Spotify allows 6500 employees to work from anywhere they want. Its turnover dropping.

[Edge-]

The issue with your reasoning is that my company is more than well prepared for homeworking. We have formation about it, teams are more or less used to it, etc...

Again, seems like a company issue more than anything else, because the broader data does not support this.

Even your link doesn't really support your arguments, and excuse any errors via Google Translate -

Available assessments of the effects of telework on productivity lead to mixed results. By way of illustration, Bloom et al. (2015) study the transition to teleworking of a set of volunteer employees of a Chinese call center, in a company equipped and prepared for this mode of organization. The authors find that teleworkers are significantly more productive – with productivity gains of around 20% – happier and less likely to leave the company (although they are also less likely to be promoted to comparable performance).

With the other side being -

On the other hand, Morikawa (2020) considers the experience of a Japanese research institute that, suddenly and without preparation, switched to teleworking during the period of confinement. Productivity would then have fallen by about 40% on average.

But let's look at the final line -

the effects of telework on productivity will be all the more positive and important as this form of work attracts both the support of the workers concerned and that of management, that all actors are prepared and trained in this mode of organization, and that the equipment and the working environment at home are appropriate.

So yeah, when you just randomly shift to remote work without any planning or prep, you're going to see problems. But even the study largely argues what telework is overall beneficial as long as it can be adequately planned for.

The transition to teleworking during the 2020 lockdowns was generally carried out under unfavourable conditions, limiting the possible positive effects on productivity.

Worth noting: This study uses older data from pre-covid times, and is from last year. We've got a lot more data from covid-times that, as I linked, shows a general positive impact in terms of productivity even over multiple years.

Just because your company is struggling doesn't mean it's reflective of any company. I'm gonna try to avoid nation bashing here, but I've spent many years working with French partners and colleagues, and even in pre-pandemic times when we were all full-time in the office on both sides of the pond, the French teams I've worked with have literally never been remotely impressive in terms of their productivity compared to teams based elsewhere. Is it just a string of bad luck? Quite likely, but if I'm using the same anecdotal experience you are for a broad generalization, it's not exactly a positive for the French work culture. But I'm not actually making that generalization, because it's overly broad and not really useful as anything more than an anecdote about my personal experience.

[Forogil]

Really? All the data I've seen largely shows this not to be true, at least the latter part. Contrary, the data shows that productivity, at worse, usually remains on-par with what they did in-office, and a great many companies see increased productivity still to this day.

https://www.vox.com/recode/23129752/...e-productivity

Vox is normally a bit biased.

Looking at actual studies paints a slightly different picture - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/rese...WorkReport.pdf
Both that it differs between persons (and the ones that work better in office often prefer working in offices - which is good), and that's harder to introduce new people remotely to make them productive (ehmm... another one from the department of the bloody obvious).

Has multiple links beyond the self-reporting by workers, including federal data supporting this. It's a nice think that managers or executives say to justify trying to force people back into the office and not "waste" all that money they're spending on the lease of the office space, but as of yet there's little data to support it.

Well, the even cheaper managers figured out they didn't have to "waste" the money on leasing office space and require all to work from home.

[Specialka]

Again, seems like a company issue more than anything else, because the broader data does not support this.

Even your link doesn't really support your arguments, and excuse any errors via Google Translate -



With the other side being -



But let's look at the final line -



So yeah, when you just randomly shift to remote work without any planning or prep, you're going to see problems. But even the study largely argues what telework is overall beneficial as long as it can be adequately planned for.



Worth noting: This study uses older data from pre-covid times, and is from last year. We've got a lot more data from covid-times that, as I linked, shows a general positive impact in terms of productivity even over multiple years.

Just because your company is struggling doesn't mean it's reflective of any company. I'm gonna try to avoid nation bashing here, but I've spent many years working with French partners and colleagues, and even in pre-pandemic times when we were all full-time in the office on both sides of the pond, the French teams I've worked with have literally never been remotely impressive in terms of their productivity compared to teams based elsewhere. Is it just a string of bad luck? Quite likely, but if I'm using the same anecdotal experience you are for a broad generalization, it's not exactly a positive for the French work culture. But I'm not actually making that generalization, because it's overly broad and not really useful as anything more than an anecdote about my personal experience.

Dude, France is one of the country with the most productivity.

https://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/

We just prefer to work to live rather than live to work.

And as I said, homeworking is not "easy" and needs preparation.

[Endus]

https://blocnotesdeleco.banque-franc...a-productivite

Homeworking is not as easy as just snapping one's fingers and make it work. It needs preparation from the company and from the employee. And you still can get productivity loss if not well prepared.

That isn't even a study. It's an article saying "studies show different things and list specific reasons for why their results differ but we can't be arsed to do any kind of comprehensive analysis or comparison. It doesn't even actually agree with you; let me cite its concluding paragraph, as parsed through Google Translate so I'm not dumping a bunch of French in a block quote;

By accelerating the use of teleworking that it has caused, the Covid-19 crisis could ultimately lead to a lasting increase in potential growth via an acceleration in productivity. This is a fundamental difference with other previous economic crises, generally accompanied by a slowdown in trend productivity and consequently a decline in potential growth."

An increase in productivity is what it predicts, due to increased telework.

Kudos on citing a source that contradicts you. Why didn't you read through to the end?

[Edge-]

Dude, France is one of the country with the most productivity.

https://time.com/4621185/worker-productivity-countries/

We just prefer to work to live rather than live to work.

And as I said, homeworking is not "easy" and needs preparation.

And that's a perfect example of why anecdotes are bad to use for broad generalizations. Because my personal, anecdotal experience does not reflect the reality of the larger data set. Thanks for agreeing with the core of my argument.

[Specialka]

That isn't even a study. It's an article saying "studies show different things and list specific reasons for why their results differ but we can't be arsed to do any kind of comprehensive analysis or comparison. It doesn't even actually agree with you; let me cite its concluding paragraph, as parsed through Google Translate so I'm not dumping a bunch of French in a block quote;

By accelerating the use of teleworking that it has caused, the Covid-19 crisis could ultimately lead to a lasting increase in potential growth via an acceleration in productivity. This is a fundamental difference with other previous economic crises, generally accompanied by a slowdown in trend productivity and consequently a decline in potential growth."

An increase in productivity is what it predicts, due to increased telework.

Kudos on citing a source that contradicts you. Why didn't you read through to the end?

Kudos not understanding what was that all about. But not unusual coming from you.

[Endus]

Vox is normally a bit biased.

Really starting to hate the misrepresentation of what "bias" means. "Bias" means that it has an editorial ideological outlook. It does not mean it lacks credibility or that it is inaccurate or misleading.

This is one thing Media Bias Fact Check gets right; https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Sure, Vox has a left bias. But it also gets flagged as being mostly factual, and having high credibility.

Credibility and factuality are what matter. I'll read anything that has high ranks in both, though I'll generally disagree with the ideological positions in right-wing approaches, but I won't dismiss something from, say, the Economic Policy Journal out of hand. If you want something with comparable ratings to Vox.

- - - Updated - - -

Kudos not understanding what was that all about. But not unusual coming from you.

If you think that article is suggesting that work-from-home is bad for productivity, you didn't read the article and have literally no idea what it says. Feel free to quote from it directly if you think I've got it wrong, but I literally quoted their own conclusion at you and now you're claiming they don't know what their own article was about.

[Specialka]

Really starting to hate the misrepresentation of what "bias" means. "Bias" means that it has an editorial ideological outlook. It does not mean it lacks credibility or that it is inaccurate or misleading.

This is one thing Media Bias Fact Check gets right; https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Sure, Vox has a left bias. But it also gets flagged as being mostly factual, and having high credibility.

Credibility and factuality are what matter. I'll read anything that has high ranks in both, though I'll generally disagree with the ideological positions in right-wing approaches, but I won't dismiss something from, say, the Economic Policy Journal out of hand. If you want something with comparable ratings to Vox.

- - - Updated - - -



If you think that article is suggesting that work-from-home is bad for productivity, you didn't read the article and have literally no idea what it says. Feel free to quote from it directly if you think I've got it wrong, but I literally quoted their own conclusion at you and now you're claiming they don't know what their own article was about.

Quote me when I say that homework is bad for productivity ?

[Edge-]

If you think that article is suggesting that work-from-home is bad for productivity, you didn't read the article and have literally no idea what it says. Feel free to quote from it directly if you think I've got it wrong, but I literally quoted their own conclusion at you and now you're claiming they don't know what their own article was about.

I believe he was arguing that unplanned WFH has negative benefits over a period of time. But again, that was based off a single study in Japan while we currently have a massive, multi-year global study that's still ongoing. And the conclusions of the continuing data are, in general, so far showing that there remain positive longer term benefits.

[Forogil]

Again, it's irrelevant.

People cite that as a reason and you find it irrelevant?

If you aren't being paid to be on-call, they shouldn't be checking work mail. It's on people to separate themselves from work, and that's no different whether working from home or not.

And many find it easier if their is a clean line marking the difference.

Of course it all depends. But the central point is that setting up a home office space isn't particularly expensive or difficult, and ergonomic considerations are likely far less than in a workplace, since you're choosing what's best for you, personally. "It depends" is literally why home offices are "better", because workplaces try and standardize.

You mean that people chose the right ergonomics for their place, same as they always eat the healthiest food?
Suuuuure.

We're talking about tax deductibility of business expenses.

In some countries.

So I don't know what you're talking about with "What you've seen of home offices in Canada". We absolutely have tax laws that allow such deductions.

What I have seen with my own eyes over zoom.

You mean a standing desk? 1> That's a specialty item, even in a workplace.

It's standard where I work. That's one of my points - things differ.

The name 'standing desk' is bad as it implies that the idea is to just stand at it - which is plainly stupid.

2> A standard desk is probably running $200, so you should really focus on the difference in price, not the absolute.

People normally reuse a desk or table when working from home; a standing desk is something that people normally don't have.
I know that we were allowed to take home our office chair (or monitor) during the pandemic. I don't know if we were allowed to take home the desk, but I doubt anyone
tried.

If you have literally any commute, and you're not paid for that time, you're losing time you should be paid for. Even if it's a 5 minute walk down the block.

A 5 minute walk down the block is good normal-day exercise; it's healthy for you (well, preferably a bit longer). Many instructions for working from home gives the obvious advice of doing something similar every day.

I won't dispute the latter, but I don't see how the argument about ergonomics is in any way unique to home offices. That's the same challenge, except the worker can actually fix the ergonomic issues themselves, where they're flatly not permitted to in many workspaces; they have to send in a request and that may or may not be approved and even if it is, you get the solution the company offers, not the one you might prefer.

That's due to bad worker laws. They are not universal.

[Endus]

Quote me when I say that homework is bad for productivity ?

Too much homework kills homework. Those companies finds that productivity increase til a point then start to decrease. Full remote is a thing but the best balance is still to have a few day for the office. It is best like 2-3 days homework and 2-3 days at the office.

Right there. Wasn't supported by the article you linked, unless you just glanced at the graph at the top and didn't realize only one of those lines shows a productivity decline with 100% work-from-home, and then didn't bother reading the rest of the article, at all.

[Specialka]

Right there. Wasn't supported by the article you linked, unless you just glanced at the graph at the top and didn't realize only one of those lines shows a productivity decline with 100% work-from-home, and then didn't bother reading the rest of the article, at all.

Ok, so you do not even understand what is written. Not surprising though. Pointless to discuss with you.

[Endus]

It's standard where I work. That's one of my points - things differ.

The name 'standing desk' is bad as it implies that the idea is to just stand at it - which is plainly stupid.

I used it because it's usually sit/stand desks that are being talked about, to let people vary the height actively during the workday. Sure, you can use it at mid-heights too, but they usually go to a full standing height. If you just meant desks with adjustable legs in general, rather than the ones that can be shifted with a lever in moments, I wouldn't know what you're talking about. And if you meant something like angle-able drafting tables, that seems far more specific. And something a lot of people doing such work would have in their office. My mother's a landscape architect and has had one in her home office for literally 30 years.

People normally reuse a desk or table when working from home; a standing desk is something that people normally don't have.
I know that we were allowed to take home our office chair (or monitor) during the pandemic. I don't know if we were allowed to take home the desk, but I doubt anyone

You keep talking about people just slapping a laptop down wherever, rather than having a dedicated workspace. If you're working from home permanently, why wouldn't you set up a permanent desk setup? I can understand not doing so if you expected to be back in the office in a couple months, but if we're talking a permanent arrangement, I don't understand it. I've always had a personal desk. When compared to the personal out-of-pocket costs of working, the investment is arguably cheaper for most people. Even assuming they don't already have one, because many, like myself, do.

[Forogil]

Really starting to hate the misrepresentation of what "bias" means. "Bias" means that it has an editorial ideological outlook. It does not mean it lacks credibility or that it is inaccurate or misleading.

This is one thing Media Bias Fact Check gets right; https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

Sure, Vox has a left bias. But it also gets flagged as being mostly factual, and having high credibility.

The point was that Vox has a bias and thus even if the reported facts are correct it's not all the facts; by reporting on the average productivity they ignore that some are more productive and some are less - and in particular they ignore the problem of introducing new workers and making them productive (and also making them welcome).

That's exactly how bias distorts reporting, even though the statements are factually correct it doesn't paint the full picture - and my use of bias was very deliberate; you just skipped it.

[Endus]

Ok, so you do not even understand what is written. Not surprising though. Pointless to discuss with you.

You literally can't even point to a quote that backs your case, when I could and did, and I'm the one failing to understand what was written?

- - - Updated - - -

The point was that Vox has a bias and thus even if the reported facts are correct it's not all the facts; by reporting on the average productivity they ignore that some are more productive and some are less - and in particular they ignore the problem of introducing new workers and making them productive (and also making them welcome).

That's exactly how bias distorts reporting, even though the statements are factually correct it doesn't paint the full picture - and my use of bias was very deliberate; you just skipped it.

That's a claim of factual inaccuracy, not bias. Excluding facts because they don't line up is how you fail fact-checks and lose credibility. Which, again, Vox does not have a history of.

This is exactly the misrepresentation of what "bias" actually means that I was talking about. You're doing it, right now.

A biased take on climate change response would be a paper making strong suggestions of significant proactive investment (or, conversely, arguing that nothing should be done because the damage is inevitable). That doesn't mean anything they've stated regarding climate change is incorrect or misleading in any way whatsoever. That's a completely different accusation. An unbiased stance that is inaccurate or misleading with the facts is not an improvement over a heavily-biased but factually-accurate source.

In specific; reporting on averages is not ignoring the range; that could only be the case if they cited a subset of the data which agreed with them; the average covers the whole data range.

Nor have I seen any data on new workers; it seems like a distraction unless you've got hard data. Even if that proved challenging to achieve from home, nobody was arguing that all work had to be based from home; training and integrating a new worker at the office before letting them go back to their home to work from home would be a perfectly reasonable option in many cases, but I haven't seen any data to suggest it's a statistically relevant problem. Especially when, frankly, I've worked with so many international projects where face to face meetings are simply not feasible, and everyone's integrating remotely, that the idea just doesn't carry any obvious merit to me. Those experiences predated COVID by more than a decade, too, so it was wildly successful well before we were even trying to make that shift in any local sense.

[Forogil]

I used it because it's usually sit/stand desks that are being talked about, to let people vary the height actively during the workday.

The point is that 'standing desk' is a bad name as it implies that standing is good (or at least better than sitting) and that you should stand at the desk.

That's not how you should use the desk, the idea is that you should adjust the height so you switch between standing and sitting (so it's a sit/stand desk - not a standing desk).

You keep talking about people just slapping a laptop down wherever, rather than having a dedicated workspace. If you're working from home permanently, why wouldn't you set up a permanent desk setup?

Look back in the thread and you see two answers: someone argued that you only need a laptop, and Spotify HR as illustration for their policy had someone literally working with a laptop in their lap. They should know better.

[Endus]

The point is that 'standing desk' is a bad name as it implies that standing is good (or at least better than sitting) and that you should stand at the desk.

That's not how you should use the desk, the idea is that you should adjust the height so you switch between standing and sitting (so it's a sit/stand desk - not a standing desk).

I've seen both used interchangeably but I literally don't have an iron in the fire as to preferred terminology and we're not actually disagreeing on that point, so fine; sit/stand desk. That's what I meant.

Look back in the thread and you see two answers: someone argued that you only need a laptop, and Spotify HR as illustration for their policy had someone literally working with a laptop in their lap. They should know better.

Do we really want to delve into the ridiculous history of PR shenanigans in employment marketing? All those happy workplaces with everyone smiling and chatting when the reality is anything but?

[Forogil]

That's a claim of factual inaccuracy, not bias. Excluding facts because they don't line up is how you fail fact-checks and lose credibility.

Nothing they reported were factually inaccurate - but it wasn't the whole picture.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes....We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting, rather than High, due to two failed fact checks, with only one offering a correction.

In specific; reporting on averages is not ignoring the range; that could only be the case if they cited a subset of the data which agreed with them; the average covers the whole data range.

The problem is exactly that they didn't report that it varies between individuals, they didn't lie - but their selection of facts is likely linked to their bias.

Nor have I seen any data on new workers; it seems like a distraction unless you've got hard data.

Here was my original statement that you clearly replied to without reading more than the first line.

Vox is normally a bit biased.

Looking at actual studies paints a slightly different picture - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/rese...WorkReport.pdf
Both that it differs between persons (and the ones that work better in office often prefer working in offices - which is good), and that's harder to introduce new people remotely to make them productive (ehmm... another one from the department of the bloody obvious).

[NED funded]

Spotify is also a deeply unprofitable company. Their advice should be dismissed

[Endus]

Spotify is also a deeply unprofitable company. Their advice should be dismissed

They're projected to start turning profits this year; https://www.thestreet.com/streaming/...e-is-the-catch

So their advice seems to be working out for them, specifically.