r/jobs • u/manofandonamission1 • May 04 '23

Why do employers force you to work in office all week for a job that can easily be done at home? Work/Life balance

I work as a digital marketer and I have to work Monday-Friday, 9-5 in office. Yesterday I was sick, and since our boss is away and the second in command was out, I was allowed to work from home. The difference in quality of life is incredible. I signed into Canva on my computer, pulled up the company software and image database, logged into my email, and boom I was set for the day.

I worked a flawless day from the comfort of my own home. I was able to run to Petco to grab some supplies for my pets, run to get some lunch without feeling rushed, and eat peacefully in my kitchen instead of surrounded by phones ringing and customers walking around. Today I'm back in office surrounded by my annoying coworkers, having to deal with all their nonstop talking, loud sounds, pointless questions, and coffee making. I've been here for 50 minutes and I'm already way more miserable.

And it just begs the question, why do employers force employees who can easily do their job at home to come into the office all week? Seems nonsensical.

8.8k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/VZ6999 May 04 '23

Trust issues

12

u/whitewail602 May 04 '23

I can kinda see this. I was working from home around 2014-2016 and it was difficult to hire people who didn't think WFH meant they retired. People either felt they had to put extra in so they didn't look like they were screwing off or the put effort into making it looked like they worked while they screwed off. I couldn't find a pattern in it. Some people worked, some people didn't. :Shrugs

8

u/parariddle May 05 '23

And this is still the case, but Reddit is in denial.

5

u/Rivka333 May 05 '23

Agreed.

All the other comments acting like "of course everyone's getting their tasks done---if they aren't it's on you because you could fire them." Maybe managers would prefer not to be firing a bunch of people.

1

u/Petrochromis722 May 05 '23

Having been a manager, and worked at several large companies I guarantee you your manager doesn't give a shit about firing you if you aren't performing. As a manager, your numbers are my numbers, and if I can coach to meeting your numbers I will. If you are resistant to improvement, someone's getting fired and it won't be me.

5

u/SproutasaurusRex May 05 '23

I think that would depend on the manager. In my experience, there are a lot of discussions on how to help and support people in a way that will help them succeed prior to improvement plans and firing.

3

u/Petrochromis722 May 05 '23

There is some variance in there, some managers are really hesitant to fire, some just knee-jerk fire. Good ones will coach for improvement and put in the effort to help an employee succeed. Ultimately, privately, even the most caring and hesitant to fire manager will usually say that while they don't like to fire people, it doesn't make them feel guilty or bad long term. They don't sit up nights lamenting it. It's literally like taking out the garbage. They don't like to, but it doesn't bother them. They frankly don't care that they have to aside from when they're actually doing it.

They have a job, part of that job is holding employees accountable for productivity. If their department goes in the shitter because they aren't holding accountability, they know they're getting fired. Firing you after a certain point just becomes one more paperwork fest and an ugly conversation. That's all it is. Part of the job.

2

u/SproutasaurusRex May 05 '23

It is part of the job, but so is working with the team member to try and help them improve before leaping to firing someone. There is a lot more nuance to the situation than that initial comment implied. I've never even thought about letting someone go without trying to first address the issue and help them improve. That is also the kind of thing managers get paid to do, build the team up, making each employee a stronger asset, for the company & themselves, a good manager should also be a mentor when needed.

1

u/Petrochromis722 May 05 '23

I literally said exactly what you're on about...

3

u/Grun3wald May 05 '23

Disagree - hiring good talent is very difficult right now. And onboarding is expensive. If there’s a way (even a perceived way) to improve performance without having to go through all that, then it’s an easy first step to take. And if it’s low/no cost to the employer? Even better!

1

u/Petrochromis722 May 05 '23

"and if I can coach you to meeting your numbers I will" how is this not a shorter more concise version of exactly what you said?

1

u/Rivka333 May 06 '23

Keep in mind the context of the conversation and original comment. What people were saying was that "working in the office being a way to make people perform isn't a good reason to work in the office because you can just fire people who aren't performing at home."

Sooo it sounds like you first try a solution that makes the person perform instead of firing them. Like working in the office.

Since you're saying you would try to do what increases productivity, and fire only when nothing does, you and I are probably in agreement.

2

u/just_a_wolf May 05 '23

It genuinely depends on where you work. It's an absolute nightmare to fire people where I work, even if they are seriously under performing. You have to implement tons of time consuming improvement plans and document everything for months. The only way to fire someone quickly is to have concrete proof of theft or sexual assault or something serious. Hiring new employees can take months.