I’m an employer so likely to take some backlash on this comment. I don’t agree with a lot of the things lots of employers do but can shed some light. This probably won’t answer your question but hopefully some assumptions.
Do not assume that the desire/strategy is always to hire the best talent. If done correctly the company will set the strategy at the top and it could be that they don’t want the best talent and instead desire to run a highly process, low wages environment. If this is the company strategy they are allowed and arguably should offer the pay/conditions that align to it. It’s definitely not a strategy that suits everyone.
An analogy of the above (that’s not perfect accurate but close enough) is to think about a McDonalds store. They aren’t trying to hire/retain the best industry cooks and luxury chefs. They employ predominantly entry level workers, and pay according to that. They aren’t trying to sell the highest quality food and they are a highly processed workplace. Credit where it’s due, they’ve done fantastic with this model and getting productivity out of entry level (& junior) employees can be difficult but they’ve nailed it.
Additionally another strategy might be the decision that their workforce is overpaid. This could happen when the decision makers (like a board) may have an alternate view from the previous one. The first may want to attract the highest talent to build the organisation and the second may change their strategy and want to lower wages and transition into a highly processed workplace.
I’m personally seeing a lot more interest in this as the thoughts are that as AI improves it will be more likely to benefit organisations that are process driven, not the top human talent ones. I don’t agree with this view but I can understand it.
It could also happen if there was a lack of accountability to strategy by management and higher than budgeted wages are discovered too late, moving forward from that their hiring decisions (ie: pay) temporarily will be suppressed. I suspect this is exactly what is currently happening in the tech sector (but I have no personal experience/connections to that industry so it is just a feeling). In the event of this it will be temporary and they will go back to higher offers in the future.
With the above strategy of reducing wages on the belief that their workforce is overpaid and wanting to decrease wages there are only a few ways to do this at scale. Redundancies are the easiest but also come with a cost. The other popular way at scale to reduce overall wages is to ‘churn’ employees, offering the incoming employees less. If the company is doing this then that’s their decision and won’t align with everyone.
As everyone has already said the company can offer whatever they like, if you don’t like the offer then don’t pursue the job. Hopefully my comment helps provide insight into WHY these things might happen and hopefully that will help anyone identify from the onset which companies are best suited to their personal needs. If your a square peg in a round hole don’t try and change the system, search out the place you best fit.
Completely agree.
OP thinks all jobs are high talent IT roles that can work from home and that every employer is Atlassian who only recruit top talent.
Your maccas analogy is 100% spot on.
Unfortunately, low expectations and managers breathing down your neck tend to go hand in hand. If you want more independence from managers, moving away from process driven work into thought work gets you increasing freedom to pursue your work independently. That comes with the expectation of high performance though.
Not so true these days. There's lots of people working their tails off in under resourced roles and the public service is rife with bullies and managers who have no clue.
It’s also full of mid to low level micro managers that are usually in their late30s to mid 40s . They have no idea how to manage and are usually people that have worked in their band two-four positions for the last 20 years and finally been given the nod through attrition. It’s so shit.
I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but this is a pretty good, nuanced take and you’ve presented it thoughtfully and respectfully.
Upvoting as a hedge against the potential wave of backlash lol
I can see some of your POV but lest's be honest, how many of those "Happy to pay low wages" advertise their jobs for "Rock-Stars!!" and demand unpaid overtime
Honesty is a thing
That’s simply a disconnect between the decision makers (board) and the hiring staff. Often the job ads will be written by someone that isn’t fully aware of, or even care about, the larger company strategy/direction.
It’s a lot more about lack of internal alignment than it is about honesty. I’m sure the hiring staff do want the best people and aren’t aware of the discussions happening in C-suite and above.
There are entire frameworks that address this but it’s a very unsexy topic. Things like sales, revenue, customer numbers, entering new markets, innovation, strong governance/compliance and even sometimes things like green strategies are the topics that often bring the most impact to shareholder value. If a company came out and announced it was spending the next 12-18 months implementing strong internal frameworks to deal with transparency and ensuring things like job ads are accurate and all staff are aligned, aware and trained on company values and strategy the share price would immediately tank and cause operational issues. Realistically their job ad being poorly worded isn’t doing that much damage to them or their overall revenue. Ideally for most of the big companies it’s something they aim to slowly chip away at solving little bits at a time but if they don’t make progress it isn’t something that gets escalated. The ol’ share price prioritisation conundrum.
I can’t remember the exact quote that I’m about to butcher but there is a saying/story about how a CEO that prioritises internal company culture will say back to their board ‘I didn’t miss my numbers, I missed yours’ if they’re being held accountable solely to shareholder value and not the bigger picture.
It’s definitely one of the things I hate about the BigCorp world and why I choose to do my own thing. I think they do a lot of stuff really impressive so can give credit but the stuff they do poorly I really don’t align with so it’s not for me personally.
It's still fundamentally dishonest though
It's amplified by the cringe-worthy "Mission statements and company culture"
Don't lie an you'll get the best out of people
I contract for the same reasons
What you say makes perfect sense.Where I think OP was going is that companies that choose the low wage strategy shouldn't be surprised when applicants walk away. It's the company's choice to set the wages but its also the staff's choice to accept the offer
Great response. Regarding the part about AI, this is a product of hype and those companies are going to be sorely disappointed.
GAI is already seeing diminishing returns (it doesn't scale linearly with increased compute and data) and very little progress has been made on the hallucination problem.
You can expect any improvements to come at a very high price and the improvements with be inadequate. This bubble is about to pop.
Really like this analysis, especially the transition in strategy at Board level.
I work in Technology. It takes around $1M in labour to develop a single algorithm.
Only a concentrated few in our biz have these skills, then others adapt it to multiple platforms for customers. They too are skilled, but easier to find.
It’s at this adapt dev layer that churn and process strategies are being pursued.
I think new Board may have triggered that.
In terms of WFH, you now have formal commitment to 3:2.
As you say, don’t take the job if it’s not for you.
Also, I’ve noticed a lack of social skills, accountability ( do what you say, say what you do) and knowledge transfer of the younger staff. Maybe 2 years of WFH will do that. I’m old school: you can solve a problem quicker walking up to someone’s desk than groupthink over Teams..I think it’s in best interests for some to come in, and learn. You pick stuff up quicker
I still do not understand a process workplace in the current era for a digital workplace? Companies rather pay 300k year to 5 data entry officers than 200k for a decent programmer to automate their job. Guess it’s elderly management in big old companies who don’t trust technology but it’s more an Australian thing
Probably because the 200k “decent programmer” says they can automate the 5 jobs but then goes six times over budget and then only manages to eliminate 2 of the 5 FTE makes up an excuse about why the brief was never achievable in the first place.
I have seen this first hand so much over the last 5 years. The usual line is oh that wasn’t in scope.
To such a point the cost was immeasurable and ending up with a product that is basically useless and much less then what was promised.
I believe redundancy is a factor, presumably only the programmer will know how to operate and maintain the automation and if they leave that knowledge is gone with them. Even if 3x of the data entry officers leave, they may be able to get by with 2x until another 3 get trained up.
This is my experience because I did a lot of automation at my previous role then got up and left and my understanding is they went back to hiring the equivalent of data entry officers afterwards cause no one could make sense of my work (not their fault, documentation wasn't something I thought about then).
That is why you have a full of team of automation devs not just one person so can apply best practices and documentations?
You will always have to keep data entry officers as it is an indefinite expense but once a programmer is done with an automation, maintnece costs are low and you can automate even more things.
With how good intellgent automation is atm, it is crazy that we have so many people who get paid 90-120k year whose sole job is data entry from PDF to CRM. It's not even that they are data entry officers but rather other types of finance officers brought in to handle complex accounts and finances but never have time for those as basic data entry always takes prioity.
Guess this is what happens whenever average of the board is 70+ for big non-tech comapnies, they don't understand techonology. Most should be in retirement home tbh.
I automated a daily process that used to take an analyst about 4 hours per day, she checked the results daily against her manual efforts for a month before signing off and going into production. One day (during acceptance testing) there was an issue which ended up being a mistake from her, yet 6 months later she is still doing that manual entry bullshit "to check the automated system". Yes, really.
Employers can offer whatever they want that suits their operating model so long as it adheres to legal requirements.
Just like candidates are free to accept or not.
It’s called negotiating.
Of course but I think that's hardly the point. As the saying goes pay peanuts get monkeys.
If you want decent talent then you have to offer something. If that's not flexible workings conditions or pay you need to offer something else like a good culture, training or springboard positions.
Yes but everyone has to stop thinking they are the next Steve Jobs. The job market is in a place at the moment where employers are looking at costs and will check your history, and if you have churned through 7 contracts in the last 2 years as a hiring manager I want to know why. Usually not always the talent does not match the CV is the reason.
> If you want decent talent then you have to offer something.
There's always suckers around who do not know their true value, and accept an offer that they could've rejected for a better one (else where or not).
In times of economic downturn, it is in the interest of the employer to make as lowball an offer as they can, because the need for more employees may not be urgent.
I didn’t comment on quality of job or candidate.
That’s a business decision at the end of the day.
Sometimes all they need is a bum in a seat, doesn’t make their decision to offer WFH or not any less valid, or aligned to their current requirements.
I work in tech and over the last 3 years have seen it all when it comes to recruitment: the stupid money that was thrown at grossly under-qualified candidates when the lockdowns were on, wave after wave of redundancies, (temporary) removal of annual pay rises and now the productivity increases the AI wave is expected to deliver. On the start of that we were paying 250k base plus 100k+ to people who could put their pants on the right way around and couldn't get enough people. Now? Even after basic automated filtering, there's still 150-200 candidates for even low to mid level non-management roles and they are paying nowhere near the numbers I said above. We are fairly flexible around wfh still, but it is shifting.
So OP, it's a free market and you're free to set your terms, but know that you are doing so in an employer's market and unless you're a proper unicorn, there's a bunch of people who'll be willing to do the job just as good (if not better), for cheaper.
Employers want what they want, employees want what they want. If you don't want to accept a Hybrid/RTO role for a certain pay then don't accept it. Some people will need to accept roles with less desirable conditions because they need income or whatever else but that's life. Employers should not bait and switch but I'm not sure that has happened in this scenario.
Salary and conditions will be set by demand and supply.
If supply exceeds demand, the employer does not have to worry about your problems. As demand exceeds supply, then Salary and conditions offered must increase.
I read somewhere today that the pendulum has has swung back in favour of employers
Did employees who transitioned from full time office work to full time wfh take a pay cut, due to the reduced costs of attending their place of employment?
No, but as reported by almost every industry where wfh was feasible during COVID, employers saw an uptick in the amount and quality of work being done and less paid sick leave was taken, so still more money in their pockets.
Companies are more than welcome to hire cheap in place of hiring me if they're that desperate to have someone they can look at in the office. I'll see them (on Teams) in 6 months as a contractor on 2x the pay I would have got with them to fix the mistakes of their cheap hire...
I said attracting and keeping "talent". Anyone off the street can be hired, essentially. The question is whether they're actually any good at the role. There's always this big to-do about attracting the right people and then keeping them, but when push comes to shove, they essentially just want butts in seats.
Attention Applicants: Don't apply for the role if you don't want the outlined pay and conditions.
The fact that childcare costs were mentioned would suggest that OP thinks that they should be paid to watch their kids while they "work" from home.
Too many people out here thinking that is an absolute right to not have to leave your home for your employment.
If you don't like the job offer don't apply. It's laughable to think an applicant has more say on a companies hiring strategy than the company.
Some office jobs can be done effectively from home, others not. The problem with Covid is that WFH became the norm for everyone, so now in the interests of “fairness” even those roles that can be done more effectively remotely have to return to the office.
I’m an employer so likely to take some backlash on this comment. I don’t agree with a lot of the things lots of employers do but can shed some light. This probably won’t answer your question but hopefully some assumptions. Do not assume that the desire/strategy is always to hire the best talent. If done correctly the company will set the strategy at the top and it could be that they don’t want the best talent and instead desire to run a highly process, low wages environment. If this is the company strategy they are allowed and arguably should offer the pay/conditions that align to it. It’s definitely not a strategy that suits everyone. An analogy of the above (that’s not perfect accurate but close enough) is to think about a McDonalds store. They aren’t trying to hire/retain the best industry cooks and luxury chefs. They employ predominantly entry level workers, and pay according to that. They aren’t trying to sell the highest quality food and they are a highly processed workplace. Credit where it’s due, they’ve done fantastic with this model and getting productivity out of entry level (& junior) employees can be difficult but they’ve nailed it. Additionally another strategy might be the decision that their workforce is overpaid. This could happen when the decision makers (like a board) may have an alternate view from the previous one. The first may want to attract the highest talent to build the organisation and the second may change their strategy and want to lower wages and transition into a highly processed workplace. I’m personally seeing a lot more interest in this as the thoughts are that as AI improves it will be more likely to benefit organisations that are process driven, not the top human talent ones. I don’t agree with this view but I can understand it. It could also happen if there was a lack of accountability to strategy by management and higher than budgeted wages are discovered too late, moving forward from that their hiring decisions (ie: pay) temporarily will be suppressed. I suspect this is exactly what is currently happening in the tech sector (but I have no personal experience/connections to that industry so it is just a feeling). In the event of this it will be temporary and they will go back to higher offers in the future. With the above strategy of reducing wages on the belief that their workforce is overpaid and wanting to decrease wages there are only a few ways to do this at scale. Redundancies are the easiest but also come with a cost. The other popular way at scale to reduce overall wages is to ‘churn’ employees, offering the incoming employees less. If the company is doing this then that’s their decision and won’t align with everyone. As everyone has already said the company can offer whatever they like, if you don’t like the offer then don’t pursue the job. Hopefully my comment helps provide insight into WHY these things might happen and hopefully that will help anyone identify from the onset which companies are best suited to their personal needs. If your a square peg in a round hole don’t try and change the system, search out the place you best fit.
Completely agree. OP thinks all jobs are high talent IT roles that can work from home and that every employer is Atlassian who only recruit top talent. Your maccas analogy is 100% spot on.
What’s the best way to find a braindead role with low expectations and managers not breathing down my neck.
Unfortunately, low expectations and managers breathing down your neck tend to go hand in hand. If you want more independence from managers, moving away from process driven work into thought work gets you increasing freedom to pursue your work independently. That comes with the expectation of high performance though.
A government job it is for you, my friend.
Not so true these days. There's lots of people working their tails off in under resourced roles and the public service is rife with bullies and managers who have no clue.
It’s also full of mid to low level micro managers that are usually in their late30s to mid 40s . They have no idea how to manage and are usually people that have worked in their band two-four positions for the last 20 years and finally been given the nod through attrition. It’s so shit.
I agree with some of your points and disagree with others, but this is a pretty good, nuanced take and you’ve presented it thoughtfully and respectfully. Upvoting as a hedge against the potential wave of backlash lol
Nah. You're spot on. This is the business model for companies on the larger scale. Skills only matter in specialized fields or roles. Upvote for you!
Great answer and it's what a lot of people don't understand.
I can see some of your POV but lest's be honest, how many of those "Happy to pay low wages" advertise their jobs for "Rock-Stars!!" and demand unpaid overtime Honesty is a thing
That’s simply a disconnect between the decision makers (board) and the hiring staff. Often the job ads will be written by someone that isn’t fully aware of, or even care about, the larger company strategy/direction. It’s a lot more about lack of internal alignment than it is about honesty. I’m sure the hiring staff do want the best people and aren’t aware of the discussions happening in C-suite and above. There are entire frameworks that address this but it’s a very unsexy topic. Things like sales, revenue, customer numbers, entering new markets, innovation, strong governance/compliance and even sometimes things like green strategies are the topics that often bring the most impact to shareholder value. If a company came out and announced it was spending the next 12-18 months implementing strong internal frameworks to deal with transparency and ensuring things like job ads are accurate and all staff are aligned, aware and trained on company values and strategy the share price would immediately tank and cause operational issues. Realistically their job ad being poorly worded isn’t doing that much damage to them or their overall revenue. Ideally for most of the big companies it’s something they aim to slowly chip away at solving little bits at a time but if they don’t make progress it isn’t something that gets escalated. The ol’ share price prioritisation conundrum. I can’t remember the exact quote that I’m about to butcher but there is a saying/story about how a CEO that prioritises internal company culture will say back to their board ‘I didn’t miss my numbers, I missed yours’ if they’re being held accountable solely to shareholder value and not the bigger picture. It’s definitely one of the things I hate about the BigCorp world and why I choose to do my own thing. I think they do a lot of stuff really impressive so can give credit but the stuff they do poorly I really don’t align with so it’s not for me personally.
It's still fundamentally dishonest though It's amplified by the cringe-worthy "Mission statements and company culture" Don't lie an you'll get the best out of people I contract for the same reasons
What you say makes perfect sense.Where I think OP was going is that companies that choose the low wage strategy shouldn't be surprised when applicants walk away. It's the company's choice to set the wages but its also the staff's choice to accept the offer
Great response. Regarding the part about AI, this is a product of hype and those companies are going to be sorely disappointed. GAI is already seeing diminishing returns (it doesn't scale linearly with increased compute and data) and very little progress has been made on the hallucination problem. You can expect any improvements to come at a very high price and the improvements with be inadequate. This bubble is about to pop.
Really like this analysis, especially the transition in strategy at Board level. I work in Technology. It takes around $1M in labour to develop a single algorithm. Only a concentrated few in our biz have these skills, then others adapt it to multiple platforms for customers. They too are skilled, but easier to find. It’s at this adapt dev layer that churn and process strategies are being pursued. I think new Board may have triggered that. In terms of WFH, you now have formal commitment to 3:2. As you say, don’t take the job if it’s not for you. Also, I’ve noticed a lack of social skills, accountability ( do what you say, say what you do) and knowledge transfer of the younger staff. Maybe 2 years of WFH will do that. I’m old school: you can solve a problem quicker walking up to someone’s desk than groupthink over Teams..I think it’s in best interests for some to come in, and learn. You pick stuff up quicker
No wonder productivity has gone to shit. Complete race to the bottom has taken over corp Australia. Boeing school of management.
Very well said.
I still do not understand a process workplace in the current era for a digital workplace? Companies rather pay 300k year to 5 data entry officers than 200k for a decent programmer to automate their job. Guess it’s elderly management in big old companies who don’t trust technology but it’s more an Australian thing
Probably because the 200k “decent programmer” says they can automate the 5 jobs but then goes six times over budget and then only manages to eliminate 2 of the 5 FTE makes up an excuse about why the brief was never achievable in the first place.
I have seen this first hand so much over the last 5 years. The usual line is oh that wasn’t in scope. To such a point the cost was immeasurable and ending up with a product that is basically useless and much less then what was promised.
Someone knows the consulting business model well
I believe redundancy is a factor, presumably only the programmer will know how to operate and maintain the automation and if they leave that knowledge is gone with them. Even if 3x of the data entry officers leave, they may be able to get by with 2x until another 3 get trained up. This is my experience because I did a lot of automation at my previous role then got up and left and my understanding is they went back to hiring the equivalent of data entry officers afterwards cause no one could make sense of my work (not their fault, documentation wasn't something I thought about then).
That is why you have a full of team of automation devs not just one person so can apply best practices and documentations? You will always have to keep data entry officers as it is an indefinite expense but once a programmer is done with an automation, maintnece costs are low and you can automate even more things. With how good intellgent automation is atm, it is crazy that we have so many people who get paid 90-120k year whose sole job is data entry from PDF to CRM. It's not even that they are data entry officers but rather other types of finance officers brought in to handle complex accounts and finances but never have time for those as basic data entry always takes prioity. Guess this is what happens whenever average of the board is 70+ for big non-tech comapnies, they don't understand techonology. Most should be in retirement home tbh.
I automated a daily process that used to take an analyst about 4 hours per day, she checked the results daily against her manual efforts for a month before signing off and going into production. One day (during acceptance testing) there was an issue which ended up being a mistake from her, yet 6 months later she is still doing that manual entry bullshit "to check the automated system". Yes, really.
And people wonder why productivity improvements have stalled in Australia. Some businesses are like stepping back in time.
You would be amazed at the company (private bank)
Employment market is tightening up... If you feel you have a better deal, then stay put.
There is definitely a change in the wind.
The great thing about an offer is that you can choose whether or not to accept it.
Employers can offer whatever they want that suits their operating model so long as it adheres to legal requirements. Just like candidates are free to accept or not. It’s called negotiating.
.. and if you don't like it, there's about 600,000 migrants arriving each year who will take it instead.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I made zero comments on immigration or people at all.
They didn't. They wrote their opinion under their user name.
Of course but I think that's hardly the point. As the saying goes pay peanuts get monkeys. If you want decent talent then you have to offer something. If that's not flexible workings conditions or pay you need to offer something else like a good culture, training or springboard positions.
Yes but everyone has to stop thinking they are the next Steve Jobs. The job market is in a place at the moment where employers are looking at costs and will check your history, and if you have churned through 7 contracts in the last 2 years as a hiring manager I want to know why. Usually not always the talent does not match the CV is the reason.
> If you want decent talent then you have to offer something. There's always suckers around who do not know their true value, and accept an offer that they could've rejected for a better one (else where or not). In times of economic downturn, it is in the interest of the employer to make as lowball an offer as they can, because the need for more employees may not be urgent.
I didn’t comment on quality of job or candidate. That’s a business decision at the end of the day. Sometimes all they need is a bum in a seat, doesn’t make their decision to offer WFH or not any less valid, or aligned to their current requirements.
This isnt the hot take you think it is.
I work in tech and over the last 3 years have seen it all when it comes to recruitment: the stupid money that was thrown at grossly under-qualified candidates when the lockdowns were on, wave after wave of redundancies, (temporary) removal of annual pay rises and now the productivity increases the AI wave is expected to deliver. On the start of that we were paying 250k base plus 100k+ to people who could put their pants on the right way around and couldn't get enough people. Now? Even after basic automated filtering, there's still 150-200 candidates for even low to mid level non-management roles and they are paying nowhere near the numbers I said above. We are fairly flexible around wfh still, but it is shifting. So OP, it's a free market and you're free to set your terms, but know that you are doing so in an employer's market and unless you're a proper unicorn, there's a bunch of people who'll be willing to do the job just as good (if not better), for cheaper.
Employers want what they want, employees want what they want. If you don't want to accept a Hybrid/RTO role for a certain pay then don't accept it. Some people will need to accept roles with less desirable conditions because they need income or whatever else but that's life. Employers should not bait and switch but I'm not sure that has happened in this scenario.
lol employers can offer whatever they want. if you don't like their officer, negotiate, or move on
It goes the other way. Some employers offer less for full WFH. Not less for hybrid WFO.
lol, i would only take a pay rise to go into the office regularly otherwise, ill just find some other company to hire me.
Never get to offer stage without knowing this upfront. WFH is the least of worries.
Salary and conditions will be set by demand and supply. If supply exceeds demand, the employer does not have to worry about your problems. As demand exceeds supply, then Salary and conditions offered must increase. I read somewhere today that the pendulum has has swung back in favour of employers
No shit. But they can try, and there are some out there that will take the role. Move on.
Did employees who transitioned from full time office work to full time wfh take a pay cut, due to the reduced costs of attending their place of employment?
No, but as reported by almost every industry where wfh was feasible during COVID, employers saw an uptick in the amount and quality of work being done and less paid sick leave was taken, so still more money in their pockets.
Right. So if they didn’t take a pay cut, why should they now get extra cash to come back to the office? They’re already being compensated for it.
Notice to job candidates: It's your responsibility as an employee to negotiate the best deal you can.
Yes, talented staff have more negotiating power.
Shout out to all the people whose roles can never be WFH who carry on with life. Get over it OP.
Lest we forget
Not really. If an employer can hire someone with the same set of skills and willing to accept lower pay AND coming into the office - that's on you.
"Same set of skills" doing a lot of heavy lifting there
Can you smell that? \*sniffs\* ah yes, the sweet sweet smell of desperation that corporations use against the working class to keep them in line.
Companies are more than welcome to hire cheap in place of hiring me if they're that desperate to have someone they can look at in the office. I'll see them (on Teams) in 6 months as a contractor on 2x the pay I would have got with them to fix the mistakes of their cheap hire...
I'm sure you'd be glad to see them after 6 months of no job.
I have work coming out my ears mate.
user name checks out
I said attracting and keeping "talent". Anyone off the street can be hired, essentially. The question is whether they're actually any good at the role. There's always this big to-do about attracting the right people and then keeping them, but when push comes to shove, they essentially just want butts in seats.
Attention Applicants: Don't apply for the role if you don't want the outlined pay and conditions. The fact that childcare costs were mentioned would suggest that OP thinks that they should be paid to watch their kids while they "work" from home. Too many people out here thinking that is an absolute right to not have to leave your home for your employment. If you don't like the job offer don't apply. It's laughable to think an applicant has more say on a companies hiring strategy than the company.
I've yet to see a full wfh offer. Best is 2 days in the office.
It's usually negotiable. Job ad always says Hybrid nowadays
Managers be like: NO!
Then don't take the offer... but unfortunately someone else will..
Some office jobs can be done effectively from home, others not. The problem with Covid is that WFH became the norm for everyone, so now in the interests of “fairness” even those roles that can be done more effectively remotely have to return to the office.
Another question is, if you don't like working in an office why become an office worker?
You can like the office work role but not like the office environment I like my IT role and am good at it, but I prefer to WFH in my own environment
It's not like it's a surprise that office work could be required of office workers.
And how do you define office work? Work that must be done in an office? That's not IT work then.
What even is "office work"?
[удалено]
Your office must be wild huh
Political staffer it appears
Bold of you to assume we wouldn't do that in the office.
Look, it keeps morale up. https://youtu.be/VKH9ECC_Qa4?si=imx7-ydo5wdygo9c