> During the first quarter, Google parent Alphabet Inc. saved $268 million in expenses from company promotions, travel and entertainment, compared with the same period a year earlier, “primarily as a result of COVID-19,” according to a company filing.
Even if they hypothetically continue the WFH setting for all employees indefinitely, other costs will still creep back up once the world starts getting back to normal. They will still hold conferences (and send employees to conferences). Team events and corporate retreats will still happen. Launches won't be digital-only. Advertising will pick back up. None of this is related to whether employees are at their desks in the office or not.
What kind of scale project are you and your friend working for and which component is the problem in?
Note that I’m not disagreeing with the consequences being that there are ever growing tech debt that will live on forever and you just try to manage that and fit that into “fixit week” or “20% time”. That’s kind of the discount for why they still pay the crazy salaries for all work, not just in the teams closest to the revenue generation.
If Google were to stop attending, they risk newer generations of engineers shifting their perspective on Google, especially these days when most portrayals of Google in the media are negative.
The point of Google attending these events isn't for recruiting. It's to advertise their brand to job seekers. Seeing a bunch of candidates flocking to the Google recruiters triggers FOMO is candidates who might not have been as enthusiastic
Because that status will decline without advertising.
And this persons surely thinks "ok, the conditions are roughly the same, what is going to make sure none of my clients even bother to ask why we chose this".
So the bank picks something they know that for sure their clients won't question, and here you are. Even if a newer provider emerged with better conditions, they probably wouldn't pick it because they don't want to deal with the inevitable questions.
Plus, thanks to all the ads they might be pulling out that Visa or Mastercard when they pay for something, rather than using cash. Or they might use the Visa or Mastercard online rather than Paypal. etc etc...
There is no way that ensuring huge entities with enormous capital are able sustain their dominant position thanks to flushing cash at ads is healthy.
I've yet to see a situation where advertising was better than word of mouth, personal experience or expert feedback.
It seems it's all gain for them, no gain for us.
Source: I've been an interviewer in Google for a number of years and talked at a university at some point.
Let’s say for example you send someone to UMinnesota or UMD.
What’s the process here to get leads for internships or new grad roles?
Obviously this misses the good leads that simply don't care about your today's topic. That's in line with Google's approach being fine with a lot of false negatives.
One could argue that the money spent sending people to career fairs would be better spent on bigger signing bonuses. I assume Google uses data to make these decisions, but it could just be keeping up with the Joneses.
Two lies COVID has forcibly flushed out and helped dispel:
Lie #1: Remote work, cannot work.
Lie #2: Business travel, is a necessity.
It will be interesting to see how the corporate travel whores, spin this post-COVID in order to keep their Triple Diamond Medallion Platinum status.
So for sales/consulting, it might be fine not to travel to your customer when nobody can. Afterwards, you might want to reevaluate.
(And I am speaking as an ex-consultant that hated corporate travel).
However in a world where one company travels for conferences, lunches, in-person events, then that company will clearly have an advantage over the company that did none of those things.
Why? Because of face-to-face experience and trust building and the ability to sit beside one another and grab someone quickly. It's 100% worth the ridiculously high costs of air travel and expenses.
We got on a plane to Spain, brought some Spanish speaking folks, and crushed the issue in 3 days. Left us with 3 days to chill, and our Spanish counterparts were keen to show us around Madrid; several were locals and actually took us to see their old neighborhoods and families.
Point is, fixed the issue quick AND had added benefits of travel. As an accountant I'd not be keen on it, but as someone who has to live and work, these things are the spice of life.
I can see tech bros claiming, noshing on company catered meals, sweating in office gyms and finishing off with a massage is how world is made better place.
> It will be interesting to see how the corporate travel whores, spin this post-COVID in order to keep their Triple Diamond Medallion Platinum status.
Beautiful sentiment. I think there is "military-industrial-complex" like thing between corporate travel, hotels and airlines. So there will be enough "requirements" from clients to have face-to-face meetings, dinners and sports events to attend to. Besides off-sites and retreats are required for executives to keep the morale high of employees who do not get to travel.
'Travel whores', lol
Why do you think remote work is only feasible during a pandemic?
Remote work was feasible in part during a pandemic because it had to be. When everyone is 100% remote, things aren’t bad. If companies don’t do anything to preserve that culture from during pandemic times, when folks start returning to the office again, remote work will very likely go back to sucking. Being remote you’ll very likely be the odd person out on meetings desperately trying to hear what was said and/or struggle to get a word in with everyone else jammed in a conference room.
I agree that the odd person out being remote is often a problem but distributed teams generally can adopt effective practices. If your company doesn't? Well, there are other companies that are going to be more effective.
If they went permanent WFH they could sell/lease those spaces and probably save billions.
Not to mention the cost all the employees have to endure for traveling to work, wear on vehicles, gas, repairs, collisions, insurance, medical payouts due to car accidents, etc. Plus just generally the externalities of higher carbon emissions.
US vacancies are projected to be 19.4% nationally. On top of that, there isn’t exactly another Google-sized employer waiting in the wings over in Mountain View.
Also, because of Prop 13 those people wouldn't be paying property tax in 10 years, much like how everyone living there now isn't paying any, so Google is paying for everyone's schools and sewer systems as is.
I'm not sure what you mean. Prop 13 just caps the annual increase at 2%. I've lived in California and owned property here for 30 years. I pay property taxes.
Similar to how if you rent the same place for long enough and it's rent controlled your rent effectively gets cheaper even though it's going up.
Asymptotically at infinity, you're not wrong.
I'm probably not living that long though. Meanwhile taxes do go up every year in real money.
There was an attempt to fix this for businesses just last year, but it failed because homeowners were convinced it was a plot to get them.
Pre and post pandemic I'm still communicating with coworkers via email and slack, on the monitor. No difference at all.
Well, one difference is I used be able to hear them munch on their snacks a couple cubicles over, but I can do without that part.
Also, erasing the two hour commute, total win.
I have a co-worker (generally a lovely person) who is about ready to explode when she hears someone crunching on an apple.
WFH, I can now eat an apple without self-consciously slow-crunching.
Did you mean "rapport" and "role"? Because that sentence was a bit confusing.
To whom? Everybody is moving to work from home.
For the investment bank, many of the employees work in New York City and use a train (or bus) to commute. That is pretty low carbon intensity.
It’s totally fine to ask everyone to stop eating meat, but millions of Americans running their cars to/from the office everyday? Not a peep.
Our politicians and business class are wholly unserious about this as they were about COVID-19.
Also, if it's just about the perks mentioned, those perks might be part of what retains employees.
Software project‘s actually have less delay than usual. Don‘t get me started on why every project is ‚late‘. We‘re not even allowed to work overtime while we‘re at home.
We do see problem‘s with new hires though. They have a harder time integrating into their team.
I would be very surprised. I'm connected to the tech events space and the widespread assumption is that events will go back to physical while maintaining a strong online component going forward to continue to reach more people.
Source: A lot of my Googler friends are itching to get back into the office -- whether parents or people whose social lives centered around work.
Ninja Edit: Google has already announced their return to work plans, which involves substantially returning to physical office spaces. From early April: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/04/01/google-wan...
You know what hurts productivity more? The soul-crushing experience of missing out on watching your kids grow up because you're spending all day in an office or commuting. If you work from 9-6, and commute an hour each way, that basically means you hardly see your kids at all five days out of the week. That level of depression and alienation is going to do far more to hurt output. By comparison, the productivity impact of taking five minutes to give my daughter a kiss before she takes a nap is a de minims by comparison.
The people I work with are all great and interesting people. But frankly, I'd infinitely prefer to spend my lunch hour and coffee breaks and happy hours with my wife and kids. This may just be my preference, but I don't see how anyone with kids could actually prefer being alienated in an office instead of at home with their loved ones.
COVID-19 has been a huge quality of life boost for me.
After working at home for ~13 months now, it will be very hard for me to go back to the office. I have young kids at home and getting to spend extra time with them every day is a huge gift, on top of having no commute. There are some negatives, but I feel just as productive and more engaged.
Here in Sydney, Australia, both office and WFH are available at my work. I'll have anywhere between 0% and 90% of my team in the office depending on the day or week.
In my experience, even being the only one in the office is a thousand times better than WFH.
Whether teammates are WFH affects me less than whether I'm WFH.
I used to be out of the house from 7:30 am to ~6:30 pm depending on commute, so it wasn't like that my time anyway. Now I'm working a slightly longer day, because during it I'm taking an hour to make my kids lunch, an hour to interact with them in the afternoon, some random downtime here and there when they pop their heads in, etc.
As schools reopen my plan is to basically just to set my core working hours to the schoolday which is going to be at 8:15 am to 3:30 pm and then I'll log a bit more in the evening if needed. We normally have the kids do some reading before bed to start winding them down and I can easily sit there with my laptop while the kids read. so many of the other parents I've seen struggle are the ones that rigidly stick to 9 to 5 vs a concept of "I should do about ~8 hours of work today". Those are the ones that really seem the most vocal about wanting the office back. Which honestly if that is what they want, that's fine. They can be the office crew and have the commute, pay for childcare, etc. I'm not looking to get back on that grind though.
I do feel bad for parents were both parents are constantly on Zoom. We're lucky in that we were able to rig it so all my meetings at AM meetings and my spouse has PM meeting, so we can have an on call parent most of the time. For families were both parents work sales, this probably sucks. Although I've seen some people in sales do enterprising things like setup little pods of rotating babysitting so they can just not schedule calls during their day to watch all the kids in the pod (do their reports or whatever).
I think going forward two things I'll advocate for at work is flexibility during summer hours and for parents with kids too young to be handed a Redwall novel and told to read quietly for a bit. Both are forms of investing your employees as short term thing for long term benefit since after all eventually the children get older (or you at least end up with a more mature child that can do tier 0 support duties and escalate to mom or dad when needed).
Surely not a bigger productivity cost than a coworker doing the same thing, though.
Assuming you're driving yourself, this is universally a productivity killer. You risking a huge amount of frustrating and angering situations while your workers are commuting to a central location. I'd put good money on a lot of lost productivity to commute.
Then there's the people who have to commute, due to functionally in-person jobs (artisans, doctors, baristas, etc.). Optional commuters going to the office for their "social fix" are doing so at the expense of forced commuters. Work should be work and social should be social; if you want a social experience during work hours then have a social lunch in your neighborhood.
It is unclear why, having complained about being forced to work from the office, the set of employees happy to work from now think imposing their preferences on everybody else is supposed to be better for everyone.
In fact I simply miss the ritual of leaving my home and returning every day. I’ve been doing this for a few years, though.
Long dog walks have helped.
Productivity is not the end all be all. It's ok to look out for yourself.
And I'm renting a small office near the house for pandemic purposes to have a quiet space to work. But being two minutes away instead of an hour away is night and day. I can be home and back multiple times a day, in same time than it took to walk to the snack dispenser at the office.
So live closer to work. Google pays enough for people to do that. The schools are usually better too.
B) Prices can become extreme near campus buildings because landlords know they can charge exorbitant prices and still find a tenant.
C) Moving to a more expensive place impacts you _and_ the rest of your family via shared rent, utilities, etc..
D) Your significant other, if you have one, may not work at the same company. So you may end up shortchanging your spouse and taking time away from them and their lives?
I'm not advocating for living literally right next to campus. But to say you can't compete is disingenuous. The whole reason Mountain View is so expensive is because there are so many engineers from Google who can afford it.
No they don't.
Go look up house prices right around campus on Trulia. I would say it's shocking, but disgusting is a more apt feeling.
You can buy a home nearby. Sunnyvale has homes for $2m or less and you can afford it at $600K household. Very reasonable commute.
If you want 3000+ sqft and 5-bath homes then yeah, you're out of luck. Hit executive level or startup riches for that one.
To act like Google doesn't pay enough to afford a home in Bay Area though is BS. The whole reason the area is so expensive is because FAANG pays so damn much to keep pulling in more talent. (It's a cycle)
Also - you could rent. Most eng I meet at FAANG have no interest in ownership out of principal. They just want investment potential. Renting is frequently very good. Only reason you'd buy is for leverage but you won't get good leverage here in SFBA because you have to do all cash offer. So, just invest in market instead.
For married couples above 30 with one high TC earner - it's extremely common. You're not marrying a barista in SF if you work at FAANG. I haven't met anyone who is married, above 30, who also works at FAANG, the spouse can legally work in the country, and the household income is below $500K. I know that seems like a lot of qualifiers but basically a married couple that both have working abilities - if one is at FAANG, the other is likely at FAANG or similar (or a doctor or a lawyer or an executive or whatever - very common).
I'd have to really stretch to find anyone who I've met with high TC that isn't also married to another with high TC (besides SAHM/SAHD - where the one earner is usually an exec, so homes are still not too expensive for them).
I'm not talking about non-FAANG employees btw. If you work somewhere that doesn't pay well - then ok. You have to suffer like every other American does. I'm saying that if you work at FAANG - it's a bullshit excuse to commute an hour each way. (I mean - FFS - a lot of them have shuttles where you can clock in on even if you do live further away) It's a choice at that point. They pay you a lot so you can be close to their campus. High earners typically marry high earners. It's financial suicide to do otherwise. (Bye-bye 1/3 of your income for 18 years when you inevitably get divorced)
You may have a very limited circle of folks you talk to and are willing to share such details with you. Myself and a number of close friends do not have a $500k TC household as married couples. Not even close.
> It's financial suicide to do otherwise. (Bye-bye 1/3 of your income for 18 years when you inevitably get divorced)
Maybe I misunderstood you but you're saying you should marry someone who earns similarly to you because of the inevitable divorce? I'm not sure I follow, you're advocating to marry for the financial prospects first because marriages end in divorce?
I’ve seen enough people have their marriages end and have insanely high and long term alimony payments even after the other partner has moved on and pseudo-married someone else. (But hasn’t legally married them because then they don’t get their alimony) Until marriage is treated like a business contract where consequences are agreed to before signing, it’s a terrible idea to marry someone in a lopsided financial situation unless you don’t care about any kind of risk. You’d never be able to get/afford insurance for such an incredibly risky venture.
The point is.. going into work is a waste of time most of the time. That’s why a lot of companies are doing flex schedules now.
This is not true. Maybe people are confusing principal with senior?
That or you're counting multi-year stock grants in the current year.
Principal engineers (L8) at Google/Facebook make around $1M a year, and $1.5-2M is not unheard of.
Source: spouse is management level at G of FAANG. Those numbers don't match up with reality in general. For a few edge cases, sure. Not for most people.
I also have multiple friends that work at Google, and can confirm that their numbers fall squarely into the bands described on levels.fyi. (In fact, they're often taking home considerably more, due to the aforementioned stock growth and stacked refreshers.)
1) your spouse is not in the engineering management track and isn't familiar with the payscale
2) your spouse works in an office with a lower payscale due to regional considerations (though this wouldn't make the numbers look realistic even in "LCOL" US offices, so it'd need to be international)
3) there's some misunderstanding about levels or something else. That Principal Engineers (L8 - three levels above Senior) make 900k-1M out of the gate isn't really disputed; they tend to make a bit more at Facebook, even.
Good thing Google only employs senior engineers... 
> The whole reason the area is so expensive is because FAANG pays so damn much to keep pulling in more talent.
No it isn't. That isn't the reason at all. The reason is a bunch of literal rent-seeking wealthy old people who fight new housing projects at every possible turn so they can sell their house for $2 million, or die and leave it to their kids, who will then sell it for $2 million.
> Most eng I meet at FAANG have no interest in ownership out of principal.
Press X to doubt.
OKR: Improve customer feedback ratings from 4.2 to 4.5+ stars
Result: Customer support personnel start handing out free upgrades/bonuses/merchandise to complaining customers, resulting in many 5 stars reviews and while not solving any problems customers are facing, still achieving the OKR.
Measuring performance by numbers instead of personal judgement (from managers/team leads) is problematic.
Edit: It certainly makes sense in some departments (like decreasing page load time from 2 seconds to 1 but forcing that across all verticals is retarded.
 then again you could achieve that for example by deleting all JS from the site
In your example, the "O" would be something like "provide a good experience for app users" and a "KR" would be "improve star ratings from 4.2 to 4.5". The "O" helps keep you focused on what you actually care about, making the metric subservient to that goal.
Improved feedback rating is a result, not an objective on its own. It could be filed under, say, "improve customer experience with the app". That objective would have many (3-5) results that you track, with improving feedback being just one of them. Others could be improving page load times (as you mentioned), adding critical missing functionality, or whatever else. These results can also be based on subjective opinions, but need to be somewhat measurable (otherwise how do you know whether you made things better?) Ultimately if you made good enough progress in each of these KRs, you can consider the objective achieved.
Whatever alternative methods (judgement of managers) is up for debate though, I didn't say I had a good one. Just that OKR's in my mind are a waste of time for the most part, especially when you make the whole organization do them.
And look at products like Facebook, they seem to be built solely on OKR's.
I suspect post-pandemic it will be similar. Someone who works at Google can probably afford a nanny. It's just because people aren't comfortable with others in their home right now that it's a problem.
On the flip side Atlassian just came out and said the reverse. https://www.smh.com.au/business/small-business/four-times-a-...
> The incentives that made SV great in the 1960s were killed off by politicians choking the golden goose.
Nah, it's still there. It will be there as long as California bans noncompete agreements. (California being expensive is not because of politicians, it's because the voters want it to be expensive so they can sell you their house.)
I am overall responsible for the team that produces and figures out developer productivity metrics for Google.
I can assure you there is lots and lots of real data on this, so there isn't a lot of need for random supposition based on people's desires (WFH vs not) and biases. There are too many comments in this thread to read every single one, but most suppositions i read seemed just to reflect biases and personal preferences rather than any real data.
It's IMHO a little odd to see people assume that any really successful tech company is not going to be able to figure out and succeed at maintaining whatever overall level of productivity they want (IE pre-covid, pre-covid-50%, pre-covid+50%). The ability to adapt and be productive/effective in changing conditions is often one of the things that makes companies successful in the first place.
The thing that is much harder to fix is stuff like personal well being.
I actually really wish i could (and other companies could), because I think it would make for some really interesting papers/studies/etc.
We normally publish a bunch of our productivity, inclusion, etc research in journals and conferences. For example, https://www.computer.org/csdl/journal/ts/5555/01/09361116/1r...
For this particular topic, I believe we have published some small amount of stuff, and there is some public info in articles like this:
But I know for both us, and others i've talked to, there is a bunch of good reasons folks don't want to publish the more raw data, some privacy, some competitive, some legal, etc.
In this case, not releasing the data often means we don't publish more formal papers or studies because of the inability to make the underlying data available with the paper (for example).
I will say while this situation is a bit sad to me from an academic perspective, pragmatically, even with all the data from us, MS, apple, etc, i don't think it would pragmatically answer the broader questions for a whole ton of reasons.
It's definitely useful for research and further exploration, and trying to distill overall considerations and insight. It's probably useful on the internet to spike someone who says "WFH is more productive" or "Office is more productive".
But it also won't tell you what the future of work should be for your company.
It also feels that some way of improving this group of people in general is sorely needed -- how does the G2G program work exactly?
ninjaedit: found this https://rework.withgoogle.com/guides/learning-development-em... . Will evangelize at my company… probably will be ignored though because I'm an IC.
Add to that my ability to help around the house. Before I was basically absent from the house for 9-10 hours a day M-F. Now I can make my kids lunch, go on a walk with them, or sign off a little early and go to a park.
Riiiiight... Kids are often not as big a distraction as the immature coworker(s) who can't be bothered to, you know, shut up and actually work.
Well... are they really itching to get back into the office, or just itching for day cares to open back up?
There are pros and cons with office work and WFH, and some people prefer one over the other. A full remote arrangement isn't for everyone, despite how the overwhelming number of introverts on HackerNews paint it as the objectively the best way going forward for all companies.
The community is divided on divisive issues. It's as simple as that.
I'm also a bit put off by the "it's so great not having a commute" people. Commuting does suck, but they voluntarily signed up for it. Meanwhile those that chose tiny apartments near their offices didn't sign up for spending all day in cramped quarters trying to work from a couch.
They literally did. I don't see any difference between choosing living an hour from work or choosing living in a cramped up flat near work.
Hacker news is no more pro work from home then people IRL I see.
And division among people I know in person is not introvert/extrovert at all. It is more about living arrangement and family. Single people living alone want to go to work. Those who have family and expect their partners to do all childcare, prefer to go to work and socialize with colleagues after work. Those who have kids and want to be present fathers or have partners with equally important work want to work from home.
My point is this: If you have to be effective working remotely you will be effective working remotely.
It's also possible that wfh was beneficial in the short term, with projects already mostly planned and the benefits of in-person collaboration continuing via inertia, but will be detrimental long term. Maybe. I don't know.
And that is the big kicker to me: too many unknowns to definitively say one way or the other.
Might be. Depends on the company too.
That's not to say you don't make good points, I just can't imagine your points outweighing what I perceive as more heavily influencing factors.
I work for an international American SW company in Czechia. We have a big office there, but for the first ~8 years there (since 2006), I was the only person working with a team of Americans, or only with a teammate, because they "outsourced" work to us. It was more annoying than WfH today, I remember all the really incomprehensible phone calls (no reliable video, only screensharing), making sure I get everything I need done in the morning so I could batch the questions for afternoon due to time zones, etc. And yet, my bosses were happy about my performance (more than they are today).
(It's interesting when I think about it now, IMHO constant communication can have downsides, too. There is something about having a half day where it's only you who has to solve a problem, and no one can help, you will learn a lot.)
OTOH, I was never a big fan of work from home, but I tried it now and I found it more pleasant with almost no downside. It's very similar to how I used to work in the era of "outsourcing", actually it's much easier.
To sum up, outsourcing was efficient but individual WfH isn't? Gimme a break, of course it's propaganda.
This is a huge one for me and anyone more productive in the morning, I'm no longer wasting an hour of my most productive time just getting to work. Then you've got the extra 2 hours a day to relax and get various things done that also make me more productive.
I was talking to someone at a large financial company (think 10s of thousands of employees). Their workplace productivity went through the floor when things went work from home. They were willing to allow work from home for now to keep people safe, but will not be continuing in the future due to the efficiency loss.
A lot of people don't want to hear this, but it's the truth.
Work from home where I work has been kind of awful from a communication and camaraderie standpoint, even though the company was already rather heavily invested in remote work, Google chat, etc.
In normal circumstances , even with much more WFH, they'd still pay for regular company get togethers. They'd pay for more satellite offices. They'd pay for conferences because making cross industry connections and promotion is important.
These savings don't mean much. Even more so if they lead to a potential dip in efficiency (not arguing that's the case, mind you) or reduced employee retention. Less personal engagement leads to less attachment to the company.
The effects of that are barely visible after a year.
Mostly from advertising, some 87%. Funny to think in their initial whitepaper, Brin and Page were heavily arguing against paid (sponsored) ads in search result of a search engine, as it would skew the results to the point where people would stop using it.
Walmart by comparison makes $17,730 per second.
I think the "your boss expects/forces you to" interpretation from the grand parent isn't generally what happens (at Google). I haven't seen that at all. It's rather more common that you realize on your own that a certain amount of travel is highly effective for building and maintaining the relationships you need to do your job.
This is extremely strongly correlated with your distance from HQ and with the seniority of your position in the company.
For what it's worth, I hold a reasonably senior role (at Google) in EMEA and I'm living off of the relationships I built in the two years prior to the pandemic. I traveled nearly 25% of the time then. Ask your nearest director+ in EMEA engineering and they'll recognize this at least in principle. This is likely to be very similar in other companies that are globally distributed but with a strong epicenter somewhere. I don't think it's particularly Google specific except in that Google engineering isn't very top down/command-and-control, so relationships in a complex org are an even more important tool for getting things done than they would be in a more hierarchical environment.
ie, sales would work equally well if everyone did it via Zoom calls. But if one competitor is willing to send reps in-house for in-person meetings, and the rest are just scheduling Zooms... I can see the industry quickly collapsing back into constant sales travel, if there's even a small marginal gain from face-to-face meetings
(or dinners, or drinks, or whatever else sales reps do to close a deal)
Gyms have been closed for many months, but that doesn't seem to imply that exercising is not important.
100k employees, each spending 10k/year on business travel... $1B.
The company could choose not to spend this money even without COVID, but it normally chooses to spend it, presumably because it considers the benefits worth it.
Personally, the difference in working atmosphere before and after I visited coworkers from a different country was massive, and likely well worth the travel expenses for the company.
On site employment, car loans and car payments, expensive rent in poorly managed or unsustainable counties—the potential for behavioral change is enormous.
If employees want to work remotely after Sept. 1, for more than 14 additional days per year, they’ll have to formally apply for it, according to a separate note marked “Need to know.” They can apply for up to 12 months in “the most exceptional circumstances.” The company could, however, call employees back to their assigned office at any point, the note said.
From what I understand, you still need to relocate if you get a job offer.
But the "you need to formally apply for every remote day and 14 is the absolute cap per year" is not the case.
What do you mean. Obviously they believe the $1B in cost saving. But what they do also believe is that the value generated by people being in the office will exceed the obvious short term costs.
I know it isn’t for everyone though.
so.. thats a combination of unnecessary spend, and cost-shifting: some of this, the employees now "self fund" as well as avoid.
Coming from Google, where you definitely do not need to bow and scrape before Jeff and Sanjay, and even if you did they are both gods who are more than qualified to comment on your ideas, the Dropbox system was a big shock.
I get that this isn't true for everyone.
WFH will impact Google's retention. It is no longer a differentiated company.
If the lunch is worth $12 to the employee, Google would have had to otherwise pay them $20 to leave them with enough to buy lunch after tax if their marginal rate was 40% combined. Google can probably provide it for $10, which is likely at least 50% deductible to Google.