The Real Reasons Companies Won't Hire Telecommuters (oreilly.com)

Long-time Slashdot reader Esther Schindler points us to a new article at OReilly.com: Those of us who telecommute cannot quite fathom the reasons companies give for refusing to let people work from home. But even if you don't agree with their decision, they do have reasons -- and not all of them are, "Because we like to be idiots." In "5 reasons why the company you want to work for won't hire telecommuters", hiring managers share their sincere reasons to insist you work in the office -- and a few tips for how you might convince them otherwise.
The arguments against telecommuting range from "creativity happens in the hallway" to "the extra logistics aren't worth it," and the article suggests the best counterarguments include pointing out a past history of successfully telecommuting and allowing your employer to gradually transition you into a remote position. And if all else fails, just become a "rock star," because according to one tech placement company, "For the right talent and when a role has been open for a very long time, they tend to give in."

Comments

Re:Some good points.

[RabidReindeer]

I've been mentoring junior developers for years, and there's been absolutely no uncertainty about which ones were struggling. Or which ones were overjoyed to be guided and which were just hoping I'd do their job for them,

Some of them were even located on the same continent I am.

Though I've never met any of them face-to-face. Or even voice-to-voice.

Re:How is this news?

[RabidReindeer]

Sorry. That's shit, too.

People who are well-motivated and self-driven can work without someone continuously breathing over their shoulder.

People who are slackers can slack off just as well in the middle of a crowded office. Dilbert's fellow-employee Wally is alive and well and I've had the questionable honor of working in offices with many of his clones over the years.

People who have to be forcibly driven to work are going to resent it and the results are going to show in the quality of their work. Although, what am I saying - qualify took back seat to cheap and fast years ago.

Personally, my home office is organized and equipped a lot better than most employer-supplied workspaces I've been given. I can have a comfortable chair because it doesn't have to conform to HR's ranking of who gets what kind of chair based on whether one is a manager or not (even to the point of whether it should be floral or plaid). I don't spend my time looking for items to set fire to because the office thermostat isn't set to arctic levels in the misguided idea that the colder it is the more "productive" i am. I don't arrive at work in a bad mood because of the commute or connive to quit early in order to avoid the rush and I can even adapt my working schedule to be more friendly to natural body rhythms by taking a break in the middle of the afternoon and returning to work in the evening since I don't have a long commute in and out of work.

I don't even talk to headhunters who expect me to work exclusively on-premises anymore.

The real reason

[Locke2005]

Companies pay people for being at their desk 8 yours a day (and yes, HP payed me for doing nothing for over a week). If companies actually payed people based on the results they produced rather than being warm bodies at a desk, then they wouldn't have any problem with where they were when they produced those results. The "need to be in the same room" is bullshit, because I've been forced to work with coworkers on the other coast and even overseas while sitting at my desk -- I even have a direct manager in another state. Granted, the real reason they don't like you working at home is they can't directly monitor the hours you work.