[V.Narayan]

Originally Posted by Chetan_Rao

Another aspect hard to explain to individual employees. There are technological limitations imposed by either scalability, operational consistency or contractual obligations that make it impossible to secure company/customer data outside of a siloed setup.

Very true. Imagine an IT services company delivering millions of $ of contract services to Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Airbus, Rolls Royce, Dassault, ISRO, DRDO, General Electric Siemens etc and the liabilities that fall on the Board of Directors because of holes punched into the security moat by the WFH programme. It became in some cases a question of survival of the Board. Board vs Employee who insists on WFH. Who do you think will prevail.

Not just in IT but in most sectors the junior and middle employee is oblivious to a rather surprising extent of the priorities, risks and resources {or lack thereof} of the Board/CEO and hence almost always get surprised by the actions of the Board. For all their faults Boards do try to act with rationality and common sense - after all they are liable in a very serious way unlike an employee. Their priorities are the following stakeholders first - shareholders, Govt, Customers, creditors and the following stakeholders second - employees, suppliers, society.

On this thread I hesitate to write, even though I represent the employer here because I see no inclination in most {there are exceptions} to understand the underlying causes that led to the unnatural exuberance of 6 to 12 months ago and the similarly unnatural ranting going on right now. Some high profile poorly executed lay-off's have occurred in USA - as a percentage of all IT/Tech/Internet related employees very tiny but rather visible. An even smaller volume of lay-off's have happened in India - as a percentage, of the 51 lakhs directly employed by IT, less than miniscule. Yet the ranting one reads on this thread one would think lakhs have lost their jobs.

For those who have lost their jobs my deepest sympathy. As someone who in business faced bankruptcy risk twice I know how it feels especially when it occurs for little fault of your own and in the rather obtuse and rude way that Google & others went about it. Just remind yourself what will you think one year from now for this devastation you have faced today. Time heals. Unfair stuff happens in life to all of us - job loss, cancer, death of a loved one, collapse of your business etc. You can't control that so after a good cry do yourself and your family a favour and stop whining. Pick yourself up and have faith you can fight and come back. My tag line below says it all.

[DigitalOne]

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

For all their faults Boards do try to act with rationality and common sense - after all they are liable in a very serious way.

The top management should also aggressively plan to open offices in Tier-2/3 cities. For companies which overnight transitioned to 100% WFH in 2020, opening one 1000 seat office every month in a Tier-2/3 city should not be too difficult. Many state governments would also support. As long as there is a published strategy towards work flexibility, employees would be willing to compromise in the present.

[AltoLXI]

Originally Posted by avira_tk

He's the old guard, so he has skin in the game, not professionally, but in renting out his investment properties and the like.
.

Many positions in the job listings mention "Remote working" along with the positions open in specific locations. With real estate beyond the reach for even middle class in San Francisco, many are moving out to less costlier states. And when pandemic ensured that remote work is possible, what is stopping the companies and employees to come to a negotiated agreement on where one works from. Companies can save on infrastructure, rent etc. Employees can live in less costlier, less polluted cities, even with a slightly reduced paychecks which is a win-win for both.

What happens when the work outsourced to a service company can also be done by someone in Poland or Romania or Mexico or for that matter, a previously costly but efficient employee working out of USA but now working in Thailand or Indonesia - the sweat shop model ceases to exist. So his ranting is understandable

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

WFH over the extended pandemic period caused immense security problems for It companies and their clients because no matter how deep a moat you create, with thousands of employees logging in from God knows where, damaging malware creeps in. Neither the papers nor the corporates talk of it but that pandemic period was exploited by security trouble makers to target Indian companies delivering IT services to US companies. These troublemakers were believed to be from China - but one can't prove these things. After the Ukraine war started a second front opened up on IT attacks on our Tech companies servicing US clients. One can guess where those came from.

Sir, malware can creep in whether one works in office or in home. Security infrastructure in office can offset the problem to some extent but never completely. Social engineering, phishing have not spared even the most security conscious people. A determined entity can break into the most secure systems - even with air gapped infrastructure. So blaming WFH for security issues just becomes an excuse. If that was the case, then employees should not even be taking laptops to home and keep their mobiles, electronic devices out of work place.

Originally Posted by V.Narayan

The risk to our vast army of IT workers is not from rent of traffic but from AI. As a nation we are not ready for a day where thousands of IT jobs vanish thanks to AI.

Is this similar to saying because of 3D printing, all the manufacturing jobs will vanish. If drones are fighting the war, no soldiers are required. If taking a pill can provide all the nutrients, no food is required and hence all farmers are out of work. Very scary indeed.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by AltoLXI

Sir, malware can creep in whether one works in office or in home. Security infrastructure in office can offset the problem to some extent but never completely.

Absolutely. I worked for a cybersecurity firm and since I still do related projects, keep up with my reading. The fact that cyberattacks have stepped up dramatically, and in many high-profile cases, even involve state actors is certainly very true. However remote work is just one part of that reason. Increased cybersecurity is the cost of doing business in today's world, even for non-IT companies.

AIIMS got hacked. (I don't think many doctors were working from home.) The details haven't been reported by the press, but I remember one statement in most of the articles from a spokesman saying that they were now installing anti-virus software. Anti-virus solutions are certainly necessary, but in cybersecurity terms- installing anti-virus software this late in the game is not even closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, that's like starting to build the stable! There are cybersecurity solutions that are generations ahead. So perhaps some IT organizations are similarly just unprepared yet and are using the most convenient reason.

But it's great that these issues and conversations have started. Governments are already tightening their cybersecurity requirements. The US government recently specified the types of security solutions that all government agencies and private entities who need to do business with government agencies will need to use. Similarly, different organizations will catch up.

[EV NXT]

I think this can go here:

"I'd tell you a joke about layoffs at Google, but I'm afraid I wouldn't have a job tomorrow," Bard said when asked to tell a joke about the layoffs.

[PatienceWins]

Originally Posted by ashis89

So what has changed today that we see the resistance from an employee to relocate to Bangalore or come to office?

Working conditions changed post pandemic as employees should be available all the time and no slack given for morning commute and evening commute. No meetings were scheduled during the commute timings in the pre pandemic world and the employee was not supposed to be online/ available all the time. Early morning/ very late night meetings became the norm during post pandemic because availability full time was taken for granted unless employee says away for some work in status message; now going back to the old Work from Office setup by adhering to the post pandemic conditions will put employees with long commutes on pressure. Staying close to office is not practical as the office location itself keeps changing depending on change in project, company changing location, employee moving to a different company etc. Many employees are struggling now even with a work from office setup on few days a week. But nobody will question now as it is a buyer's market now.

[ninjatalli]

Originally Posted by ashis89

So what has changed today that we see the resistance from an employee to relocate to Bangalore or come to office?

Comfort-factor. Laziness. Better financial situation. Personal dependencies. We can call it whatever we want; everyone has a different (mix of) reasons.

People have become comfortable and have aligned their lives with the last 2+ years of WFH schedules. Those with kids, bachelors, etc. - this applies to all profiles. So now when push comes to shove, the arguments come out strong.

I'm aware of atleast two (ex)colleagues across two different firms who had been working from home (-town, in a different state) during the pandemic; and when pushed and finally given an ultimatum to finally come back to office, decided to quit the firm instead. One firm's work location was Mumbai, the other was Bangalore. So honestly, in my experience, the work-city's problems hardly is the main cause.

Even for those who didn't move out of the city are reluctant to come back to office; even in those cases where it's only a few days per week. Again the reasons are similar.

Btw with regards to the 'excuse' of sky-high rents currently in Bangalore, just under a year ago, the rents across the city were dirt-cheap and back then firms were still asking people to come back (but no ultimatums were given). Covid was well under control but the same folks choose not to move back then and now when the ball is in the other court, are crying foul.

[ashis89]

Originally Posted by ninjatalli

Comfort-factor. Laziness. Better financial situation. Personal dependencies. We can call it whatever we want; everyone has a different (mix of) reasons.

Btw with regards to the 'excuse' of sky-high rents currently in Bangalore, just under a year ago, the rents across the city were dirt-cheap and back then firms were still asking people to come back (but no ultimatums were given). Covid was well under control but the same folks choose not to move back then and now when the ball is in the other court, are crying foul.

All these reasons come out during informal chats with fellow members. Formally they have given reasons such as paternal grand parents are not doing well and another where, the in-laws of their cousin sister need assistance. And they keep 'hunting' houses for months together while crashing with friends when they come to Bangalore to attend office.


As for rents, I have been guilty of house hunting in late 2019 and then again in late 2020. Then I helped friends get a rented place in 2021 and 2022. As you mentioned, rents had gone down significantly during 2020 and slowly recovered to ~2019 levels as of today. Those who got a place during the down time paid less but "unnecessarily" while others saved lakhs (in rents and overall cost of living) during 2020-22. I was called a fool too to retain a place in Bangalore during the period. Now demand supply changed and everyone is feeling the pinch to pay again.

[joslicx]

Well, at least in certain areas in Bangalore (for example the wretched ORR corridor between KR Puram and Agara) things are definitely not the same as pre pandemic:
1. There's a metro construction going on which has taken away part of the road. This was not the case earlier when already traffic was bad. Taking away one lane doesn't help and if there is a vehicle breakdown then good luck moving. My office is near Bellandur and during office hours it can take half an hour just to take a u-turn and come to other side!
2. A lot more offices in this area now and it's increasing only. Once all of them call all their employees, i think we all can probably work from road as i don't know how we will reach office.
3. The Bellandur main road, which connects ORR to bellandur lake road, is in shambles for many months now. Its a everyday horror for anyone who has to use it. Dont know how such an important road can be in such a condition for so long and no resolution in sight.

I can go on, (and thankfully my organisation has not yet enforced back to office that strictly else there will be thousands of more vehicles in this area everyday) but things will only get worse. And once rains start in couple of months, this horror show will become even worse.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by ashis89

Formally they have given reasons such as paternal grand parents...

Here's a question, as far as remote work goes and in a professional setup, why are some 'reasons' more acceptable than others?

Why should 'taking care of parents' be considered a better reason to 'allow' remote work than 'I don't want to commute anymore'?

Obviously, I'm not saying the situations are equally important - taking care of parents is certainly more important than a commute, any day. But as far as an IT organization goes- as long as the work gets done with acceptable quality, and without any added security risk, or additional disruptions, what difference does it make what an employee's reasons are for wanting to work remote?

It's unfortunate that employees in the India office need to lie to find acceptability for a work model that has pretty much been the norm in all the US offices of every organization I've worked at for over a decade, for the same kind of IT roles.

Mindset. Policies. That is the difference.

Originally Posted by ashis89

Imagine Swiggy declining a home delivery for the same reason.

That's hardly the same thing, right? The thread says 'IT companies", so obviously we're discussing jobs that can be done remote.

[ashis89]

Travelling on the ORR or to the ORR is valid for a lot of us (including me). Can't blame the firm if municipality decides to dig a tunnel in front of my apartment for laying xyz cable or on my route. Imagine Swiggy declining a home delivery for the same reason.

And if commuting is a non-negotiable requirement for a job, maybe it should be included in our employment contracts to safeguard our interest. And Yes, companies do agree to this. If not part of the contract, then one runs the risk of being denied WFH for xyz reason (let's not get into what a justified reason can be).

[SnS_12]

Second round of job cuts come to Google's moonshot bet: CEO mail and other details

Google parent Alphabet has reportedly announced its second round of job cuts. The company's self-driving technology unit Waymo has laid off 137 employees in its second round of layoffs in 2023, according to a report in news agency Reuters. Post the latest round of job cuts, the division has let go of almost 8% of its workforce, or 209 employees this year.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...w/98349174.cms

With Bond yields hitting 4% the Fed is going to look at a substantial rate hike and that means cheap loans the corporates have been used to fuel their growth is going to be more expensive. I think the job markets across all industries has to prepare for the worst as these job cuts is just the beginning of the economic tsunami the world is going to face

[d.w.w.]

Originally Posted by am1m

It's unfortunate that employees in the India office need to lie to find acceptability for a work model that has pretty much been the norm in all the US offices of every organization I've worked at for over a decade, for the same kind of IT roles.

Mindset. Policies. That is the difference.

Mindset is a major factor. WFH was common in my company even before Covid, especially for pregnant ladies. That time my manager denied WFH for a team mate who was pregnant because his wife working in a different company was not able to get WFH when she got pregnant (that company had no WFH policy due to security issue). He was like - if my wife can travel to office when she was pregnant, why cant others too.

[shankar.balan]

Some good principles for any boss to live by.
His or her people will always be appreciative.

Have learned the hard way in the Old Economy. Had multiple Bosses, some were Bad, Most were Good.

A Boss / Leader is actually meant to be a ‘Supporter, Bolsterer giving Strength and Direction’.

1. Don’t create unhealthy rivalries and negative energy based competitions within teams
2. Create a transparent, nurturing environment with the True and Honest Goal to see the people working under you, succeed and grow and even supercede. Be Generous.
3. Create an environment of ‘daily happiness’ and ‘decency’ - to all employees, all internal customers as well as all external customers.
4. Be generous with leave. If required, be over generous with it. Encourage time off.
5. Don’t contact or task people after working hours or on weekends.
6. Don’t insist on ‘forced bonhomie’ - it is patently insincere.
7. Whatever you do for employees, best do it from the heart, sincerely. Or dont do it at all. Nothing worse than hypocrisy.
8. If you Preach, then you had BETTER Practice what you Preach, honestly. Or someone will call you out and you will be the loser.
9. Be generous with credit and praise in public for all to whom it is due and deserved. And be judicious and measured in reprimands or strictures to those for whom it is needed, always in Private.

[am1m]

Originally Posted by d.w.w.

That time my manager denied WFH for a team mate...

Wow, that's crazy. Though that was not what I meant when I mentioned mindset.To be fair, I've always had very good managers and never someone who would do something like this. I meant more that in Indian IT companies we treat things like remote work as 'rewards', something to be 'granted', 'allowed', 'earned', as opposed to a simple matter of policy and enabled by technology. And a lot of the arguments against remote work stem from that mindset.

Also, the constant refrain that IT employees are a privileged lot and asking for remote work on top of that makes us worse is a bit odd- coming in a forum where people post about owning luxury German car brands.

Yes we are all very privileged compared to the vast, vast majority of the country and it would do us good to remember that. Certainly.

But would it then make sense to post that argument in every thread of this forum? (Imagine - "You own xyz car worth 123 lakhs and you are complaining about bad service?!" "You already have ABC features, the majority of Indians don't have a car even and you want the manufacturer to give you XYZ features as well?" All our review threads will very quickly get bogged down.)

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Some good principles for any boss to live by.

I think one more important point to be stressed in Indian IT companies is that not everyone is cut out to be a people manager. Far too many people still see this as a natural career progression. Quite often the very personality traits that make a good programmer are the opposite of what make a good people manager. But we end up making the best techies people managers and that's why we have so many ineffective middle managers.