of that vs the costs of the distractions - because Mike, I swear to god, you keep clicking that pen and I’m gonna find a new home for it - don’t make it a winning choice.
In 2002 we solved this with an open skype call where everyone was muted. Convos were easy to start (alt-space to unmute and start talking), which created some distraction but not like Larry and his goddamned sad cowboy music.
That’s understandable but like… you could go to a coffee shop or literally rent office space nearby to where you live - it doesn’t have to be all one way or the other. Anyway, if they truly do enjoy being surrounded by people then I don’t want to knock their totally valid preferences, just to say that there are other ways.
Not wanting to work in a crowded home has nothing to do with disliking your family. Kids are loud. They run around the house. They watch TV with the volume set too high. They have excited calls with their friends. Many home builders skimp on noise insulation for interior walls.
From my open office experience, it is often not better with colleagues. A lot of noise, distractions, useless conversations. That is not as bad as kids, but this is why I always dreamt to WFH. I will always be grateful to the person who under cooked that bat in 2019.
most people that are for in office work like having the separation between work and home.
My apartment offers wework-style glass cube space, as well as (totally unused) conference space on the 30th floor. Big conference TV, kitchenette, global supra high-back seating (good-not-amazing) and panoramic river views.
My brain definitely focuses better with environmental cues. I mean, I can work just about anywhere, but if I’m not in the mood, then having the environmental cues displaces alternatives. Subjectively, I feel more productive at work. Never had a really bad commute, so I was never motivated to try to set up a ‘work-only’ space at home, but I’d only do a 70 mile one-way drive for very special occasions.
My ask is 4x salary for in office.
It’s usually met with “Well, that’s not going to happen…”
To which I reply “I know, right?”
Instead, the people offering the largest salaries are mostly remote-only.
People that value your work value your work, I guess.
How to win against the dead-sea effect, I guess.
“how bout that” lol
My ask is
You mean ‘request’, right? You need to leave the used-car-salesbro jargon at the lot, man.
But I run a surcharge as well, and it’s prohibitive for some. It’s about 40% more for the first day in the office, and 20% more for each day-per-week after that, to 120% surcharge at most. I put the interview answers in the spreadsheet, and when they ask about Salary I tell them how it’s based on the per-person rent of a 2-bedroom condo closest to the work location and a percentage surcharge or rebate based on the job attributes. Either that’s too offbeat or detailed for them, and they sometimes get sad for one or both of those reasons.
Software update policy, dress code (there’s a difference between ‘casual’ and ‘business casual’), a tax for Teams or Office or Outlook, mandatory standby, forced field work, 9x9 schedule, etc. I don’t have a tax for ‘distance from nearest commuter train station’ but it’s coming.
Absolute.com (security not vodka) was down to $85k, though, as it was so awesome. But ohhh, if MDA or the BoC had bit, it would’ve been nearly $500k as they had SO many problems.
No, I mean “my ask.”
Not jargon. Recognized by the Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary. Perhaps your understanding of English is not “advanced”.
It is what I am asking. It is my ask.
What an absurdly pointless hair to attempt to split. It’d be one thing if you were being inquisitive, but you’re out here just confidently incorrecting people lmao.
Stay in school, kiddo.
I would any day. I need my work life and home life to be separate or I go nuts.
I guess I’m rare in that I like working in an office. My house is for relaxing and enjoying my time, so the few times I did WFH I really just want to curl up on the couch instead of work.
I might get down voted, but even for software dev, not all jobs can be done remotely. Software may need to interact with hardware, which requires to be on site. I am all in for hybrid or remote work, but totally see why some jobs require to be “on site”
I am an embedded developer, I take the HW from office to bring at home, in the basement I have my “home office” with benches, soldering station, oscilloscope, etc so I can fully develop here. Working on a kitchen corner table would not be doable, true
While definitely true, then it still shouldn’t be required to come in at all times. Hopefully, you can automate tests to the point where you do not need to physically interact with real hardware every day. And then it should be up to you, whether you want to come in or not.
I’d consider one, but it’d have to pay considerably more. Like, 50% or more above what I’d otherwise expect for a fully remote position, and it would have to be an easy commute.
In most cases it’s adding 20-30% to the length of the work day when the commute is included, plus costs of transportation itself. Plus the general inconvenience and the fact that it’s almost always going to mean a more toxic culture. But if the pay and benefits were absolutely fantastic, I’d consider it, at least short-term.
And the commute is considered working hours. An hour commute means I’m in the office 9-3. With a lunch break.
the commute is considered working hours.
I think in Germany that’s part of the labour code: the clock runs the entirety of the time you’ve left the house on their instruction.
Another user was demanding 4x salary for in office, I would consider a 20% pay bump per in office day a reasonable request that likely results in a remote contract. It’s essentially saying it will cost you double to make me come in for that day.
It makes me wonder how many other people back out after hearing that the job is on-site. And it makes me wonder why this wasn’t specified in the job description
They’re trying not to get filtered by having it listed as on site up front, and banking on people saying “well, I’m already foot in the door i guess i could settle” once the interview process starts.
Which is already a red flag right there. Too bad there are no real consequences for their attempting to lie & cheat their way towards finding someone willing to put up with their BS, and at this point I don’t mean the on-site factor that is perhaps a legit need that they may have. It’s just how capitalism works, except that they’d really rather it work for rather than against them…:-(
My company went remote first in April 2020. Even if I left here, there’s no way in hell I’m going back to an office.
There is one reason I think onsite works, and that’s for relocation.
If you are from the US and you want to move to the UK, how do you intend to move via work if your work is remote?
I love remote work, but I’ve not heard a rebuttal for this other than “don’t let foreigners move here” or “let’s let people move based on their level of education”.
It’s entirely possible that people can work remote but still relocate to an area where the company has a presence. For example, they may not be set up to pay taxes in a certain jurisdiction. For example, my company could not hire Canadian residents until we had a legal entity in Canada. Thankfully we bought a cabadieb firm.
Why would a company decide to grant you a working visa when you will primarily be remote? Furthermore, why would the government grant you a visa when you could, in theory, work from your own country?
Keep this in mind, some places raises will barely cover inflation.
Now factor in gas and, most importantly, time spent commuting.
All that on top of effectiveness in working with social interruptions, trips to the coffee machine, bathroom breaks, lunch, etc.
Any of these businesses that are pushing for on-site are locked into costs from renting space - guarantee it. I get wanting to do the occasional face showing or in person meetings, but they should be concise and few in number - if they’re an efficient shop. Plenty of new blood that get the value of hybrid/remote work.
About a third of the developers in my office choose to come into the office every day because they do not have a home office setup or they prefer to have that separation between work and home.
I prefer to work in the office.
Lower utility bills for me. What little I spend in gas, yeah it’s a no brainier.
Also as the chair/desk/etc wears out, the company pays for it. It’s not like they give me the difference if I work from home.
My only complaint is led lights. Companies don’t understand what they are doing when they buy the lights.
What’s wrong with LED lights?
Most companies put in lights that run at 5000 kelvin. So they appear to be white or even slightly blue in color. It’s hard on the eyes.
3500 or 3000 Kelvin would be more natural light.
Plus most of them have to slow of a refresh. So I see a flicker. Think a strobe light and move your hand in front of your eyes. That shudder or screen door effect that you would see. That’s what I see when I’m around led lights.
Most companies refuse to invest in better lights.
Aren’t fluorescent bulbs the ones that flicker?
I agree about the color temperature.
