They don’t lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds. The company has a building that they have to pay upkeep on, while also having the IT costs of managing a off-site VPN.
Just to be clear, I’m not arguing against WFH, just providing possible reasons big companies are against it.
They don’t lose that they gain that because they no longer have to pay for a building.
That only applies to companies that rent. If they own the building, then an empty office becomes a waste
The companies that lose out are the ones that decide to do this stupid hybrid system which is literally the worst of both worlds.
I disagree on that one. Not everyone wants to WFH or do it full time. Also if they meet with outside persons regularly, like customers and want to do it in person, having an office is useful. Obviously this does not apply to all companies, but it’s wrong to say that the hybrid system is the worst.
As someone who works at a company that’s permanently hybrid I have to disagree. We now literally have more employees at our corporate office than we have desks, and because all of our employees are 60-90% remote we can pull talent from a larger distance while still being able to have in-person meetings and in-person power sessions for large projects. But by continuing to have an office we have a central location for shipping and receiving, a secure and static space for meeting, working on projects and training plus core infrastructure and roles that don’t work well remotely can still be on premises. Its literally the best of both worlds.
