In all this mess, good thing is that no one is controlling if you work from office 3 times a week for a long time. So stay home, learn new skills, and send those applications
8 replies (most recent on top)
@228 - It's wild how some folks keep defending selective WFH like they're out here making some kind of heroic sacrifice nobody else could possibly understand but here's the thing — if WFH genuinely 'benefits the company more than the employee,' then why isn't it on the table for everyone? You can't turn around and sell it as a business win while only sliding it within a circle.
And let's keep it real, long hours aren't some exclusive club. Plenty of people across this org are grinding 10–14 hour days without batting an eye. If that's the golden ticket to remote work, then the policy better apply across the board not just to whoever happens to be in the manager's good graces.
Now, if someone's got an official remote work agreement locked in? Totally different conversation — respect it. But handing out blanket WFH passes to a select few while holding everyone else to a different rulebook? That's not a perk — that's favoritism with a dress code and that's exactly why trust is walking out the door.
This is how you end up with a culture that's rotting from the inside. Internal bias, quiet resentment and a fairness problem nobody wants to officially acknowledge. Everyone's out here wishing for some 'Elon Musk' energy to swoop in and fix things but even the sharpest leadership can't course-correct a culture where a handful of people play by different rules while everyone else is expected to fall in line.
So real question, why does WFH or honestly any benefit keep finding its way to the same chosen few every single time? That's not policy. That's a pattern
@228 This is true IF you believe in your company or you enjoy the work you do. But for THIS company, and for many of us working here, it is not true. Most of us who have not yet been riffed are either waiting to be let go and retire, or are actively looking for a different employer.
I used to happily put in far more than 40 hours per week because I liked the work and I liked being productive. It was like being paid to eat ice cream. But lately, that ice cream has changed if flavor, and my attitude toward my job has changed. I no longer put in any more effort than what the job requires.
work from home benefits the company more than the employee. the employee usually works more hours and through eating schedules or breaks. along with oncalls or later hours. in reality the worker is putting in 10-14 hours of work a day than less than 8.
@1z8 this is so true..in my team we have two team members at one location..if I don't go to office for one week they immediately send the mail and do all kinds of stupid things but at the same time my colleague rarely comes to office and no issues with it.
@kc - Let’s be real — WFH isn’t some equal‑opportunity benefit. It completely depends on how close you are to your manager. A select few get to work from home indefinitely because their manager pushes their case, and there’s zero oversight or policy to verify any of it.
Some of these folks are even traveling within the country or abroad while refusing to come into the office, and they get away with it because they know their manager will cover for them. Meanwhile, everyone else is expected to follow the rules, and if they slip even a little, they’re labeled non‑compliant. That kind of favoritism destroys the culture fast.
What’s even more frustrating is that leadership allows this to continue. One person is basically running their own little kingdom, and the entire team pays the price. And honestly, most people won’t speak up because they’re the primary earners in their families and can’t afford to risk their jobs — even though the whole setup is blatantly unfair.
I don't even bother. I go in once every couple of weeks. A few times I went in after 2 months. The constant layoffs reminded me to not give a **. Why bother commuting just to log into Teams. Management says you can collaborate with others in the office even when none of your colleagues are even in the same state as you. Laughable.
Age and responsibilities will color reactions, many have families, mortgages, health insurance coverage, etc.. Being able to replace an income/benefits is much harder. The job market is not as flexible. Having to access savings or retirement accounts at a later point in a career means less time to replace them. Severance/unemployment is a cushion with an end date. What happens after that?
If you are earlier in your career without as many responsibilities, it is easer to absorb the change. While looking for positivity might be one coping mechanism, it's going to land differently for everyone.
@OP you sound very young.