PhineasC

As an employer, if two people produce equally but one comes to the office to work side-by-side with the team every day and the other sits at home on his couch and barely knows his coworkers, you will choose the former every time. That's just basic human nature and a smart decision for team health. Humans are social animals. Many of those who argue they hate the "schmoozers" are just socially dysfunctional people envious of those who can network and talk to the boss without getting overly nervous. I see that all the time. Often, they aren't even very good at their own jobs; humans are really bad at noticing their own failings but really good at noticing the supposed failings of others. I wouldn't personally be super proud to be a militant WFH supporter who thinks working side-by-side with other humans is weird and old-fashioned. It's not a great look, IMO. WFH has its place and is an important part of a balanced corporate HR strategy, but it has major limitations too, especially for junior employees.

Several of my employees have stated they want to return because they need a break from home/kids/spouse. I get that. Being home all day every day while trying to work 40+ hours a week is not for everyone. It can be especially hard if your house is small and you have many noisy kids.

Sheesh, it seemed really rough a couple weeks ago when I went there last. I can't imagine what it looks like now. Sounds like you had a good time which is all that matters.

65

Yeah, I can see the appeal as a means of exercising that happens to include a downhill skiing aspect. It definitely wouldn't replace lift-serviced skiing, basically just complements it, for me at least.

How many runs do you guys do on a typical day of skinning? I have never done it. It sounds like it would take a while to skin all the way up a slope and be pretty tiring.

I found the narrative of "gloomy cloudiness" in NNE for days on end to be a little overblown. I spent a year in NNH and it was sunny a lot. It didn't seem to me to be that different from MD. Nothing noticeable at least. Maybe Stein had something to do with it. We have had very long stretches with very little precipitation.

It surely wasn't tested widely back in 2003 if there was no market for it. Let's not swing too far the other way by pretending it is established technology for a vaccine.

Former NFL player... have to assume a traumatic brain injury situation.

The term "mass shooting" is only used in certain contexts when it is politically expedient to do so. Plenty of large scale shootings are not called a "mass shooting," for instance most gang shootouts in urban areas.

It seems like we are talking about two different kids of loyalty. The kind of situation you are talking about where a Boomer worked somewhere for 30 years in the same exact job role before being unceremoniously dumped without a pension happens all the time... because it isn't 1960 anymore. I never suggest someone stay put forever without moving up the ladder. That's not a good plan. I have this dialog all the time with other business leaders in my industry. "Butt in seat" time is no longer what it once was. You need to shake up your career sometimes or you will be overtaken by someone else. That's part of the price of the expended global job market and free trade everyone wanted. That said, if you jump, it needs to be a forward move, not a lateral one. A bunch of lateral moves make you look fickle and unable to cope with stress and conflict at work. It's basically the Tinder dating of employment. Just swipe when you are bored of your job or your coworker is being mean. There is still a strong market for loyal employees with in-demand skillsets and they very quickly climb the ladder and do well. They don't stagnate, so the example of the guy who spent 30 years putting lids on jars during the third shift only to be fired and replaced with a robot doesn't really apply to them. I don't disagree that the larger job market is more of a commodity deal. People come and go at will.

The AI has assumed control.

Yes, that is a bad situation and happens too often.

If you have an in-demand skill and can walk the walk, then being a merc is fine. Just don’t whine when you suddenly get fired in favor of a better merc.

You guys are out of touch if you think employers running businesses in sectors that are in-demand do not reward loyalty and hard work. Maybe in commodity work like burger flipping and low-skilled labor that is the case. In my biz, we definitely reward hard work with fierce loyalty. Most of our employees have skills that are extremely hard to replace.

Plenty of 20 somethings applying here who have been job hopping since they were teenagers... It's become a cultural thing as much as anything else. These aren't usually rugged and jaded Boomers I am seeing jump all over the place.

Loyalty still gets you something at small businesses and if you are climbing the ladder well. If you are strictly a punch the clock guy who cruises at the "generally adequate" level, agree 100%. I understand why people job hop, but I have noticed that people have started to turn it into a regular thing versus something that is done situationally. You don't job hop and move laterally. You job hop to move upwards. If I see a resume with a lot of lateral moves, I toss it in the garbage. Most of these people have also priced themselves out of the market with these little hops that didn't move them forward. They were ultimately fruitless. Don't get me wrong, I employ some mercenaries that I do not expect to stay long or show much loyalty. They are here to do a certain thing and then they will get bored and move on once that task is complete. Nothing wrong with that, but they also understand I may drop them at any time too if someone better comes along. It's very common in DoD contracting. Asking about this is part of interviews commonly. Our govt clients ask that question all the time.

There is definitely a generational gap here. Millennials are known for having basically zero loyalty to their employer and being ready to jump at the drop of a hat for even a tiny raise. I could see how someone who views himself as a mercenary wouldn't care about actual team building because he plans to leave within 6 months. He would be content to never see any of his coworkers. People should remember it's a two-way street, however. Don't cry when your employer suddenly drops you like it's hot and upgrades to the guy who covers your tasks and still comes into the office to gel with the team. It would be silly for the employer to pick the WFH guy over that type of person.

WFH is not good for junior employees who have not developed good work habits. It robs them of valuable networking time and the chance to watch more senior employees in action. It's actually pretty unfair to them to force them into a strictly WFH environment right out of the gate. They may think it's a good thing to have that much freedom at first, but it usually isn't. And LOL at the "just fire them" line. Clearly no one here is an employer who has been sued for wrongful termination after they "just fired someone" for not doing their job. WFH also complicates this issue more as well. I have lived this. It's not so simple to fire someone. This topic isn't as straightforward as some here are making it, but I get that some have a bit of a socialist bent and see employers all as capitalistic fat cats out to screw the working man. Life sure is simple to some folks.

Yeah, no meetings! Work from home! We need nap pods! I have been here for six months boss, time for a raise! You didn't give me any tasks today so I just took the day off, boss! Thanks for the raise boss, maybe I will stay another year! Sorry, I took another job today boss! Bye!

Some also need the oversight and direction... I have found that employees do abuse WFH sometimes. Often, this topic brings out this idea that WFH is a panacea that always works out and those who want to be at the office must be suck-ups or bad at their jobs. Bosses who are wary of WFH must be micromanagers who don't trust their teams. That's an oversimplification. Good bosses love employees who can easily WFH and crush their tasks. It gives you a great carrot to retain them and keep them from leaving to go elsewhere.

Thanks, seems like mitigation is possible by wearing a mask and socially-distancing?

Was there any old science on this?

Agreed 100%. I will provide a caveat and say that I have also found that there sometimes can be a strong overlap between those who refuse to "schmooze" and complain about it and those who also have delusions that they are a hard worker, when really they are just subpar at work and bad at normal social interactions. The flip side is that there are also definitely those who are terrible workers but pop their head in my office 4 times a day with silly "great ideas" so it goes both ways!

I am an employer who hires almost exclusively high-end engineers, scientists, and other technical people. WFH is fine for many people, but there is a segment of the population for which it is a disaster and can spiral their careers into the toilet. They need more oversight. With the freedom and flexibility of WFH comes greater demands on personal responsibility. I have found that many Americans have not been taught basic timekeeping and scheduling skills, and many of them are also really terrible at taking general guidance and distilling it down into discrete tasks. You wouldn't believe how few people under 30 I have hired that even know how to take notes on a call. Apparently you don't do that in college anymore, everything is printed out and handed to you. So they are not very useful when listening to someone give a technical briefing over a Zoom call and then left to their own devices. They just sit there all day. In an office environment, they would get to see activity buzzing after the meeting and be able to mimic the work efforts of their peers (fake it until they make it).