> They’re testing new multi-purpose offices and private workspaces, and working with teams to develop advanced video technology that creates greater equity between employees in the office and those joining virtually.
It just doesn't work when half of the team can walk by each other's desk, do some impromptu planning, and the other half are spread out across the world effectively uninvolved in these conversations. Nobody wants to go through the trouble of setting up a zoom for the 2 min conversation you have about a thing, or nobody is going to loop in a remote colleague when the team has lunch or coffee together.
You either choose to be fully digital, and make digital communication the way work gets done, or you harm people out of the office. Maybe Google will make a miracle happen, but I've never seen "hybrid" work as optimal as either fully in office, or fully remote.
> You either choose to be fully digital, and make digital communication the way work gets done, or you harm people out of the office.
I say this as someone who managed mixed distributed / WFH teams: If in-person conversations are an advantage (and they are), no company is going to willingly surrender them for the sake of catering to the people who aren't in the office.
That doesn't mean teams can ignore the remote team members. It's everyone's responsibility to communicate and share information. However, there's no sense in reducing the efficiency of in-office employees just to level the playing field.
The strategies that worked best for my teams were to structure the hires and the workloads according to who could work best together. For example, having an in-office back end team combined with a WFH front-end team works well, because the communication is naturally segmented across team boundaries anyway.
On the other hand, if you put one of the front-end devs in the office with the back-end devs while everyone else is WFH, you need to be prepared to make that in-office person the team lead because they're going to become the primary communication point whether you want it or not.
I love my mixed distributed/WFH teams, but I'll never deny that in-office communication still reigns supreme. That said, distributed can be made to work as long as you do your planning and structuring around the natural communication lines rather than trying to fight it.
I have seen this implication frequently in these discussions, that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings, etc.
The assumption is that this therefore makes remote work non-viable. I don't really get that. Trading off better compensation through promos and ratings is just a business decision for the potential remote worker.
Personally, I would trade never getting a promotion again for remote work. Google and the other companies like it already pay very, very well. If you've reached E6+, it's "FIRE in <10 years" well, even if you get "meets all" ratings forever. If you're in that position, you can be making 10x the median household income. You've basically won at money.
Commuting is miserable, and I bike, easily one of the two least miserable methods (walking being the other) of doing so. Open offices are miserable. Flexibility at home is amazing. Having my own space is amazing. Making my own food for lunch, in my kitchen, is great. Feeling unfocused and deciding to just take a nap in my own bed for an hour.
So yeah, maybe I'll never get a promotion. But, I don't think I'll do poorly enough to get fired, so... good enough for me.
Xoogler here. Google has been doing remote-work from the office for years. The campuses are so big and have so many buildings that meetings are often held over VC anyway so people don't have to walk back and forth. I occasionally had VC meetings with people elsewhere in the same building. Meetings between campuses are also common and obviously require VC regardless of laziness.
VC is automatically added to meetings, every room is equipped with the proper AV, and culturally, people often actually click the right buttons to start the VC even when they aren't expecting VC guests. I don't remember ever attempting to join a meeting over VC and having the main location forget to join (although it probably happened to someone every once in a while).
At least on our team, we tended not to have those 2 minute conversations. The code-review tools are top tier, so we would use those if at all possible. Most of our non-meeting communication otherwise was in buganizer (the bug tracker), Google groups via email, Google docs, or IRC (they were getting rid of it around when I left).
I think the only exception was Nooglers. We had Nooglers sit next to a mentor on the team, and they would usually ask lots of simple questions out loud throughout the day.
> Nobody wants to go through the trouble of setting up a zoom for the 2 min conversation you have about a thing
I have set aside 30 minute blocks on my calendar for "drop-ins" for exactly this flavor of conversation. I'm the only person on the invite list, but others know about its existence and will find the link on my calendar as needed. Sometimes no one shows up, other days the block turns into an impromptu large group brainstorm, other times it's back-to-back 2 min conversations.
The purpose of the "hybrid working" pitch is to force those who would prefer to work remote back into the central location using "Fear Of Missing Out" (FOMO)
It's essentially another of the very popular nudge tricks that are all the rage at the moment, and will result in everybody being back in the office. The 'choice' on offer isn't a choice at all. It's a management device to all but eliminate remote working and allow them back into their comfort zone.
For remote to work everybody has to be remote and work via a central communication device. That way everybody is in the same 'office space' and the culture evolves around that to get the work done. Management then changes natures to suit the remote environment. (Note you can do 'all remote' on a campus - you give everybody an office!)
I can guarantee you that if firms were required by law to pay for the time spent commuting, they would all choose to go remote permanently unless there was a physical reason to be in the same space.
But it is for the workers to see commuting as part of work time, and calculate what they are getting paid per hour accordingly.
If people in the building have private offices, and the buildings have floors, there are a lot of psychological barriers that people either didn’t notice of have forgotten about because we’ve been trying to do our best imitation of a feedlot.
I’m not going to go across a building and up steps to ask someone a question unless I am out of other options. I’m not. You’re not. I’ve done too many 5 Why’s where one of the answers was “they made a guess because they couldn’t be arsed to cross the building to verify things”.
We might message that person, if we use it and they actually read their messages. At which point being in the office isn’t quite as transformative.
Some people work half time, should we all not socially interact during their absence, because it would disadvantage them as well?
The enemy of better is best, and I feel you are actually making a case against home working by being so extreme in your demands. Some people would like to work from home, understanding it adds a social challenge, but still prefer it for a myriad of reasons.
And some people need to be in an office to be productive. I think it's a nobler goal to try cater to both, than set up some extreme all or nothing scenario.
> It just doesn't work when half of the team can walk by each other's desk, do some impromptu planning, and the other half are spread out across the world effectively uninvolved in these conversations.
Seems like giving people a choice is the right idea. Maybe being less involved in these impromptu conversations is a worthwhile tradeoff for being able to live where they want.
And this 3 days in the office business won't work well either. If not everyone on the team picks the same 3 days to be in office, then what are you gaining? How would it make sense if there's barely any overlap among team members?
I don't think these companies have thought this through. Logically, the 3 days a week in office will slowly become 2, then 1. Or maybe teams will decide to only get together 3 days a month or something like that.
At that point, you're effectively fully virtual anyway.
These companies need to just dive right in, because the suggested format smells of poorly thought out compromise.
> It just doesn't work when half of the team can walk by each other's desk, do some impromptu planning, and the other half are spread out across the world effectively uninvolved in these conversations. Nobody wants to go through the trouble of setting up a zoom for the 2 min conversation you have about a thing, or nobody is going to loop in a remote colleague when the team has lunch or coffee together.
This is a tired take. Google Hangouts and Slack Video are quick and work great.
I think it's time we admit that a five day work week is counterproductive.
Even Google notices this but is probably too big to make that change to a shorter work week; the best they can do is "reset days." Smaller companies seem to be doing fine with a shorter week.[1]
[1] Buffer comes to mind first, other examples on 4dayweek.io
"Under the plans, an estimated 200 to 400 Spanish companies will voluntarily take part in the project by reducing their employees’ working week to 32 hours while keeping their salaries the same. The government will compensate participating businesses for any higher costs incurred by the changes, such as the need to hire additional staff or to reorganize scheduling and shift patterns. That investment will be financed through Spain’s share of the EU Coronavirus Recovery Fund."
I don't agree with you. My read on why they keep doing reset days is that "down" time doesn't really exist anymore. When in the office at Google, there are lots of "fun" things that can eat up time. Be it team off-sites (this is a big one for me), office events, fun classes, etc... we don't have those. To me, reset days are making up for people working more due to being at home with fewer outlets to take up their time.
I also get the feeling that people are taking way less vacation. Vacation is important to most people's sanity at a company, so reset days help with that as well.
I plan to add a feature where you can advertise yourself on this website that you are looking for part-time jobs. How many hours are you willing to work. What skills do you have. You will be able to login using GitHub account.
> We’ll also offer opportunities for you to apply for completely remote work (away from your team or office) based on your role and team needs. Before the pandemic, we had thousands of people working in locations separate from their core teams. I fully expect those numbers to increase in the coming months as we develop more remote roles, including fully all-remote sub teams.
This is the most interesting bit that I saw. For a year+ the official stance has been that there won't be any more fully-remote work after the pandemic than there was before.
10+ of my co-workers at Google have left for permanent wfh positions in the last month or so, I suspect that significantly influenced their decision to change their stance.
Before that, their attitude was "people will vote with their feet" and when people started actually voting with their feet, this got announced pretty quickly.
3 days in the office and 2 days "where ever they want".
This is meaningless. Either WFH completely or not, this in between thing doesn't work. Employees don't have the freedom to live where they want. All those dreams about Silicon Valley dispersing all over the country are just dashed. People still live close to work and they just get to stay home a couple days a week. That's all.
For what its worth, the A16Z boss talk podcast episode/clubhouse this week had everyone (incl Databricks CEO) basically agree with this model. Most people in the office 2-3 days/week. Some full remote.
"Pending approval from your manager/lead"
- Corporate doublespeak for Don't even think about going full time remote. We are going to drag you back kicking and screaming.
This is really stupid. Most people do not need to be in an office to get work done. Google, and all these other tech companies, made record profits this year.
I just don't get why they insist on keeping people in a seat? At least for google, offering all these on-site only perks is just a scheme to keep employees at work for as long as possible.
Aside from jobs that actually need to be done in person, I think it really comes down to leadership egos. Probably just feels good to walk by a sea of minions on your way to the corner office.
If you're right, then wfh companies will out compete the rest and there's nothing to worry about. My guess is there are a lot of benefits to face to face communication and the separation of work and home but we'll just have to see.
I lead/oversee a team of 7 that was built across 10 time zones, starting in 2017. The team got to its current size about 6 months before the pandemic hit. Three of us are fully remote, and there are two sub-teams of two in one city, separated by about 40 miles. We've got biz dev, ops, and software development (NLP and image analysis). We definitely dial people in if we need them, and there's a daily stand-up.
So, we were built around a hybrid-ish sort of model from the beginning. I'm honestly not sure how the team would do if we were all together. I know we wouldn't have the same team, that's for sure. A couple of the folks couldn't have taken the jobs if a move had been required.
I oversee work by a number of other teams, they are all working at the international level, and none of them are fully localized. If anything, the one thing I think may change with the pandemic is that people will develop less localization, and travel to visit teammates will become a thing. If I recall, Slack does this: they have everyone meet up once or twice a year. We did that at the beginning and it was super helpful.
- No fixed offices. Companies rent smaller offies at co-working spaces (e.g. WeWorks) and pay their employees a WeWork pass so that they can hot desk from any WeWork across the world.
- 3.5 days work, 3.5 days off. Ideal work week would be: Monday, Tuesday full days, Wednesday half day, Thursday full day, Friday, Saturday, Sunday off.
- Everyone works from home and there is no fixed quota of people having to be anywhere. Each team can and should independently decide at which co-working space they want to meet and for which purpose. Everything is remote first set up though so that sharing and working over well established tools is the norm and not an afterthought.
This new "hybrid" approach by Google is a tiny step forward, but still a LOOONG way away from the perfect work life balance and actually feels like a step backwards after the pandemic.
> Whether you choose to transfer to a different office or opt for completely remote work, your compensation will be adjusted according to your new location.
That's it, the end of geographic arbitrage. No more working from the mountains on a Silicon Valley salary. Hope everyone enjoyed it while it lasted.
I don't know how Google is doing it, but the difference at some other companies is not that much. You're probably not getting sent down from 600k TC to 60k, even if that's the going rate for developers in Nowhere, Montana (if there even are any developer jobs there).
Then, consider that much of compensation at higher levels is RSUs you've already been allocated for the next four years anyways.
Not sure it's gotta be so gloomy. You can still work from the mountains very, very comfortably at 50% of a SV salary.
If you aren't working for a major publicly-traded big tech firm, chances are this is not going to be happening to you in the first place. Big tech's motivation for doing this is clearly cost-cutting and avoiding liabilities they cannot yield total control over. If Google can't get you fat & giggly on paternalistic "benefits," hosted on their corporate campus, they're afraid you won't become the subservient non-skeptical workhorse they believe they need. So, they've got to start finding ways to offset the costs they believe will be coming from having employees who aren't being dominated under the total surveillance and control of Google's ever-present watching eyes.
If you're in a relatively low comp area and decide to work remotely from a high comp city, does your location-based pay go up? Or is all "remote" work considered the same location pay-wise?
And furthermore, who's checking all of this—do you have to prove where you work, or just have a mailing address and a place to pay taxes?
I know one place that sent an inspector to verify the home office had the minimum required office equipment: a door and a shredder.
Still the market will finally decide whether the arbitrage could work out. Plenty of companies aren’t changing pay based on where you live, namely Spotify.
That meeting room looks super uncomfortable and awkward. Why can’t they just use some simple criteria for coming back to work: if you have two vaccine shots + time for second shot you can come in to work (unless you have a medical/religious reason not to).
Also, if everyone is vaccines can we do away with mask requirements?
> In fact, in places where we’ve been able to reopen Google offices in a voluntary capacity, we’ve seen nearly 60% of Googlers choosing to come back to the office.
They don’t classify if that’s continuous or one-time to get a laptop replacement. I would guess the latter
I would also add that 60% coming back doesn't necessarily mean those people prefer working in office full stop. It could be partly that, partly people enjoy flexibility but are tired of the monotony of home, or other factors.
Ask that same 60% if they wanted a month of work from home pre-COVID and I'd bet on at least 33% saying yes, if not more.
[+] [-] softwaredoug|4 years ago|reply
It just doesn't work when half of the team can walk by each other's desk, do some impromptu planning, and the other half are spread out across the world effectively uninvolved in these conversations. Nobody wants to go through the trouble of setting up a zoom for the 2 min conversation you have about a thing, or nobody is going to loop in a remote colleague when the team has lunch or coffee together.
You either choose to be fully digital, and make digital communication the way work gets done, or you harm people out of the office. Maybe Google will make a miracle happen, but I've never seen "hybrid" work as optimal as either fully in office, or fully remote.
[+] [-] PragmaticPulp|4 years ago|reply
I say this as someone who managed mixed distributed / WFH teams: If in-person conversations are an advantage (and they are), no company is going to willingly surrender them for the sake of catering to the people who aren't in the office.
That doesn't mean teams can ignore the remote team members. It's everyone's responsibility to communicate and share information. However, there's no sense in reducing the efficiency of in-office employees just to level the playing field.
The strategies that worked best for my teams were to structure the hires and the workloads according to who could work best together. For example, having an in-office back end team combined with a WFH front-end team works well, because the communication is naturally segmented across team boundaries anyway.
On the other hand, if you put one of the front-end devs in the office with the back-end devs while everyone else is WFH, you need to be prepared to make that in-office person the team lead because they're going to become the primary communication point whether you want it or not.
I love my mixed distributed/WFH teams, but I'll never deny that in-office communication still reigns supreme. That said, distributed can be made to work as long as you do your planning and structuring around the natural communication lines rather than trying to fight it.
[+] [-] garet2|4 years ago|reply
I have seen this implication frequently in these discussions, that remote workers will get fewer promotions, lower ratings, etc.
The assumption is that this therefore makes remote work non-viable. I don't really get that. Trading off better compensation through promos and ratings is just a business decision for the potential remote worker.
Personally, I would trade never getting a promotion again for remote work. Google and the other companies like it already pay very, very well. If you've reached E6+, it's "FIRE in <10 years" well, even if you get "meets all" ratings forever. If you're in that position, you can be making 10x the median household income. You've basically won at money.
Commuting is miserable, and I bike, easily one of the two least miserable methods (walking being the other) of doing so. Open offices are miserable. Flexibility at home is amazing. Having my own space is amazing. Making my own food for lunch, in my kitchen, is great. Feeling unfocused and deciding to just take a nap in my own bed for an hour.
So yeah, maybe I'll never get a promotion. But, I don't think I'll do poorly enough to get fired, so... good enough for me.
[+] [-] singron|4 years ago|reply
VC is automatically added to meetings, every room is equipped with the proper AV, and culturally, people often actually click the right buttons to start the VC even when they aren't expecting VC guests. I don't remember ever attempting to join a meeting over VC and having the main location forget to join (although it probably happened to someone every once in a while).
At least on our team, we tended not to have those 2 minute conversations. The code-review tools are top tier, so we would use those if at all possible. Most of our non-meeting communication otherwise was in buganizer (the bug tracker), Google groups via email, Google docs, or IRC (they were getting rid of it around when I left).
I think the only exception was Nooglers. We had Nooglers sit next to a mentor on the team, and they would usually ask lots of simple questions out loud throughout the day.
[+] [-] bsilvereagle|4 years ago|reply
I have set aside 30 minute blocks on my calendar for "drop-ins" for exactly this flavor of conversation. I'm the only person on the invite list, but others know about its existence and will find the link on my calendar as needed. Sometimes no one shows up, other days the block turns into an impromptu large group brainstorm, other times it's back-to-back 2 min conversations.
[+] [-] neilwilson|4 years ago|reply
It's essentially another of the very popular nudge tricks that are all the rage at the moment, and will result in everybody being back in the office. The 'choice' on offer isn't a choice at all. It's a management device to all but eliminate remote working and allow them back into their comfort zone.
For remote to work everybody has to be remote and work via a central communication device. That way everybody is in the same 'office space' and the culture evolves around that to get the work done. Management then changes natures to suit the remote environment. (Note you can do 'all remote' on a campus - you give everybody an office!)
I can guarantee you that if firms were required by law to pay for the time spent commuting, they would all choose to go remote permanently unless there was a physical reason to be in the same space.
But it is for the workers to see commuting as part of work time, and calculate what they are getting paid per hour accordingly.
[+] [-] hinkley|4 years ago|reply
I’m not going to go across a building and up steps to ask someone a question unless I am out of other options. I’m not. You’re not. I’ve done too many 5 Why’s where one of the answers was “they made a guess because they couldn’t be arsed to cross the building to verify things”.
We might message that person, if we use it and they actually read their messages. At which point being in the office isn’t quite as transformative.
[+] [-] ramblerman|4 years ago|reply
Some people work half time, should we all not socially interact during their absence, because it would disadvantage them as well?
The enemy of better is best, and I feel you are actually making a case against home working by being so extreme in your demands. Some people would like to work from home, understanding it adds a social challenge, but still prefer it for a myriad of reasons.
And some people need to be in an office to be productive. I think it's a nobler goal to try cater to both, than set up some extreme all or nothing scenario.
[+] [-] slavapestov|4 years ago|reply
Seems like giving people a choice is the right idea. Maybe being less involved in these impromptu conversations is a worthwhile tradeoff for being able to live where they want.
[+] [-] peder|4 years ago|reply
I don't think these companies have thought this through. Logically, the 3 days a week in office will slowly become 2, then 1. Or maybe teams will decide to only get together 3 days a month or something like that.
At that point, you're effectively fully virtual anyway.
These companies need to just dive right in, because the suggested format smells of poorly thought out compromise.
[+] [-] leoh|4 years ago|reply
This is a tired take. Google Hangouts and Slack Video are quick and work great.
[+] [-] koch|4 years ago|reply
I think it's time we admit that a five day work week is counterproductive.
Even Google notices this but is probably too big to make that change to a shorter work week; the best they can do is "reset days." Smaller companies seem to be doing fine with a shorter week.[1]
[1] Buffer comes to mind first, other examples on 4dayweek.io
[+] [-] toomuchtodo|4 years ago|reply
"Under the plans, an estimated 200 to 400 Spanish companies will voluntarily take part in the project by reducing their employees’ working week to 32 hours while keeping their salaries the same. The government will compensate participating businesses for any higher costs incurred by the changes, such as the need to hire additional staff or to reorganize scheduling and shift patterns. That investment will be financed through Spain’s share of the EU Coronavirus Recovery Fund."
https://reasonstobecheerful.world/spain-four-day-work-week-n...
(check out the graph "Annual working hours per worker" and see which country has the fewest working hours annually; you might be surprised)
And Microsoft Japan:
https://www.npr.org/2019/11/04/776163853/microsoft-japan-say...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26495933
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21919721
[+] [-] kyrra|4 years ago|reply
I don't agree with you. My read on why they keep doing reset days is that "down" time doesn't really exist anymore. When in the office at Google, there are lots of "fun" things that can eat up time. Be it team off-sites (this is a big one for me), office events, fun classes, etc... we don't have those. To me, reset days are making up for people working more due to being at home with fewer outlets to take up their time.
I also get the feeling that people are taking way less vacation. Vacation is important to most people's sanity at a company, so reset days help with that as well.
[+] [-] langitbiru|4 years ago|reply
I plan to add a feature where you can advertise yourself on this website that you are looking for part-time jobs. How many hours are you willing to work. What skills do you have. You will be able to login using GitHub account.
Part-time jobs are getting more popular. Anecdotal case: https://twitter.com/zachcodes/status/1390033250148655111
[+] [-] DocTomoe|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NoPicklez|4 years ago|reply
If we make it a 4 day work week, once it becomes the norm whats to say that people wont want a 3 day work week?
[+] [-] philsnow|4 years ago|reply
This is the most interesting bit that I saw. For a year+ the official stance has been that there won't be any more fully-remote work after the pandemic than there was before.
[+] [-] throwawaygler1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fermentation|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
Over the next year or so, Google will try out new office designs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27007898 - May 2021 (179 comments)
[+] [-] yalogin|4 years ago|reply
This is meaningless. Either WFH completely or not, this in between thing doesn't work. Employees don't have the freedom to live where they want. All those dreams about Silicon Valley dispersing all over the country are just dashed. People still live close to work and they just get to stay home a couple days a week. That's all.
[+] [-] wfhbata|4 years ago|reply
The news here is that they’ll allow some employees to work in remote offices, and some to go fully remote.
[+] [-] closeparen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshgel|4 years ago|reply
Seems like that is the way the valley is headed.
[+] [-] draklor40|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yamellasmallela|4 years ago|reply
I just don't get why they insist on keeping people in a seat? At least for google, offering all these on-site only perks is just a scheme to keep employees at work for as long as possible.
[+] [-] eweise|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jayd16|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] killjoywashere|4 years ago|reply
So, we were built around a hybrid-ish sort of model from the beginning. I'm honestly not sure how the team would do if we were all together. I know we wouldn't have the same team, that's for sure. A couple of the folks couldn't have taken the jobs if a move had been required.
I oversee work by a number of other teams, they are all working at the international level, and none of them are fully localized. If anything, the one thing I think may change with the pandemic is that people will develop less localization, and travel to visit teammates will become a thing. If I recall, Slack does this: they have everyone meet up once or twice a year. We did that at the beginning and it was super helpful.
[+] [-] philmcp|4 years ago|reply
The lack of flexibility annoyed me so much that I built https://4dayweek.io/
Software jobs with a better work / life balance
[+] [-] dustinmoris|4 years ago|reply
- No fixed offices. Companies rent smaller offies at co-working spaces (e.g. WeWorks) and pay their employees a WeWork pass so that they can hot desk from any WeWork across the world.
- 3.5 days work, 3.5 days off. Ideal work week would be: Monday, Tuesday full days, Wednesday half day, Thursday full day, Friday, Saturday, Sunday off.
- Everyone works from home and there is no fixed quota of people having to be anywhere. Each team can and should independently decide at which co-working space they want to meet and for which purpose. Everything is remote first set up though so that sharing and working over well established tools is the norm and not an afterthought.
This new "hybrid" approach by Google is a tiny step forward, but still a LOOONG way away from the perfect work life balance and actually feels like a step backwards after the pandemic.
[+] [-] jpm_sd|4 years ago|reply
That's it, the end of geographic arbitrage. No more working from the mountains on a Silicon Valley salary. Hope everyone enjoyed it while it lasted.
[+] [-] slavapestov|4 years ago|reply
Location-based pay has been the norm at Apple, Google and Facebook already.
[+] [-] garet2|4 years ago|reply
Then, consider that much of compensation at higher levels is RSUs you've already been allocated for the next four years anyways.
[+] [-] AndrewUnmuted|4 years ago|reply
If you aren't working for a major publicly-traded big tech firm, chances are this is not going to be happening to you in the first place. Big tech's motivation for doing this is clearly cost-cutting and avoiding liabilities they cannot yield total control over. If Google can't get you fat & giggly on paternalistic "benefits," hosted on their corporate campus, they're afraid you won't become the subservient non-skeptical workhorse they believe they need. So, they've got to start finding ways to offset the costs they believe will be coming from having employees who aren't being dominated under the total surveillance and control of Google's ever-present watching eyes.
[+] [-] mLuby|4 years ago|reply
And furthermore, who's checking all of this—do you have to prove where you work, or just have a mailing address and a place to pay taxes?
I know one place that sent an inspector to verify the home office had the minimum required office equipment: a door and a shredder.
[+] [-] softwaredoug|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mycentstoo|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caturopath|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] setpatchaddress|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Google234|4 years ago|reply
Also, if everyone is vaccines can we do away with mask requirements?
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cblconfederate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nomoreplease|4 years ago|reply
They don’t classify if that’s continuous or one-time to get a laptop replacement. I would guess the latter
[+] [-] lamename|4 years ago|reply
Ask that same 60% if they wanted a month of work from home pre-COVID and I'd bet on at least 33% saying yes, if not more.
[+] [-] what_ever|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nautilus12|4 years ago|reply