I was trying to post last night but for some reason I couldn't. Anyway. . .the one thing I was going to say is that she took the privilege away from those who abused not, NOT from everyone. So that's good. You SHOULD take it away from those who abuse it so the rest of us can keep our flexibility and be responsible. I got a lot done yesterday, working from home, and since we were able to get a sitter today (now that BOTH kids are sick) I'm making the effort to go in to the office today in a snowstorm.
I'm glad they explained the Yahoo thing, though, that they weren't banning working from home, just stopping making it so easy for people to claim that's what they were doing when they weren't. And frankly, I weigh my work-from-home days against what is scheduled, knowing that there is tremendous value to being in the office and working with people face-to-face.
Anyway, if its only specific people, i have no problem with that.
ETA: Yes, after doing a little more searching this morning I am pretty certain that the ban is for all remote full-time employees and did not target only specific ones.
Last edited by KimPossible; 03-08-2013 at 08:52 AM.
Cecilia Marie 1/10/10
Photo By Anne Schmidt Photography
This is from the article I posted a few days ago:
Yahoo and new CEO Marissa Mayer have come under heavy criticism for their decision to crack down on employees working from home. The move has often been characterized as an outright "ban" on working remotely that would require every Yahoo employee to report to the office no matter what. But according to a new report, the vast majority of Yahoo employees still have the option to telecommute.
The New York Times reports hearing from sources inside the company that Yahoo's policy change is specifically targeted at 200 employees who work from home full-time in an effort to boost morale for the rest of the staff. Some of these employees reportedly "did little work" for Yahoo and even started up their own companies on the side.
Some Yahoo employees were concerned initially about how the policy change would affect their own ability to work from home on occasion, but according to the Times, managers have reassured employees that they can work remotely when necessary. ?Be here when you can," one manager reportedly told an employee. "Use your best judgment. But if you have to stay home for the cable guy or because your kid is sick, do it.?
Here is a copy of the actual memo
Taken from hereYAHOO! PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION — DO NOT FORWARD
Over the past few months, we have introduced a number of great benefits and tools to make us more productive, efficient and fun. With the introduction of initiatives like FYI, Goals and PB&J, we want everyone to participate in our culture and contribute to the positive momentum. From Sunnyvale to Santa Monica, Bangalore to Beijing — I think we can all feel the energy and buzz in our offices.
To become the absolute best place to work, communication and collaboration will be important, so we need to be working side-by-side. That is why it is critical that we are all present in our offices. Some of the best decisions and insights come from hallway and cafeteria discussions, meeting new people, and impromptu team meetings. Speed and quality are often sacrificed when we work from home. We need to be one Yahoo!, and that starts with physically being together.
Beginning in June, we’re asking all employees with work-from-home arrangements to work in Yahoo! offices. If this impacts you, your management has already been in touch with next steps. And, for the rest of us who occasionally have to stay home for the cable guy, please use your best judgment in the spirit of collaboration. Being a Yahoo isn’t just about your day-to-day job, it is about the interactions and experiences that are only possible in our offices.
Thanks to all of you, we’ve already made remarkable progress as a company — and the best is yet to come.
Last edited by KimPossible; 03-08-2013 at 09:32 AM.
Related more to the choice of jobs we take, I never felt like there was much choice other than do you stay where you are or not. My previous job was very flexible with good benefits but I quit when we decided to move for DH's job because his previous job was driving him crazy. He did look for years locally but there very very few positions in his area in that city (or even part of the country) and those that were around either wanted to pay way less or required more qualifications than he had. He worked his way up within his company to levels of responsibility that wouldn't transfer without those qualifications and he was well paid. Our decision to move negatively impacted many things in our life but it comes down to his job is not making him crazy and that outweighs everything else and for us it was a good decision.
When we were going through univeristy, I didn't think about lots of things in the job market (how many jobs, room for advancement, location of these jobs, how family friendly...). Instead, I fell into the idea of doing well at university = good job. I also had no idea that I would want to be less focused on my career. In university, I thought I wanted to be a super successful scientist. I have a MSc in genetics but most jobs pay poorly. Advancement is hard to do because there are so many PhDs. I planned on a PhD but in the middle of grad school I looked at the new professors trying to start up labs, scrambling for money and working 60h+/week and I knew I didn't want to be doing that for $50K/year. I like to work but I want to limit it's role in my life. If I knew at 20 the job considerations I'd have as 35 year old, I would have chosen a different career path.
For the Yahoo decision... in general work places, I think flexibility is a good thing, even for people without kids. If you cancel it for everyone, you will alienate the hard workers who did not take advantage of the situation and may have even worked harder. If you have people taking advantage of the situation, they should be dealt with. However, if you have someone "working from home" for years and no complaints, even if they are actually doing NO work, I think there should be a warning before totally cancelling it or firing them. Sometimes things aren't what they seem.
I recently got in trouble because one of my employees was coming in at 9:30 instead of 8:30. I got lectured by my boss that part of my job, no matter how unpleasant, is to deal with that kind of behaviour. I said that I was told by the previous manager that she has had a long standing agreement with our boss to work 9:30-6 so she could avoid some rush hour traffic (over 10 years). He had totally forgotten and just thought she was slacking because he saw when she came in but never saw when she left.
DD1 July 2008 (41w3d)
November 2010 (13 weeks)
DD2 August 2011 (33w5d)
I still think its silly to think that the experience of 200 (200!!!!!) bad employees is going to impact your personal work experience. It makes me giggle.
The number of companies that allow telecommuting has doubled in recent years. The stats are very positive surrounding it. Yahoo has had.....what....like 5 CEO's in like 5 years? And these employees are STATED to be poorly performing? It's clear that this new CEO is trying to do whatever she has to do to shake things up in a struggling company. If she can save Yahoo I still believe that a saved company will offer these employees a better return than a failed company. I think that its very obvious that this is not a blanket referendum on telecommuting nor is it a statement that this is what all companies ought to do.