But that’s exactly the point. Lots of businesses are trying to do both - they want you in office, and are complaining that they can’t find enough employees who are willing to work like that any more.
They need to realize what it is that they really need. What they really need are workers who can do the work that’s needed. The obsession some have with those workers being in an office largely isn’t needed - it’s a want, not a need. It’s a hold-over from the Before Times, when office work was the norm, and not many people on the employee side were willing to risk their jobs to make an issue of it.
Times have changed, and business needs to ask itself, “Do I want employees in the office, or do I want employees?”, because they can’t get both, not nearly as much as they used to. If they decide they really want the office workers, they have to accept that they’ll be recruiting from a much smaller pool of applicants, and so will have to adjust their plans accordingly. Take on less business, accept lower-qualified employees, offer more money and benefits, or something.
What they want and what they get are two different things. Sure , some employers want everyone in the office and complain that they can’t find enough willing employees. Some potential employees want to work from home under specified conditions * and complain that they can’t find employers who will allow them to do - without acknowledging that those employers are happy with the resulting applicant pool. There are unrealistic people on both sides - but that’s very different from saying
Yes, and God Forbid the Holy EMPLOYER not get everything they want, without regard to any of those petty concerns of those ungrateful peons they deign to employ.
* For example, some employers will only hire remote employees who live in certain states or who are willing to come into the office once a week ( which kind of restricts where they can live)
Or it’s like what happened at my job - people complained to management, they didn’t get what they wanted and a year later, they were still complaining. If a year has gone by, you aren’t going to get it , at least not unless they think you will leave over it. And clearly you won’t if you are still there a year later.
Yes, it is very different. But there are a whole lot of people in our society who worship at the feet of the Holy Employer. Take a look at any of the threads we’ve had the last few years on any of these issues - work from home, increased pay demands, “quiet quitting”, all that - and you’ll see people who bend over backwards to demand that employees not make any demands on the employers. In the midst of the worst of “no one wants to work any more!”, the one solution to the problem they absolutely refused to even consider was “Pay people more”. They’d have fits about “increased prices” or “lowered profits”, not even considering the possibility that lower profits might just be the price the employers would have to pay to get the workers they needed. Employers taking on any of the burden of a changed situation was anathema to them.
I’m not going to say I’ve never seen it , but I absolutely haven’t seen a whole lot of people demanding that employees continue to work for employers without making any demands of the employer. What I have seen is people saying that employees don’t always have the leverage to succeed. Because if I want to move to Boise and work from home and still keep my NYC salary, I won’t succeed if there are loads of similarly qualified people who will take a lower salary to live in Boise or even just a lower salary to WFH.
Yes, I thought I’d emphasized that; sorry if I wasn’t clear.
If someone is that unhappy that they constantly game the system to get out of coming in, constantly complain and threaten to quit every other day, it would be better for all if they just moved on, as is their right.
Maybe my employer is more intractable than others’ here. Obviously there is some fear of a mass exodus on some level - after all, they didn’t order us back to the office full time and a lot of TPTB really wanted to.
Obviously employers don’t necessarily get what they want, or people would still be working 12 hours a day 6 days a week until they zigged when they should have zagged and got chewed up in machinery designed to be cheap and efficient without regard for safety.
It’s a matter of how hard the working people are able, and willing, to push back.
Sure, I’m not necessarily criticizing the employer for that , just pointing out that some potential employees are as just as unrealistic as some employers.
We limit the number of states our employees can work out of. Part of it is because it gets complicated having to deal with tax issues in different states, my payroll says Ohio can be a pain in the rear, but also because employment laws are different. I’m familiar with federal and my state’s employment laws, but not as familiar with many other states. We terminated an employee located in Colorado and didn’t realize until the last minute that we needed to have their final paycheck ready that same day. Getting the pay ready the day of termination just isn’t part of the normal process and it could have potentially bit us in the butt.
There’s an aspect of the prisoner’s dilemma here as well. With some job seekers submitting 100+ applications without even getting a single offer, their resolve to hold out for WFH is not going to be very strong. Eventually, savings will be depleted and the bills will start piling up. The more in-office jobs the applicants take will mean fewer for WFH applicants. The superstar applicants can likely demand WFH, but I suspect most employees in generic roles will eventually have to conform to wherever the employer wants them to work.
I was going to say something similar. I work for an enormous company, with offices in every state, and our employee handbook is full of lines like “if you work in California…” “Employees who work in CO, MN, and CT…” I imagine that most companies don’t want to add to the number of states in which they are employers.
Same here. I work for a law firm and we’re only able to live where there’s an office for tax reasons. Post-pandemic, I’m 100% WFH and was really considering moving to a place with a much cheaper cost of living and living like a king, but sadly, no-go.
We have people spread out in several states. The tax issues are a minor pain, and worth figuring out to keep our employees happy. Your employers might not be so accommodating.
This week, my office went from full WFH to hybrid - three days in the office, two from home.
It’s not much of a hardship for me, personally, but I know we lost one Project Manager over this, and a dev I work closely with is only in the office once a week, which I’m guessing was because he threatened to quit otherwise, and we absolutely can’t afford to lose that guy.
My suspicion is that they did this in front of some job cuts, under the idea that people quitting is cheaper for the company than lay offs. Which is shitty, but whatever. What chaps my hide is they won’t just say, “Sorry this sucks for you, but it’s how it’s going to be.” They keep trying to spin as something positive, and it just comes across as condescending. Also, tone deaf: they’re having a “RTO Raffle,” and the top prize is you get to use the CEO’s office as your own for a week. Aside from the whole, “You all need to be back in the office, but I won’t be there,” aspect, who would actually want this? It just sounds awkward and uncomfortable.
Oh, and we get a pizza party on Friday, because apparently we’re twelve year olds.
I gather that our CEO’s office includes a private gym. I think people might want to use it. Not that he’s offering.
My office is now hybrid, with everyone expected to be there one or two days a week, and each team picking a day that works, so they show up together. I managed to get an exception, mostly be being really clear that i didn’t want to do it, and I’d wear a mask every minute i was in the same space as my coworkers.
But honestly, i think management truly believes there’s a benefit. At least, i think mine does. They all really LIKE being in the office.
They haven’t changed our work rules, but have made masks optional. With no requirement that the public prove they are vaxxed. Fortunately, they have changed other rules such that I only infrequently have to be physically in the same room w/ someone, but my preference would be that if someone isn’t vaxxed, they should mask. I’ll mask and there are plexiglass shields, so limited risk. But I am so unsympathetic for folk who haven’t vaxxed…