Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Employees Asked to Return to Offices for Three Days a Week Starting in September
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So true. And the goal to get ahead is to become a manager.
So true. Many people have changed their views on work and home as a result of COVID.
Ahhh yes those famous top 50 places to work or top 50 places you must visit. It all depends on how the survey is done. Nothing about the survey says that it applies to you as an individual.
Last edited by a moderator:
While Zoom meetings helped, it does not offer the same type of interaction and relationship building you need for a team. Certain disciplines of work make it hard remotely. I’m sure I’ll get thumbs down by the folks loving the WFH days, but face to face interaction goes a long way.
Completely agree. And not to mention it’s a distraction if others talk by your cubicle. I have a hard time focusing when people are chatty next to my cubicle. I have not taken many “coffee breaks” since working from home either.
I don’t have an air conditioned garage lol. I work outside. In the blistering heat and freezing cold. Try again.
and you also miss the point bud.
You get hung up on boomer mentalities and just say ageist in response.
Again, generalization. Did you consider the possibility of people living wherever they live, THEN finding a job for which you cannot move if it's only a matter of a few tens of miles difference. But again, that may mean a good hour or two in heavy traffic. Even for those living closer to their workplace, in highly-populated metro areas, unless you're 3-5 miles away, it can still take you half an hour or more during rush hour. Usually, only executives can afford to live that close, in very expensive areas.
Company owners, CEO's and other bosses have fear on their faces because the pandemic has proved one thing about employers which is that employers feel the need to have total control over their employees. Jobs that have been able to be done at home, these employees have spoken at there being an increase in efficiency and productivity, stress and anxiety levels have dropped with the result being many employees now saying they enjoy doing their job. Now you've got company bosses telling employees it's time to get back into the office, to do a job that can do perfectly well still being at home. Bosses like control and with that control comes power, the power to command others. When in the office the boss can demand to see a worker to complain about something, can keep ringing an employees desk phone asking questions or demanding things, constant interruptions from the boss. All that instantly goes away when employee's work from home, the boss loses control and power and they hate it.
Yup. Runs from San Francisco to San Jose and a bit beyond to Gilroy. It's been operating since 1864, when Abraham Lincoln was the US President.
Yup. Bit far if you live in Cupertino.Yup. Runs from San Francisco to San Jose and a bit beyond to Gilroy. It's been operating since 1864.
A boss like that can still control people working from home if they wanted to. I could call my team on their mobiles (or home phones if they had them), message on teams (or other similar systems), demand outputs etc. WFH doesn't really change that too much.
For me I prefer a balance of WFH and work in the office I don't get as much done in terms of outputs when in the office as I spend time talking with my team ,understanding what challenges they have and what help they need. I speak to other people at my level to inform my work and help them. Overall that contributes to my outcomes but doesn't generate a piece of work.
Being in the office connects me more to the organisation and not seeing people in the office disconnects me from the organisation.
I think mandating the times to be in the office at a team level is a good idea, that gives flexibility to teams to work out their own personal requirements. The challenge is that then it gets hard to interact with other teams as they might not have the same days in the office.
One of the big challenges for office workers in the COVID and beyond period is that 5 minute quick chats about work things have now become a 30 minute meeting on Teams and email has skyrocketed.
The big challenge we face is in this savior called "hybrid." I'm there right now, spending 2-3 days in the office and 2-3 days at home. By this model, we still have to deal with virtual meetings a lot of the time, even if we're in the office. We may as well all be at home.
On a brighter note, I hope the slow return to the workforce raises awareness for the challenges teachers have been facing as schools have opened to in-person instruction again. Teaching kids in person is hard. Teaching kids remotely is hard. Teaching both at the same time? Nearly impossible.
On a brighter note, I hope the slow return to the workforce raises awareness for the challenges teachers have been facing as schools have opened to in-person instruction again. Teaching kids in person is hard. Teaching kids remotely is hard. Teaching both at the same time? Nearly impossible.
Agreed. Driving 45 minutes to an hour just so I can have the privilege of sitting in their office all day connecting remotely to the client exactly as I do from the house is a complete waste. Not going to happen anymore. I get far too much done in my own office with far less interruption.
I work for a large, global company in which a third of the employees worked remotely before the pandemic. We screen candidates for a strong work ethic as well as relevant knowledge and skills. Prior to the pandemic, anyone who lived within commuting distance of an office went in about four days a week, although there was a lot of flexibility. We're taking a sensible approach to returning to the office: some jobs require being in the office full time, some require being in the office sometimes for in-person collaboration or meetings with clients, and some don't require being in the office at all. Mine falls into the third category, in that what I do involves either solo work on a computer or collaborating with colleagues around the world. There is absolutely nothing I can do better in our local office than I do at home. I have a much nicer computer setup at home, and I have a quiet, private space for participating in global team Zoom meetings, as opposed to the open-floor desk space and non-soundproof conference rooms at my local company office. I'm an introvert, so I love working from home.
As for some of the objections on here to working from home full time:
"Those of you who say you're more productive working from home are full of BS! You know you spend most of your time watching YouTube videos, playing games, and tapping the space bar on your work computer to stay logged in." First, you haven't defined what you mean by "productive." If your job is to produce 50 digital widgets per day, and you did so at the office, but you only produce 30 per day working from home, then obviously you're not as productive and need to go back to the office. My job involves a variety of responsibilities -- some deadline-based, some not. I'm performing at the same level as I did when I was in the office. If I hadn't been, I would have been let go. Yes, there are slow periods when there is nothing job-related to do. Working from home, I can do other things. When I was in the office, I had to "look busy" until quitting time came. Conversely, when I need to get up at 4:00 AM for a Zoom session with colleagues in Europe, or I have to work a 12-hour day to meet a deadline, I don't mind it.
"Some of the employees at my company brag that they've done as little work as possible during the pandemic, and that they've been working on their house or yard, watching TV, etc." That sounds like an HR-policy problem. At my company, such people would have been let go (or probably wouldn't have been hired in the first place). I understand that union rules sometimes make firing slackers difficult. Were they fully productive at the office? If so, they're the type of people who do need to return to the office.
"So you're complaining about going back to a 1.5-hour commute? Well, you knew that when you took the job. You also made the choice to live 1.5 hours away. If you don't like it, either move or find a job closer to home." In places like the Bay Area, many people can't afford to live closer to their offices, and there may not be jobs in their field closer to where they live. As for choosing to take a job that they knew required a long commute, what was once a 30-minute commute for me during rush hour has become a 45- to 60-minute commute, thanks to all the people who have moved to this area over the past decade. If there were legitimate reasons for me to return to the office, then I'd do what I used to do -- listen to audiobooks, podcasts, or NPR -- but that commute was what I hated most about going in to the office.
"I work outside four to six days a week in extreme heat and cold. You office workers don't know what hard work is!" Clearly, you've never worked in a high-stress, toxic office environment with tight deadlines, long hours, bully bosses, and unreasonable expectations. "Hard work" isn't confined to physical labor in uncomfortable temperatures.
"Nurses, firefighters, police, grocery-store employees, and many other workers never had the luxury of working from home. Stop your whining and go back to your office!" Um, how is that relevant? Just because some people's jobs require them to be on site (and kudos to them for doing so), why should people whose jobs can be done just fine from home be happy about returning to an office?
"If you don't like having to go back to the office, then find another job that lets you work from home full time." I suspect that many people will. If I were a business owner looking to hire top talent, and I didn't need my employees to be in an office, I'd offer working from home as a perk.
In summary, returning to the office, either full time or part time, makes sense for certain people with certain jobs in certain company cultures. The pandemic has provided an opportunity to rethink many aspects of our lives and societies. Going back to "the way we used to do things" just because we used to do them, even when we've learned that there's no logical reason for doing so, makes no sense.
As for some of the objections on here to working from home full time:
"Those of you who say you're more productive working from home are full of BS! You know you spend most of your time watching YouTube videos, playing games, and tapping the space bar on your work computer to stay logged in." First, you haven't defined what you mean by "productive." If your job is to produce 50 digital widgets per day, and you did so at the office, but you only produce 30 per day working from home, then obviously you're not as productive and need to go back to the office. My job involves a variety of responsibilities -- some deadline-based, some not. I'm performing at the same level as I did when I was in the office. If I hadn't been, I would have been let go. Yes, there are slow periods when there is nothing job-related to do. Working from home, I can do other things. When I was in the office, I had to "look busy" until quitting time came. Conversely, when I need to get up at 4:00 AM for a Zoom session with colleagues in Europe, or I have to work a 12-hour day to meet a deadline, I don't mind it.
"Some of the employees at my company brag that they've done as little work as possible during the pandemic, and that they've been working on their house or yard, watching TV, etc." That sounds like an HR-policy problem. At my company, such people would have been let go (or probably wouldn't have been hired in the first place). I understand that union rules sometimes make firing slackers difficult. Were they fully productive at the office? If so, they're the type of people who do need to return to the office.
"So you're complaining about going back to a 1.5-hour commute? Well, you knew that when you took the job. You also made the choice to live 1.5 hours away. If you don't like it, either move or find a job closer to home." In places like the Bay Area, many people can't afford to live closer to their offices, and there may not be jobs in their field closer to where they live. As for choosing to take a job that they knew required a long commute, what was once a 30-minute commute for me during rush hour has become a 45- to 60-minute commute, thanks to all the people who have moved to this area over the past decade. If there were legitimate reasons for me to return to the office, then I'd do what I used to do -- listen to audiobooks, podcasts, or NPR -- but that commute was what I hated most about going in to the office.
"I work outside four to six days a week in extreme heat and cold. You office workers don't know what hard work is!" Clearly, you've never worked in a high-stress, toxic office environment with tight deadlines, long hours, bully bosses, and unreasonable expectations. "Hard work" isn't confined to physical labor in uncomfortable temperatures.
"Nurses, firefighters, police, grocery-store employees, and many other workers never had the luxury of working from home. Stop your whining and go back to your office!" Um, how is that relevant? Just because some people's jobs require them to be on site (and kudos to them for doing so), why should people whose jobs can be done just fine from home be happy about returning to an office?
"If you don't like having to go back to the office, then find another job that lets you work from home full time." I suspect that many people will. If I were a business owner looking to hire top talent, and I didn't need my employees to be in an office, I'd offer working from home as a perk.
In summary, returning to the office, either full time or part time, makes sense for certain people with certain jobs in certain company cultures. The pandemic has provided an opportunity to rethink many aspects of our lives and societies. Going back to "the way we used to do things" just because we used to do them, even when we've learned that there's no logical reason for doing so, makes no sense.
Apologies, I don’t stereotype groups based on things like age and then use that as cheap fodder for smooth brain insults. But you do you.
Yep, and if this doesn’t suit someone, there are options. When the boss loses control, it’s a good bet the employee loses their job.
Actually, if anything, this just goes to show that workers need not be bound by geographical location. If I don't need you to be on site, what's stopping me from replacing you with 2-3 cheaper software engineers from a developing country like India or China? What's your value add that justifies your higher salary if you can't or aren't required to actually be physically present at the workplace?
Second, if there is no need to settle down in a place like San Francisco with its insane standard of living, do I still need to pay you as much? Looks like a salary negotiation ought to be in the works, if you are saving a bundle on transport and housing.
Be careful of what you all wish for. You may just get it.
Totoally rubbish because employers do not take into account travel or housing expenses when deciding wages, only the employee does that which is known as 'wage negotiations'. the fact you brought it up will prove that employers will use it as an excuse to drive down wages.