I'm not fully convinced that there are two strong camps, on the merits. If there were, you wouldn't have to have policies requiring one over the other, as you would let it win on the merits.
That said, I'm also not convinced remote is amazing. I do wish they would move to more performance oriented metrics on who they are allowing to work from where. This is akin to having school focus on attendance instead of test scoring. If you just want people in the office, surely you have a reason for that.
This is especially true for a company that famously lauds OKRs. If they work as well as we've been assured that they do over the years, make that your push. Don't focus on "percent in the office X days a week."
> This is akin to having school focus on attendance instead of test scoring
This example is funny because tying school performance to standardized test scores has been a disaster that makes overall schooling less effective in favor of "teach the test".
More numeric performance metrics would have people work the metrics, not do the work effectively. IE back when programmers were measured by LOC, so they wrote senselessly verbose code to play the metric.
Oh, believe me, I picked that somewhat on purpose. Like I said, I'm not convinced that remote is amazing. I'm also far from convinced that OKRs are. Google just has the curse that, in a rising tide, all measures go up. Similarly, in a falling one...
>If there were, you wouldn't have to have policies requiring one over the other, as you would let it win on the merits.
These policies both have costs (financial, talent-wise, administratively depending on what state/country you are in, etc.), and while it sounds ideal, it's not always a good idea to let an employee "do whatever they want". That's a less talked about way on how you cause office clashes. Sometimes the best way to settle those disputes before they start is to lay a foot down say "we are doing X", and inevitably let those who feel strongly walk.
Ideally while clearly explaining your rationale. Because you're communicating with fellow adults, not wrangling kids into a playpen.
That's the part companies forget, and reading fake platitudes or empty statemes like this memo don't make me feel confident either way, regardless on how I feel about remote vs. office.
No, if your rationale is "we are still paying for this building and must use it", just say it. If it's "we don't need an office anymore and it's saved costs", say that.
Well that’s why hybrid is a compromise. I don't think it’s totally fair to say “well covid made things WFH so a hybrid policy is requiring RTO”. This thread is about Google’s hybrid policy not company X requiring 5 day RTO or GTFO. That would be a different discussion. Otherwise totally agree about doing more metrics based evaluation of performance, teams, and roles.
No? This article is clearly largely about a memo getting upset that folks aren't making it in the required 3 days a week.
Yes, it mentions fully remote people with the hopes to get them to switch off fully remote. But the meat, as it were, is in the reminder to everyone else that absence factors into performance reviews. That is, they don't measure you by OKRs, but by attendance. (I can see an argument that it is "in addition to OKRs," but that doesn't change my challenge here. If those work, why have attendance?)
What about the part where you’re still remote for two days? Hybrid means in office part of the time, WFH the other part of the time. Yes you have to go into the office in a hybrid situation, but not 5 days a week, only 3. That’s my point, you shouldn’t complain “waaa hybrid makes me RTO” while conveniently ignoring that you also get non-RTO days… well unless you’re a completely uncompromising twig.
I mean... sure? Hard to ignore that they set the tone with "we are embracing work from home" to "we are no longer classifying folks as fully remote, at large" to "and everyone else is required to be in an office 3 days a week."
I'm reminded of the scene, "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further."
Dude, they're not the same thing. IDK what else to tell you. If you weren't a fully remote employee and you took liberties during covid then that time has come to an end. Google doesn't agree that you are a fully remote employee by default anymore. So convince them that you are or take a remote job where you can have what you want.
Your own phrasing cuts to it, though. For a time, they did agree that folks were fully remote /by default./ I'd argue it was more /by necessity/, but they set the tone. To reneg on that is on terms they set.
And again, I'm actually not fully pro-remote. But this is a bed they made.
I am not a Google employee so I don't know the details. As far as I'm aware they never said "you're fully remote now don't worry about coming back to the office" and now are reneging. If they said that and are reneging then I guess I understand the frustration a lot more and agree people have grounds to feel slighted. Still I think the best recourse is a direct conversation with your manager rather than trying to convince everyone on HN that fully-remote is the only reasonable stance one can take in the software engineering field (royal you, here, not specifically directed at you).
Certainly fair. I'm in the same boat. Looking from the outside. I was at another large company that was a lot heavier on the messaging, and it definitely feels like a reneg.
Remote first, with appropriate hubs in geographic locations as needed. It worked for me pre pandemic and I used everything in between fully remote and in office (I had no need to relocate away from the office), it would happily work for me in a post-pandemic world too, as long as any hybrid arrangements are decided by individual teams’ needs and team members’ individual preferences and flexibilities (or lack of, as expected in life).
That said, I'm also not convinced remote is amazing. I do wish they would move to more performance oriented metrics on who they are allowing to work from where. This is akin to having school focus on attendance instead of test scoring. If you just want people in the office, surely you have a reason for that.
This is especially true for a company that famously lauds OKRs. If they work as well as we've been assured that they do over the years, make that your push. Don't focus on "percent in the office X days a week."