"We're not the same people that went home to work in early 2020," the company intoned. "There's no erasing that experience,"

Yes you are and although no one company can erase that experience, if enough return to 2019 but you're not willing...you're new experience could well be the job centre.

…to one of the many enterprises ((like my employer) which have successfully transitioned to a WFH/hybrid model, ditched the expensive office space and will happily hoover up talent from less flexible ones.

There. I fixed it for you…

Correct!

Any company that fails to offer hybrid working will struggle to attract the best talent.

Ah, the voice of the supporters of indentured servitude never cease to reinforce their Master's wishes.

On a different platform (read: any other besides here) with a larger variety of readers, your comment would have gotten a simple, and less discreet, two word reply:

"OK, Boomer"

Employers do not have a glut of useful idiots anymore. You can see all the job offers going unfulfilled on job search websites because of how much choice there is, My peers have all outright rejected jobs which demanded visits as infrequently as once a month because it allows them to not have to commute ever again.

Even offering ridiculously good pay is not enough to motivate folks to turn up to an office. Who doesn’t want to be able to make decent food 3 times a day, have full control over their immediate surroundings and be able to wear whatever they like?

You mean going in the office and spend your day in Teams meetings with those who work remotely ?

Coming back to the office, just 1 day per week, has worked OK for my team. That day is collectively acknowledged to be the least productive of the week, but it's still nice to chat to one another.

Main downside is to still need to meet though Teams with all out clients and most other teams we work with - being that the office is a rather worse environment to do it than the quiet of our homes.

I'm being encouraged to spend more time in the London office so that I can more effectively collaborate with my team who are all based in Ireland... yeah nah

"the average workday span (the gap between first and last meeting or chat) for the average Teams user had increased by 46 minutes"

Since when was the gap between your first & last meeting of the day a meaningful measure of anything?

Personally, MY "workday span" is the the time I spend in the office added to the time I spend commuting, which has gone down considerably since mostly-working-from-home thank you very much.

the thesis is presumably that WFH means people's work days "creep" longer, which seems backed up by the data. That's the point. How else do you measure if people are working longer days in a hybrid world?

Me too, I used to be 3 hours commuting every day, plus if I arived much afer 8:30 the car park would be full and I had to be very firm on not doing any work before 9am because the other members of my team finished at 4pm and I had to be there till 5 as cover. That being the sort of nitpickery that bosses like to do to justify their own jobs.

It may not be the best metric, but they really ought to come up with some way to define the work day objectively in the WFH world.

There are people who had a net gain by shaving off commuting, but there are also people who are having meetings scheduled at hours that one year before would have been outside office hours, and/or who are finding that their boss expects emails to be answered until well in the evening.

That stuff has to be defined, and then we can talk about fixing it.

I only have Outlook and Teams on my phone when the laptop is being flakey. Most of the time I quit Outlook and Teams on the laptop when I finish and then no-one can contact me till the morning. If anyone ever rang my phone they would be told I'm in the pub and can't get home till I sober up (i.e. the morning)

"...I only have Outlook and Teams on my phone when the laptop is being flakey. Most of the time I quit Outlook and Teams on the laptop when I finish and then no-one can contact me till the morning. If anyone ever rang my phone they would be told I'm in the pub and can't get home till I sober up (i.e. the morning)..."

This.

You pay for me to work a set number of hours and other than the odd pre-planned thing (due to differences for time zones etc) or the odd emergency, that is what you get. Oh and if I have to work outside of my set hours you can bet your bottom dollar I will be adjusting my working week to compensate as well.

I have a *personal* mobile telephoned. I don't put work email on it (been down that route - stopped years ago). I don't answer work numbers out of hours and I very rarely answer unknown or blocked numbers full stop.

Nor are you controlling it - nope, I won't put the MS Company Portal onto it so I can use your apps.

I do not want a work-provided mobile phone. Why do I need one? You can get me during the day on Teams/email or even my own mobile.

Mind you, I am also at that point in my career where I don't give a toss what managers* think. I am not chasing promotion or trying to better myself.

*Or anyone else for that matter.

This.

I admire a lot about the USA, but I really don't understand their toxic work culture.

You paid me for forty hours a week (or whatever) and that's what I worked. Outside that time is for very special case and emergencies only. If I'm on holiday - four or five weeks, plus bank holidays, is common in the UK - don't even think about trying to contact me. I won't be there.

And now I'm retired... well, if you want me, you're welcome to contact me. We can discuss my day rate.

That is absolutely how it should be.

Unfortunately, there are way too many jobs where it's not like that. Sometimes the worker can be forced to answer emails after hours. Sometimes they technically can't - but there is enormous informal pressure applied towards it, and no disincentive towards applying such pressure.

That needs fixing.

Personally, I'd add to standard employment contracts that sending an email outside contract hours is equivalent to asking the recipient to work overtime while implicitly agreeing to overtime pay should the recipient decide to answer. Same thing for meetings. Such actions should be logged and sent to accounts in an automated fashion - no "oh, but this is just a small thing, it doesn't count".

There is also the issue that for all those who have gained from not doing a 3 hour commute so are happy to increase the length of the working day, there are others who did not have those long commutes.

This group a slowly becoming worse off. Does going into the office, help? No, because as other comments have said, you still have to work with all those at home.

So there is now an expectation growing that one is available for work from say 7:30 through to 7 or 8 in the evening from managers. People say they are more productive but it can vary depending on what you are doing. Some days are better, some worse. That much of the productivity comes from the group who are now using their commute time as work time is not the way forward.

Commute time is (or was) just that, dead time for most people between home and work. If you fortunate to be able to work on the train then okay but that was choice. The notion of commute time automatically being work time is not great. Going forward that now means that for home workers what is the expectation, 12 hour days? The switch to home working and the gaining of time back from commuting is only valid for those that made it. That many in the situation have chosen to now incorporate that time into work is likely to end up with many of the benefits disappearing.

Yes hybrid working or 100% home working is great but some of the starry eyes need the glasses off (or is it on) to start realising what some of the potential outcomes our going to be.

"Teams user had increased by 46 minutes"

Now I am taking 2-hour lunches, instead of 1-hour - so I must be 15 minutes better off these days.

Most days I have no meetings and days with meetings are usually 1 or 2 meetings in the afternoon so according to that metric I work 2 - 3 days a week and never for more than 3 hours.

But they're going to have to pay me a lot more to get up early and sit in traffic again. Time for companies to realise that work/life balance has to include the commute time too.

Part of the problem is that they're already paying a lot less for people to work from home. At least, from the job offers I've been getting recently, remote working positions seem to be at least 10k down if not more in some cases.

Same here. I might go back to London to work from an office for 50% more, but even then I’m not sure.

The cost of commuting (especially with fuel prices DOUBLED in many cases, and new cars harder and more expensive to come by) is HIGH, from the amount of time involved to the cost of vehicles, and do not even get me started on the sacrifices often necessary to use PUBLIC transportation... (which in my case became both time AND money even though i could sleep on the train)

Also worth pointing out, the cost of maintaining an office full of people. It would be cheaper for companies to pay for special high speed internet for each employee. Ditch the buildings, order hardware online and have it shipped to home offices, and pay for high speed internet at those offices, and EVERYBODY wins!!!

(for when it is practical, of course - it's hard to make a whatsit from your home office when the assembly line and warehouse are at the site)

Assuming that the employees have a suitable office space at home to work in.

Most people on El Reg will have proper work spaces with all the appropriate equipment. There are many that don't as Home Working favours those further up the pay scale with larger houses, more rooms etc.

I have lost count of the number of Teams/Zoom meetings that become unintelligible because of background noise from kids etc.

There are other reasons as well. Apart from the kids and homeoffice setup not being idea.

Some, like SWMBO, can not switch off. She works in the living room, refusing to work in the 2nd spare room. But damned if I can get her to switch off the laptop at a reasonable hour. Even when we go out for dinner, she'll be sending the last teams msg as I wait by the door. There is always one more teams or email message to send.

It was just as bad in the office, but at least when she left - she left. Now if we leave home, i can sneakily turn the electricity off from a remotely wired switch, I presume this was for floor mounted lamps in the past. The fact that the laptop is out of power makes her have second thoughts about logging in again when we get back.

Personally, I want to go back to the office as much as I want to walk in to a room full of ferrets sans pants. But I understand some do.

There seems to be this perception that an organisation has to adopt a single model. All off site, all in the office, all doing some combination (e.g. 60/40).

Why? Some roles can be done entirely remotely, some need you in the office/shop/factory all the time. The same with people. some love the office. Some love being at home in their jim jams. Why would an employer feel that they can impose a single model on everyone and expect everyone to be happy.

I know where I sit on this continuum though I don't wear pyjamas at my desk and I am lucky to be in a role that can be done remotely. Any future job will bear this in mind. I've already turned down a job after initial enquiries found that most of the time would have to be on site in central London

Not sure I am seeing the same - there seems, if anything, to have been a surge in salaries over the last few months.

I used to work 18 miles away from home but the only routes took you through Nottingham city centre.

It was bad at the best of times - public transport wasn't an option and the route wasn't suitable for cycling for great parts of it. It could often take me 2+ hours each way. And the company had a real hard on for being in the office.

Then they closed one of the major routes in/out of the city due to structural problems on a bridge and for a few weeks that jumped to 5+ hours - suddenly remote working was acceptable.

I was long gone when lockdown hit but I know from ex-colleagues that they're still turned on for being in the office.

I wonder how long it will be before they are struggling to get staff to stay/recruit new ones.

"... tech firms are also easing their staff into office."

Given their staff's (entirely reasonable) reluctance, perhaps "difficulting" might be a better choice of word.

I dunno, it's 25 years since I did home working and it wasn't new then. It was a huge success in every way... except that managers don't like it. Their priorities are shoulder-surfing and admiring their empire, they care not a jot about people's well-being and productivity. I've gone through life thinking that any year now the idiot manager culture will come to an end, but it seems to be on the same timescale as viable nuclear fusion.

Microsoft, the maker of the original personal computer software that let you do computer stuff from a personal computer rather than needing to be in the big room with the big computer, and now makers of the team software that lets a team work together from anywhere.

Is insisting that all their workers must come and sit together in the big room with the big computer ?

Less people in the office means less managers needed. And you're wondering why the managers want people in the office?

I've been told to come in five days a week for "essential operational reasons" most of which appear to involve fielding work for people who aren't in today.

You have arranged a hybrid working pattern which miraculously includes every Friday and sunny day at home.

He hasn't been seen in-person since it all kicked off.

I know it's bad form to reply to your own post, but I've realised I used the wrong comedy sketch/series. It should be the "Class System" sketch from TW3 with John Cleese, Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett:

JC: "I am Upper Management. I am able to work effectively using modern communication techniques. This means I can keep on top of all necessary work from my home in Tuscany. Or my chalet in Klosters. I receive reports from Him [looks left to RB], and have a monthly face-to-face on Teams with him."

RB: "I am Middle Management. I go into the office three days a week, but can also hold team meetings from my home-office. Or garden, if the weather's nice. I have a daily catchup with Him [looks left to RC] either in-person or on Teams, and send a weekly report to Him [looks right to JC]"

RC: "I am a Software Engineer. I know my place. Rammed into somebody's armpit on the 06:53 into King's Cross every day so I can have Him constantly breathing down my neck rather than letting me get on with some work. [Looks left at RB]"

As already mentioned, the 'in the office' or 'at home' is a false dichotomy.

I work from home the vast majority of the time (the last time I was physically in the office was December 2021) but there may be occasions I need to go to the office a few days in a row. That is only if I need to for some reason such as to physically test / repair / commission some equipment.

Some people need to be at the workplace (production crews, for example) and some others prefer to be there for other reasons (young graduates flat sharing comes to mind) and others need their workday to be very flexible (people with young kids or older dependents fit here).

I am fortunate that where I work, this type of flexibility has been supported from the top and was the direction my particular division of the company was going even prior to Covid.

It is even good for the planet - far fewer vehicle emissions, less fuel use (a little more home electricity, admittedly).

In terms of meetings, my experience is that there are no more on teams (which we have made work quite well*) than when physically present.

Rather than focusing on time in the office, they should focus on what gets done.

* The teams I am part of have an agreement that unless the 'do not disturb' notification is on, we are free to call at any time if we have questions or comments.

It is even good for the planet - far fewer vehicle emissions, less fuel use (a little more home electricity, admittedly).

Maybe. However + can be less damaging than .

So if you used to drive 20 minutes to work each way but now have the central heating on for eight extra hours then you might be doing more environmental damage.

If you only heat the room you're working in then yes it's better for the environment. In my case it's a small bedroom that even in winter can often be adequately heated by the computer exhaust and when that's not enough I use an oil filled radiator.

I've worked from home for 12+ years. My heating controller is still set from when I used to be in an office 9-5. ie. 6.30 to 7.30 in the morning and 6 to 10 at night. In a typical year you can probably count on one (OK - maybe both) hands the number of days I need to switch the heating on during the day. Two desktop computers, two 24 inch monitors, a laptop and some other bits and pieces keep the spare bedroom notably warmer than the rest of the house. Even with the door open. One thing I noticed was when I changed the anglepoise from a proper 60 watt to LED bulb. That noticeably reduced the heat into the room.

252 percent increase in meetings for the average Teams user

So people bitch for years they can't get work done because they're in too many meetings, then they're suddenly able to track it, and SHOCK! people are in too many meetings!

I think we need a meeting to discuss the issue of too many meeting.....when are you free?

Teams is garbage a full screen nightmare of interruption

everyone has forgotten how to use email

it is far too easy to reach out in an instant for anything at all

constantly distracted as if sitting in the office typically with less important things than what you are already working on

and then will it will report you away while you are actively using it in a call or in a meeting

your calendar shows you as busy for a planned meeting no problem it shows you as ready out of office so I'll call you to see if you can help me figure out how to write and email

Well, of course many bosses want their staff back in the office !

Otherwise, how can the below otherwise ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsLUidiYm0w

You can only be active in one Team at a time so why its called Teams is beyond me.

Anyway, in Microsoft's world if your not using Teams then you aren't working. As the best bit of Team(s) is the Meetings I'm not surprised they are using this as their measurement metric.

Ironic that a company that produces tools to facilitate collaborative working remotely is looking to get everyone back in the office