Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Our management wants onsite for better control. I think it's all feelings based. We want to hire in Seattle. We had some remote not work out, therefore all remote is "bad".

I think BS. We just got a new remote QA team and they are doing great.

We have two remote devs also who are doing good work.

I interpret the evidence to show that remote does work.

I still get push back on it but the rationale is based on words like "better" and "easier" without quantifiers.

My feelings are that some managers like to interrupt frequently for "urgent fires" and that is easier when someone is a few metres away.

In what way did the remote employees not work out?

(I'm looking for examples to include, so details are helpful!)

We called it a quality issue. IMO we didn't provide a good environment. One remote QA team promised things they didn't deliver. But we found out in two months

Edit: good environment means clear direction, open communication. Which is necessary onsite as well

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact