Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: How Do You Find Jobs That Offer Working From Home?
jez9999 writes: I'm a software developer in the UK, and I've found that it's very rare (maybe 5% of the time) to find an employer that will even consider any working from home, let alone for the majority of the time. I see it as a win-win; you're able to work in the home environment you are most productive in, and you can use the time you would've been commuting to work a bit longer for the employer. Not only that, but you're not adding to road congestion either. Skype, etc. make communication with coworkers a snap these days. So how do you go about finding homeworking jobs? Is it better to demand it from the get-go, or wait a few months and then ask for it? Is it more common than 5% of jobs in the US (in which case I guess it's a cultural thing the UK needs to catch up with)?
One trick I learned just recently: Tell them at the interview, that you got another offer, and you have to think about which one is better for you.
Then they'll ask what the final decision critera will be, and then you tell them "well, at the other company, I will be working from home.".
In my case that got them to say "well, home-office is not a problem at all, as long as you show up for the meetings" :-)
good luck!
andi
I'm always driving past flyers on street sign posts offering jobs earning £5000 a week from home!
However I'm happy earning tuppence in an office away from the kids, so haven't ever given them a try...
Generally? You don't.
The trend is away from this for software developer positions, unless you are willing to do contract work. There are several major things driving this right now:
(1) The employer doesn't have to allow it in order to be able to recruit talent, so they don't. A lot of managers engage in "management by walking around", and you are unlikely to get one of these types to sign off.
(2) Stacked ranking. If you're not in the office, and not "seen as being a strong contributor by your nominal coworkers, you'll get ranked poorly, and you will be the first person "PIP'ed" (Performance Improvement Program), and, if there are layoffs, you get to be near the top of the list.
(3) If they don't care where you are working from, be pretty sure that the job isn't going to be landing in a country with expensive labor, like the U.K., the U.S., and so on; if they are going to take on a remote worker, it's not going to be from your neck of the woods.
(4) Employer culture is considered important; if you want to have an employer, expect to come into the office so that they can culturally indoctrinate you. Yahoo laid off all their remote employees over this, and it's been the trend at Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and so on. This is somewhat part and parcel with the stacked ranking, but it's the other side of the coin.
Up until recently I was an independent software development contractor. In the beginning of my career, I was working from home on semi isolated components, and I really hated it. It's very hard to concentrate on anything with all the distractions, you can't talk to anyone (even if it's just bitching about something), you don't get to know what's going on in the company, and when you have as small an apartment as I had back then, it's very hard to "switch off" from work after work, because in my case, my desk and bed were in the same room, and that makes it hard to "switch".
Add to that the obvious problem of constant distractions... but then, you get those in the office, too ;)
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
This pretty much happened to me at HP. I worked the first 10 years mostly in the office, and the last four years as a remote worker.
At the end of 2003 HP announced they wanted all employees in the office again.
http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/no-more-working-home-hewlett-packard-employees
I lasted a couple more years after that, but I knew it was only a matter of time. I didn't want to go back into the office anywhere, so I became a medical marijuana caregiver. By the time I was laid off I was able to replace my income by selling cannabis...legally (at the state level, at least).
Now I focus on projects I want to work on. I am getting into microcontrollers...the esp8266 will blow your freakin' tits apart.
I can still take on contracting work if I want, but cannabis is my core business.
Working remotely in a software team: simply does not work!
o_O
You mean .... like the loosely organized software team that has developed the Linux kernel hasn't worked out?
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
(5) Not everybody is more productive when working from home as there may be more distractions at home than at work. Walking the dog, doing the washing up, etc. Troubleshooting certain problems is (far) easier locally than remotely.
Too true. We can work from home occasionally, but my wife hasn't got the idea that working from home is working. It's very nice to be offered cups of tea occasionally, but being asked if you want anything every five minutes - oh and can I come to get something heavy out of the cupboard, empty the bin, see how cute our dog looks as he's gone to sleep leaning in a corner and so on ... I only work from home if I'm snowed in or something as I really do get a lot less done.
Firstly to say I am not arguing against what you said. I do however want to add to point 4.
Getting employee buy-in is important. An employee that is engaged, that believes he has a higher purpose than just working for this company will put more effort and pride into his work. In theory higher quality and more work is the result.
This internal marketing helps employee retention as well as getting many of them to do more for no additional pay because they are committed and feel it is their duty.
Most new employees will eat this up and feel they are part of a larger group, a wider family, with a purpose beyond just plain old Monday work. After a period of time people, being smart, wisen up and read between the lines if they have not already. then the "engagement" becomes a game of pretending. Managers pretend to be engaged and pursue engagement activities (that include making sure no one works from home) and employees pretend to be engage and embrace the "culture" as a valued framework.
Many companies will cite Yahoo's experience and many managers will see it as "proof" of something. I believe it all boils down to the employee in question.
Most employees will be very concerned that they may be viewed as not doing much if they are working from home and will often do more "just to make sure". but perception is the name of the game. If your manager thinks people that wear jeans are not serious about work well...we know what happens if a candidate shows up to an interview in jeans.
As a society we are still a bit far off the holy grail of working from home. The old way of thinking is still prevalent and despite having the technology this way of thinking is holding us back as a society. Imagine the cost savings if you did not have to provide your employees with environmentally controlled facilities and giant office spaces. Imagine how much traffic will be saved if 50% of us do not have to actually be physically at work.
Personally I find working from home easier. I can sleep more and have an environment that I enjoy and helps me concentrate. I don't need a manager to interrupt me as he reads through his emails or colleagues playing music wanting to gossip over coffee or deal with the less than gourmet food on offer.
In conclusion I think that a person wanting to work from home needs to find the right employer and that is where the real challenge lies. Most do not advertise that you can work from home so it's still a matter of finding out manually. It's one of the questions I'd ask of a future employer.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
I am the hiring manager at a software development shop. We allow working from home, and it works well for us. I don't think we ever have 100% of the developers in the office at any given time, but work still gets done. Some developers work from home 3 or more days per week.
From my company's perspective, here's how we do it:
1. If we hire you but don't know you personally, you'll be expected to be in the office daily for a few weeks to integrate with the team, get used to everyone's work style, personality, etc. You won't be working from home right away. If that's a deal breaker, then we're not the right fit for you. We really consider that team integration phase to be extremely important.
2. Communication is everything. If you're working from home, it goes into the company calendar and your Skype status. If you're working non-core hours, that gets communicated to your team and put in the calendar. If you'll be missing the daily standup meeting, your status gets sent to the team before the meeting. We have people who work from home and work from 2 AM to noon, drop out in the middle of the day, then come back and work later in the evening when they get bored of TV, etc. All of this is fine because they let the team know. Skype, Slack, email, calendar - all of these are in constant use by all of our teams.
3. The bottom line is that we want the work to get done on time. We work in 3 week sprints, so we release new code quickly and the development chunk of those 3 weeks is usually pretty full. But if you manage to finish work more quickly than expected and have a need for some time to go to appointments, get away for a day, etc. you'll probably get that time. Conversely, if things are taking longer, we'll expect either that you'll put in more hours to finish or that you'll communicate early to the project management folks that a feature is in danger of slipping so that team & client expectations can be set and there aren't surprises. Or offer an alternative approach that delivers much of the desired functionality but not all, something that can be enhanced in a future sprint. But whatever you do, communicate with the team so everyone knows.
As to your question about finding a company - if it's that important to you, ask up front. Don't take a job and assume that asking later will get you the answer you want if you just prove yourself to be a great developer. Companies don't generally work that way - it's either already a part of their company culture or it isn't (or maybe it's planned but not implemented yet). For your own happiness, you need the job to be a good culture fit, so find out before accepting how they work.
The same thing applies in an office environment, only instead of one wife you now have 50 colleagues who want help with this and that (often not work related), or just want to chat about the weather...
Many people are single, or have wives/girlfriends who also work and aren't at home during the day.
The other thing is being able to prioritise distractions... If someone sends you an email asking for something, you can wait until you're finished whatever you're currently concentrating on, but if they walk up to your desk or call you then it forces you to immediately stop what your doing to respond to them... This can be very troublesome if you're trying to concentrate.
My job has a mix of home working, office working, and working in client's offices... I find i get a LOT less done if i'm working in our office, partly because of the distractions and partly because it's just a terrible office with bad seating, bad desks, broken climate control etc.
Client offices are a different story, as most of the people there don't know you there are usually much fewer distractions, although the actual conditions can vary... If it's quiet and comfortable then i can get a lot more done there, if it's noisy and/or uncomfortable then a lot less gets done.
That said i still think home working is better overall at least for me, if only because of the time and inconvenience saved on travel... There are more and more businesses being crammed into a small area in most cities and expecting people to all work at the same time, this creates massive congestion on all travel routes at certain hours, and results in inefficient over capacity at other times. I find it utterly ridiculous how they insist on so many people travelling to the same area at the same time, things should be far more spread out.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
You back to basement and build more server! NO SLEEP YOU SLACKER!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I'm a UK employer with around 50 employees in the business, with 6 in the dev team. The sales team are mostly remote and whilst my development team are office based I'm not that worried where they're based as long as they get the job done. Our head office is oop north and the dev team down south anyway so there is already an element of remote working involved.
However I've yet to see anyone make a truly compelling case for routine remote working. My developers tried it when we first started the business and really didn't like it. They missed being in an environment dedicated to work with no kids running around downstairs and also the social aspects of being part of a team physically sat in the same room.
I'm recruiting at the moment for a new web developer (good all round skills required in PHP and / or Node, general experience with SQL databases) so if someone can convince me they can do the job remotely then I'm all ears.
I've been working from home for the better part of 10 years now across two very different jobs and employers. At first I thought it was dream! When I took the job I had no idea I would be allowed to work from home. My first day on the job they gave me a very high-end laptop, docking station, monitor and company cell. They also allowed me to expense the entirety of my internet connection and a second phone line dedicated for business. This was in addition to very comfortable in-office space. Dream job! I thought. I worked almost exclusively from the office for the first six months and then they slowly started pushing me out the door. At some point shortly after that they gave my desk away. For four years I worked from home an average of 65 hours a week. I came in one day every week or two for meetings and face time. I was relegated to a back conference room. When something needed done at night or on the weekend, I was the guy they called because, 'Hey, you can do it without having to come in!' I was salary so I didn't see extra income from that. It was a nightmare. Finally, I quit. My current job is much more relaxed. I go in for half a day every two weeks or so. I still work more than 40 hours a week but I'm hourly now and so I get paid for it. I very much doubt that the extra hours I work are greater than the time I would spend commuting daily to the office. I get far more done at home than I ever could at the office. I have a team that works half from home and half from the office. They take written instruction well. If I need to talk to them I can do it over the phone or Skype. The biggest downside is the lack of advancement incentive. I have turned down three small promotions simply because I would not be able to do it from home. This is my choice, of course; I'm older and not chasing position anymore. The higher end promotions require in-office politics, from which I am pretty much immune. I think you get the picture. Oh! The wife likes the days I have to go in. That's when I take a shower. It can be a little lonely. But that's what Slashdot is for. :)
homeworking jobs? Is it better to demand it from the get-go
I doubt there's a company in the land that would recruit an unknown, straight off the street, give them a salaried post and let them work 100% from home.
For a start, there's no guarantee you wouldn't just goof around for the 6 months or so it would take for them to realise you're a lazy freeloader and then go through the process of firing you (sacking people in the UK and the rest of Europe is a long-drawn out process: employees have rights). Second, they'd have to install a load of kit in your house which would take time and you'd also have little or no "induction" into the company, your boss, the goals and culture.
So on the occasions where I have worked for places that do have home working: either as perk for trusted employees or as a cost-saving measure for the one that seriously messed up its estate management, it's not something you go "demanding" and definitely not from the start - or "get-go" in your language.
Finally, home working has many, many disadvantages. Apart from being isolated, you become an invisible part of the team - and therefore disposable. You never interact with your work-mates and never get to hear "grapevine" stuff, like where the promotion opportunities are. Neither does your boss "see" you, so you never bond and can easily get passed over for pay rises or interesting projects. Some people also find they instead of working, they spend all day with their face in the fridge and pile on the pounds.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
(5) Not everybody is more productive when working from home as there may be more distractions at home than at work. Walking the dog, doing the washing up, etc. Troubleshooting certain problems is (far) easier locally than remotely.
Too true. We can work from home occasionally, but my wife hasn't got the idea that working from home is working. It's very nice to be offered cups of tea occasionally, but being asked if you want anything every five minutes - oh and can I come to get something heavy out of the cupboard, empty the bin, see how cute our dog looks as he's gone to sleep leaning in a corner and so on ... I only work from home if I'm snowed in or something as I really do get a lot less done.
When I was working from home a lot, I was in the fortunate position of not having daily deadlines to meet. As a result, I was *more* productive at home. The scheduling freedom meant that I could take care of occasional personal stuff during the day that just couldn't get done on evenings or weekends. But because I tended to be kind of 'uptight Protestant' about my work ethic, (and because I really liked what I was doing), I more than made up for that by working early mornings and late evenings. Being at home also meant that I could take the breaks necessary to understand a problem and/or come up with solutions, without being stressed out about the watchful eyes of co-workers and management seeing me 'slack off'.
IMHO, some weekly presence in the office is required; if not for meetings, group discussions where telepresence isn't enough, etc, then for the social aspect of team building and maintenance. But in a lot of jobs, for a lot of people, two or three days a week working from home can be a win for both employer and employee.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
I managed to do it, but it took almost a year of looking, even in a job market supposedly favorable to programmers.
My strategy was to basically scour the job boards, looking for remote jobs, and apply when it looked like a good fit. Some boards I found helpful for remote, non-contract work:
Job sites which don't have a specific category for "remote" tended to produce a lot of noise, because searching on "remote" would get hits for things like "remote work not allowed".
Two other things which seemed very helpful in landing a job:
So, with that manager in the way, one who can't really type fast, and has problems understanding IRC, mailing list etiquette, commits, you name it -- isn't going to be comfortable with a system that really doesn't need him.
Sounds to me like that's going to be a problem no matter if you work remotely or not :o
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
While that is definitely important, I find that management buy-in is more important. More specifically, director/VP/C-level management. Managing remote workers or teams is more difficult than helicopter micromanagement. Bad, insecure managers need to see you working; good managers look at your productivity. Measuring productivity is hard, it's difficult to put numbers on. Seeing that you're warming your chair is much easier.
I recently was working from home 40% of the time or so. Every Friday, other days as required (two small children, do the math) with just a notification to my manager. Then I switched managers and the new guy put together a spreadsheet showing all the days I'd worked from home in the previous couple of months. After pointing out that four of the days he was talking about were actually sick days (which I reported as such, and had the time taken out) and showing how all the non-Fridays I'd taken from home were for legitimate reasons (my son having surgery, etc), he took away the privilege anyway. By his own admission, I'd done nothing wrong. (He then went on to tell me, in the same breath, that 1) I should collaborate more with my co-workers, and 2) I should figure things out on my own. Then he told me that my 2.5% raise could have been 3% had I performed better. Gosh, I feel so motivated now.)
The problem is not that I was working from home too often. The problem is that he's a shit manager. All of his reports hate him. If his boss (or his boss' boss, the CEO) was fully on-board with remote work, then he'd have a harder time being such a dick about it.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
You've been modded troll, but this is pretty much accurate.
It's also not a win/win, and here's why:
1) Most people are not most productive at home. In fact, most people are significantly less productive at home due to many more distractions around them.
2) Commuting (at least relatively short commutes) has been shown to be a good way of clearing your brain, and getting it into or out of work mode. It doesn't really hurt productivity unless you're doing it for hours.
3) Skype does not make communication with coworkers a snap. It imparts a major cognitive overhead.
4) Communication does not just come down to a few meetings a week that could (with more effort) be done via Skype. By working at home you remove any chance of corridor conversations, which typically, are by far the most productive communication in an office.
Basically, working at home is not in any way good for the company, and it's usually not good for the employee at all, so most companies won't let you do it.
How is that feasible when it reportedly costs $6,000 for a driver's license? Some jurisdictions reportedly require 120 hours of logged supervised driving on a learner's permit before they will issue a license (source), and not everybody has parents who both drive and are willing to sit in the car that long. At $50 per hour for a professional instructor, it starts to add up.
How about a commute that's easily over 1.5 hours each way every day? Sitting still on highway 95 at 4:00 in the afternoon is about as far away from a brain clearing exercise as I can imagine. There's nothing better I'd rather do than literally waste 3+ hours a day with the other worker bees.
I'm a little surprised at the original asker's question, and his suggestion that the UK may be culturally behind on this aspect because what you say is true, of the US.
I've had 5 dev jobs at different employers and all of them have allowed home working. To address your points relative to the UK:
(1) I don't think this is true in the UK, developer salaries are still very much on the increase and have been for years. Companies are still stuck having to improve terms and salaries to get the necessary staff. If you can't go to market and receive job offers from at least 3 different employers with reasonable salary and benefits packages in the UK in the space of a couple of weeks as a software developer then you're doing something very wrong.
(2) I've never even heard of stacked ranking being used in the UK. I'm not entirely convinced that some elements of the way it's done in the US and used to determine redundancies would even be legal here.
(3) I don't think outsourcing in software is as prevalent here as it is in the US, I've worked at employers that used it but it's always been used in addition to, not instead of home grown talent. Experiments in outsourcing to India at places I've worked have always been failures, it's a classic case of you get what you pay for and the quality of developers being put forward by Indian outsourcing companies is beyond a joke - it costs you more to pay people locally to fix their code or even rewrite it than if you'd just hired a wholly local team in the first place. We do have offices in Eastern Europe with large teams of developers, but these teams are managed by the developers back here.
(4) Again, I don't think that's really the case here. I've seen companies that try and emulate that Silicon Valley trend but it's usually the small companies that don't know any better having dreamy ideas of being Google telling themselves that if they just do what Google do it'll all be great, but it never works like that because they don't have Google's budget to pay insane salaries so rapidly realise they need other sweeteners instead.
But beyond that there are other reasons why working from home shouldn't be a problem in the UK, not least because in the latter half of last year the UK government enforced a legal obligation on all employers to properly consider requests for flexible and home working:
https://www.gov.uk/flexible-wo...
This change in law means that unless there's a good reason to deny your request, it should be allowed. That means employers have to either start rationalising and sensibly justifying their reasons for denial, or they must simply allow it. Simply saying "No because that's different to what we've done before and we don't like change" isn't a valid response.
Personally I've tried home working in a number of different ways across various companies. At some employers it's typically been one or two fixed days every week, only adjusting if necessary to turn up for meetings. At others I've typically just homeworked during crunch time - the employer needs a 7 day week out of me for a couple of weeks running, and in return I get to do that 7 day week from home and get to bank the extra hours I do as leave. I didn't mind this, I did 22 days straight but then got all my weekend days (and a bank holiday back) so was able to use them to have a whole week and a bit off a week later post-delivery.
But I typically like to do it around certain tasks, if we're in the product concept and design phase where there's a lot of back and forth, and a lot of discussions over ideas and a lot of decision making then I come into the office. If I'm doing a rather solitary task like just churning through a bug fix list, putting together a detailed design doc once all the decisions are made, or trying to find a solution to a complex problem without any outside support then I much prefer doing that from home where I can focus on the task at hand with no interruptions, and with the be
Tell that to:
Automattic
Mozilla
GitHub
Basecamp (formerly 37signals) (who even wrote a book about how great remote working can be)
along with a myriad of other companies who work either entirely remotely, or have very liberal policies around remote working.
Most, if not all of whom, can be considered to be quite successful within their field.
It's a lot easier to tell someone at work to go away because you are busy, and there is a clear escalation path if they don't.
It is not, however, easier to tell someone at work to shut up because their noise is distracting you, and there is frequently no escalation path on that. Open-plan office and "talk out loud whenevr you like" are by design. Headphones often don't fully shut out the noise and are just a distraction in themselves.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I used to live 90+ minutes away from a previous job... I worked from home 3 days each week, then came in for two. On the days I drove, yeah it meant 3 hours of driving... but plus side, most of that drive was by myself while whizzing through the twisty roads of the Oregon Coastal Range, and having the time to myself with a stack of good music and *nobody* impinging on that time due to crap cell coverage? That was kind of nice.
Mind you, I had no kids at the house and I lived on the beach at the time, so working from home was a snap - no distractions at all. I made up for the hallway conversations with IM and impromptu huddles over the phone. The days I drove in were packed with meetings (on top of the usual phone/webex conversations), so I got approximately no keyboard time those days. I'd call it a wash though, but mostly because my employer at the time was over-siloed and under-efficient; their glassdoor ratings were and are rightfully in the toilet if that helps.
But, that aside, working from home has the following benefits:
* time alone: you can set a huge block of time aside, shut the world out, and get shit done.
* boss says you gotta work late? No problem, just a sec': " Hey babe? I gotta spend a bit more time on this today; I'll just eat in here until it's done..."
* if you live in a scenic area, just step outside and work in an awesome setting.
* as long as the webcams don't see it, put whatever the hell you want up on your walls.
* pajamas! Well, eventually you get sick of doing that and dress for work anyway, but I did kind of enjoy wearing a dress shirt over cargo shorts.
It has the following drawbacks:
* office politics: when you're remote, you don't overhear those little snatches of conversation, see expressions, and get those subtle signals that would indicate something you may want to act on, so you find yourself blindsided - often.
* culture: you often find that you slowly slip out of the company's culture, which leaves you at a disadvantage as time passes. It also means that you miss out on connecting with co-workers at any meaningful level beyond giving and getting information.
* visibility: being gone leaves you lower on the priority list for promotions, advancements, special projects, etc. because 'Out of sight, out of mind'.
* quick gathering of critical information: at work, you can see if someone's there, get what you need if they're not über busy, then get back at it. Remotely, you have to wait for a response by email, IM, whatever... and they will ignore you just as much as you tend to ignore them.
* power went out at home? Better go into the office anyway. There were a couple of times when the little coastal town I lived in lost power (once at a very inconvenient time - a Saturday evening that we had a go-live scheduled) and had to haul ass to the nearest town with both power and usable wifi (and in that one case all the way into the office.) Happens more often than you think, because apparently residential power has a lower priority (and way less redundancy) than commercial, eh?
* self-discipline: sometimes, it's a royal bitch to make yourself focus on work when all you really want to do is kick over the the gaming rig and fart around a bit online... and at home, who's gonna know? It takes a special personality trait to get started on time and stick to it (and more importantly, know when to call it a day).
All said, there's a lot of factors I left out, and it all depends on you, your employer, and what you do for a living.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Obviously you haven't ever tried to get anything moderately complex done in India. In my experience that never goes well.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
One of the things I've run into dealing with groups in India might be cultural, but it certainly can get in the way. Everyone has a job, it's strictly defined, and rarely does anyone do something that is not explicitly in their job, especially if it's explicitly in someone else's job. When it's in nobody's job, a manager can get it added to someone's job, but that seems to take a lot of discussion over who is the most appropriate person to do it, which can cause further delays. In one frustrating case, simply disabling a line in snmpd.conf to stop "public" from being an accepted community string took days to figure out whose job it was, even though several people had sudo access and could have made and documented the change.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
I've been working from home as a salaried employee for the past five and a half years. Prior to that, I worked in an office and commuted for seven years. There are pros and cons to both.
Office: The daily commute, which sucked up two to three hours of my life every day. It was definitely the worst part of my day.
Home: No commute. I spend $20 on gas every two months for short jaunts to the store, etc. The mileage on my car is ridiculously low given its age. I tend to feel less irritable, though that may have other causes.
Office: Fixed work schedule. I consider this a pro.
Home: No fixed work schedule unless you're disciplined enough to establish one (I now am). Without discipline, there is a horrible tendency to either work way too much or work not nearly enough.
Office: Rigidly separates personal life from work life (pro).
Home: No such separation exists unless you are disciplined enough to establish one (I now am). Still, days can sometimes blur together.
Office: With open-floor offices (like the one I worked in), there was always some loud conversation or other disturbance going on nearby that ruined my ability to concentrate. People walked up to me at my desk every day to ask me questions rather than send an email. Lots of unproductive meetings.
Home: Just as many distractions, but different ones (dog barking, people coming to the door, etc). However, I evolved a schedule that shifts the majority of my work time into the night/early morning hours when everything is comparatively quiet. I have far more frequent and more lengthy periods of "zoned" concentration at home than I ever did at an office A secondary benefit here is that I can plan my work around my day rather than the other way around. If I want to take five hours off in the afternoon to go drink a couple of ciders on my patio in the sun, I can do that. Or watch a football game on TV, etc. As long as I put in my eight hours, it's all good. With regard to meetings, there really aren't any other than Skype chat. I have to drive into town once every two or three months for a company meeting, typically only if we have to meet new clients face to face.
Office: Clothing is mandatory.
I take public transit from San Jose to Palo Alto because I don't have a car and, if I did, I don't want to drive through the 280/85 interchange. My commute is an hour each way. I start work at 7:00AM and go home at 3:30PM, bypassing much of the traffic nastiness. The commute into work is reliable. The commute home can be unpredictable at times due to traffic at the 280/85 interchange. The $140 per month on an express pass is well worth the money for me.
You've been modded troll, but this is pretty much accurate.
It's also not a win/win, and here's why: 1) Most people are not most productive at home. In fact, most people are significantly less productive at home due to many more distractions around them. 2) Commuting (at least relatively short commutes) has been shown to be a good way of clearing your brain, and getting it into or out of work mode. It doesn't really hurt productivity unless you're doing it for hours. 3) Skype does not make communication with coworkers a snap. It imparts a major cognitive overhead. 4) Communication does not just come down to a few meetings a week that could (with more effort) be done via Skype. By working at home you remove any chance of corridor conversations, which typically, are by far the most productive communication in an office.
Basically, working at home is not in any way good for the company, and it's usually not good for the employee at all, so most companies won't let you do it.
All sort of true.
First, a bit of background on my context. I'm a software engineer for Google, and I work from home full-time. This is not a common situation in Google, which has an institutional belief in the value of co-located teams in open-plan offices as a way to facilitate communication. Google engineering methodologies are heavy on communication and light on process and documentation. They rely heavily on face to face communication, be it over cubicle walls, in hallways, at the cafes, etc.
On its face, this appears to just about the worst possible organization in which to work remotely. But I've been doing it for over a year now, and it's working just fine -- but only because my co-workers and I make it work. It's challenging, but it absolutely can be done.
Regarding your points:
1) Productivity at home. This depends heavily on the individual. I'm motivated and I like what I do, so even with the distractions at home I'm highly productive. If anything, my challenge is to avoid working too much. That's not the same for everyone, so YMMV.
2) Commuting. Commuting sucks. Even if it's a short commute. Some people do seem to like it, though, as a way of separating home and work life. My home and work lives blend, with more of a dynamic balance between them rather than sharp separation. Personally, I prefer that, but I know not everyone does.
3) Video conferencing is not a panacea, but it can really help. I have a Chromebox on my home office desk and another in my team's "bullpen" area, which are both set to an always-on video conference, so I have a virtual presence in the team area. It's not quite the same as being there, but I can hear and participate in random conversations that happen amongst the rest of my team, at least when they're at their desks. And of course, I attend all of my meetings the same way. It's kind of funny for my co-workers who see my face on the VC unit in the bullpen as they get up to walk to the meeting room, then see me "already arrived" when they get there. Because of course for me "traveling" from the bullpen to the meeting room is instantaneous.
4) Communication is challenging. In my case it helps that Google runs on e-mail, and much communication happens that way. I do find myself out of the loop occasionally, but my colleagues are generally pretty good about letting me know stuff, and sometimes even deliberately deciding to move a conversation to e-mail in order to make sure I'm involved. The inclusive culture is a big help, even at the same time as the co-located culture creates challenges.
The bottom line, to me, is that there are pros and cons, and those pros and cons are different for different employees and different companies. In my personal case, I think I'm probably 95% as effective working from home as I would be in the office, and that only by putting in a little extra time. For me, that's great, though. I'm perfectly happy to spend the time I would have wasted on commutin
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Basically, working at home is not in any way good for the company, and it's usually not good for the employee at all, so most companies won't let you do it.
Modded to 5 completely without citation and from what I assume is mostly conjecture. Nice job.
1) Most people are not most productive at home. In fact, most people are significantly less productive at home due to many more distractions around them.
I have seen this first hand. IBM came into our company, hired all of us and then sent everyone home to telecommute. About 1/3 of the people could not cope and got fired; Your statement seems to imply that people are inherently incapable of working remotely, which is complete crap. It's a learned behaviour. The other 2/3 of my colleagues and I went on to have lengthy productive tenures at IBM (without seeing an office or each other for up to 6-10 years at a time).
2) Commuting (at least relatively short commutes) has been shown to be a good way of clearing your brain, and getting it into or out of work mode. It doesn't really hurt productivity unless you're doing it for hours.
Citation please? I'll settle for an anecdote.
While this may be a way of "clearing your brain", "getting into the zone", or whatever you call it: It's a learned routine that tells your brain "it's time for work". You do this when working remotely as well. You get a routine in place that get's your mind ready for work (even when you work at home, it's very important).
3) Skype does not make communication with coworkers a snap. It imparts a major cognitive overhead.
Cognitive overhead? If operating Skype is too difficult or a cognitive overhead for you, then yes you will need to remain on-site to flip the burgers and operate the fryer.
While I personally don't like Skype I feel that a telephone call is just as effective as an in person meeting (except I can't punch someone in the face... I'll let you decide if that's a positive or negative).
4) Communication does not just come down to a few meetings a week that could (with more effort) be done via Skype. By working at home you remove any chance of corridor conversations, which typically, are by far the most productive communication in an office.
Again I'm going to have to ask for a study that says "corridor conversations" are more productive.
How many of you attend 15 minute meetings that regularly sprawl into an hour?
"Corridor conversations" happen all the time when you work remote: Believe it or not working remotely I've been able to establish close personal relationships with people I've never met in person, yet talk to on a daily basis (just shoot the shit for a couple minutes before or after a meeting).
The fact is trucking people and resources to a central point for a few hours a day only to then have a mass exodus in the evening is not sustainable. There are more drivers getting on the roads than getting off. We can't build lanes in big cities fast enough. People are going to have to go home.
I know that in my field (Software/Systems Engineering) people aren't all that social in the first place (everyone has their headphones on all day). Nothing I do requires me, my peers or our management to be located in any specific place. All of the tools required to do my job fit in a backpack and can be easily afforded by me if required.
I've been on-site the last 5 years (after a 12 year stretch remotely) and the co-workers I talk to are fairly miserable having to commute and then sit around in a sterile office environment. I see so many people that think because they show up to warm a chair everyday yet fail to produce anything meaningful they can hold a job (and they're mostly correct). When you telecommute the employer usually has strict expectations you need to meet (it's sink or swim).
The only people I know that really push for the 'on site' mentality in my field
Sounds like your company hires second-rate people. I work from home all the time and I will not rest if anyone is depending on me for anything. It's called professionalism.
So I guess I agree.. if your employees need constant supervision then you need them in eye's reach.
Agreed about the professionalism. Eventually your figures will speak for themselves and you'll lose the position to someone who can perform even one and a half times as well as the luke-warm corpse. Working from home does provide opportunities to flex hours, but those hours should still be made up, and the projects still completed.
Given the popularity of the propensity away from this standard, employers are generally not willing to give just anyone a chance. It's their numbers that you impact as well. Basically, if you treat working from home as a free ticket to shirk work, then you are the very reason why the option has a bad reputation. The rest of us start feeling pressure against the option that we've had experience setting up and working before because someone in their past had a shameful work ethic.
It's a valid option as far as I'm concerned for IT work, but it takes the right culture, people, and infrastructure.