
The end of the office... and the future of work - robg
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/01/17/the_end_of_the_office_and_the_future_of_work/?page=full
======
dan_sim
No office companies are the new sweatshops. There has to be a middle ground
somewhere.

I worked for years at home and it made me sick because I didn't have a clear
distinction between work and life. It gives the right to the employer to ask
you anything anytime because _he could be working_. That way of working lacks
the subtle connection that a team has to have and the more complex relation
between management and workers.

But, I don't think that working 9-5 in an office is healthy either.

A company should offer office spaces to their employees accessible at any time
of day with no obligation to get there. It may be a dream but I'm getting
closer to it...

~~~
gte910h
> It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he
> could be working.

The key is "not answering" when they call out of business hours.

~~~
jamesbritt
Quite true

'It gives the right to the employer to ask you anything anytime because he
could be working.'

No it doesn't, not unless you agree to it. I can't imagine having a remote job
and not being clear upfront what the "office" hours are supposed to be.

It make no more sense than to think that regular office workers need to spend
24/7 at the office because the boss may be there at anytime.

------
roc
If the goal is an employee-centric benefits system Unions don't seem to be an
appropriate hack. Why not just break the privileged employer-employee tax
relationship for things like healthcare and 401k? Frankly, I don't see a
Union-member situation as much better than employer-employee.

As for the office-less office: after having done the telecommuting thing for a
while, I just don't see it happening in a large way. Like the paperless
office, it sounds obvious. But we'll still be talking about it being on the
horizon twenty years from now.

Too many people in positions of influence are innately suspicious of work that
doesn't manifest physically.

~~~
cwan
I agree with you on the unions bit though for the office-less office, I think
it's something that will be increasingly common. The barriers to starting your
own firm are falling - and falling dramatically, hence the existence of
funders like ycombinator. Further, economies of scale have been slowly and
quite quickly in some instances, erased because of technology. It should
follow that we will see increasingly more (and different types of) small
businesses and the ability of people to leverage off their own unique skill
sets will rise.

The question then becomes whether or not this will translate into more
physical incubator/workspaces or just home offices... this is a tougher call,
but with the disappearance of barriers, this will mean more easily that work
will happen where it's most productive/valuable - and where this is, because
of technology, is changing.

------
blhack
I don't think so...

I think the future of work is going to be ~10 work days, 6 days a week, and
minimal benefits.

The problem is that there are SOO many qualified people out there and not
enough jobs for them. It's an employers market; they can make ridiculous
demands, and people will show up to meet them because they have to.

Look at movies like "Up in the Air"...there _really are_ people that live
their lives in airports and hotels. Yes, to the extent that the person in the
movie did. This sort of thing is becoming the norm.

In case you haven't seen the movie: it is about a guy who spends something
like 300 days per year on the road.

~~~
jamesbritt
"This sort of thing is becoming the norm."

You say this based on what? Do you have links to studies or reports on jobs,
travel, time on the road?

~~~
blhack
No, I guess I should have said "This is becoming the norm for me, for nearly
everybody that I know, and for nearly everybody that they talk about.".

~~~
aaronblohowiak
Your insular social circle is abnormal.

~~~
blhack
_Your insular social circle is abnormal._

You say this based on what? Do you have links to studies or reports on jobs,
travel, time on the road?

This is something that really irks me about online discussions; we're not
having a formal debate here, not passing policies, we're having an informal
conversation about jobs.

I gave an _opinion_ and stated it as such...yet my _opinion_ isn't valid
because I don't have research data to back it up?

A simple google search shows that my opinion _is_ valid...Americans are
working more hours per capita than they ever have before and this is a trend
that is alarming (or at least interesting) to some people (like me).

Here is one such article:
[http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108924985484258191,00.htm...](http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB108924985484258191,00.html)

~~~
jamesbritt
"This is something that really irks me about online discussions; we're not
having a formal debate here, not passing policies, we're having an informal
conversation about jobs."

Sure. But if someone makes an interesting claim, especially one that
contradicts their own experience, knowledge, or intuition, they'll likely want
to know if you know something they don't. So, people like me ask for more
information, specifically concrete data. If I find out it's just a gut
feeling, or a guess, or whatever, that's fine by me. But I just want to know.

"I gave an opinion and stated it as such...yet my opinion isn't valid because
I don't have research data to back it up?"

Maybe.

Not all opinions are valid. Sure, you're entitled to believe what you want,
but if you make it public then expect others to ask questions, and absent any
evidence or a good argument, to scoff.

~~~
plinkplonk
(@jamesbritt I accidentally hit the downmod arrow (I meant to upmod) . Could
someone up mod this please? Thanks in advance.)

"Sure, you're entitled to believe what you want, but if you make it public
then expect others to ask questions, and absent any evidence or a good
argument, to scoff."

The "make it public" is key. Sure we are not having a debate, but then no one
is asking for results from double blind randomized trials either.

For me to say something (and expect people to accept the truth of what you say
- I could be honestly mistaken for example), asking for data is a _good_
thing. It forces me to reflect on why I say what I say and if the "why" is
weak, then maybe I need to rethink.

".yet my opinion isn't valid because I don't have research data to back it
up?"

Your opinion is valid _as an opinion_. it isn't valid enough to be accepted by
other people without data/logic/whatever backing it up.

It might help if any such request, even if abrasively phrased, could be
reinterpreted as"What makes you think so?".

~~~
jamesbritt
'For me to say something (and expect people to accept the truth of what you
say - I could be honestly mistaken for example), asking for data is a good
thing. It forces me to reflect on why I say what I say and if the "why" is
weak, then maybe I need to rethink.'

That's basically why I've gotten into the habit of asking for backing material
when I read what strikes me as flat assertions with no supportive argument.

It's not to turn every casual discussion into an interrogation, but because it
helps (as best I've been able to tell) keep the overall quality higher by a)
getting people to pause a bit before tossing off casual, overly broad, and
often ill-reasoned, comments (e.g. "Perl 6 will never be released"), and b)
often gets people to provide links and data.

In the best scenarios, that means some of us learn something new.

