Working Moms
heyitsme
member
Options
Why are the loudest complainers about the Yahoo WAH decision
heyitsme
member
in Working Moms
WAHMs?
When anyone comes on this board and asks about WAH, the answers are loud and resounding: If you're going to WAH, you HAVE to have childcare. You can't WAH and take care of a child and be able to give both the attention they need and deserve. Period.
So, if all these Yahoo employees already have someone caring for their children, why is it such a big deal if they have to go into the office vs. working from home? That's where I get confused. I get that the commute could be an expense they aren't prepared for... but I guess beyond that I'm just stumped.
So to those of you who WAH--what are the benefits to WAH vs. in an office if you have childcare no matter what?
Mom to J (10), L (4), and baby #3 arriving in July of 2015
This discussion has been closed.
Re: Why are the loudest complainers about the Yahoo WAH decision
Not having the commute saves me a huge chunk of time because my commute is about an hour each way. I don't WAH full time but have the flexibility to do it as needed, and try to do it once a week if I can. Also, since the kids' doctors and other miscellaneous events are near home, it is the difference between leaving home at 3:30 to pick them up for a 4:00 doctor appointment versus having to leave the office for that same appointment at 2:30 to allow for travel time. It just takes a big chunk out of the day to make that trip at times, so it does not always make more sense to be physically in the office.
Same goes for client meetings (so it is not all for personal convenience), depending on where the client is. I have some clients who are closer to my house so it would be a gigantic waste of time to go in to my office, then turn around and drive to a client's office, then drive back to my office, and then back home...because I would waste all day going back and forth over the same roads.
I only occasionally work from home but this is what I can think of:
I commute three hours at least a day. Can you imagine what I could accomplish with an extra three hours, whether personal or work related?
My lab space is loud. My coworkers can be distractions. Working from home often helps me focus and be more efficient.
flexibility - starting dinner in the oven, then working while it cooks. LO gets out of preschool at 3:15? Go pick him up and have the neighbor kid entertain him for a couple more hours.
Goodbye little angel(7/22/2011)....see you in heaven
Goodbye my second angel (9/18/2011)
I don't work from home but let's see, first there would be the gas money I spend to get to and from work. Next, additional car maintenance. Then there's the $100 a month for parking. I could also add in more money for clothes because at least where I work jeans and more casual clothes aren't allowed in the office but obviously if I'm at home what I wear doesn't matter. Commuting for me isn't horrible but it is an extra hour per day that I could be spending doing something else and if I figure I make roughly $40 per hour that's $200 worth of my time each week that I spend commuting.
And, I'm guessing for some, it's a loss of flexibility. I'm sure some of them weren't holding to strict 9-5 WAHM schedules but could work their working around other things in their lives so long as they were working x number of hours per week.
Oh, and the $$$ I spend on going out to lunch! When I've worked from the home in the past I just ate something at home but when I'm at the office I feel the need to have an out of the office lunch. I know that's my choice but it helps me keep my sanity so maybe it's worth it, but it adds up!
Kelly, Mom to Christopher Shannon 9.27.06, Catherine Quinn 2.24.09, Trey Barton lost on 12.28.09, Therese Barton lost on 6.10.10, Joseph Sullivan 7.23.11, and our latest, Victoria Maren 11.15.12
Secondary infertility success with IVF, then two losses, one at 14 weeks and one at 10 weeks, then success with IUI and then just pure, crazy luck. Expecting our fifth in May as the result of a FET.
This Cluttered Life
It saves me time getting dressed nicely for work, packing a lunch and briefcase, and the time and expense of commuting. It also lets me accomplish small tasks like changing up the laundry or sticking a frozen casserole in the oven while working instead of coming home at 6 and starting that stuff.
Personally, I'm much more productive without people stopping by my desk to ask questions, getting pulled into water cooler discussions, and all the other diversions of office life. And I really don't miss some of the office weirdos and drama.
So, while I pay for full time childcare either way, I'm much less stressed and have better work life balance working from home.
I WFH full time and couldn't have stated the benefits any better than this. I will say that I miss seeing my coworkers on a regular basis, though. Plus, I find brainstorming works much better for me when it's face-to-face.
This exactly! I WFH 1-2 xs a week.
Flexibility of being able to start dinner, throw in a load of laundry, etc.
Being in the house in case LO is having a rough time. I can take a 20 minute break and love on him.
It's not a childcare issue per se. But it is a feminist issue, because if we want to increase the number of women in the workforce, we need to do more than give lip service to this concept of work/life balance. WFH programs are an easy, cost effective way for companies to do this. And there's even evidence that these policies can save companies money, reduce staff turnover, improve morale and maybe even help the environment.
It makes sense that the people who have been successfully WFH are also the loudest "proponents" of the benefits. Just the fact that you used the word "complainers" shows your bias.
I cant imagine going from no commute to a 4 hour round trip commute. That would be a really hard transition.
I'm not a WAH mom, but I can tell you what the benefits are:
-Saving on your commute (especially in heavily congested regions)
-Breastfeeding mothers who work in cubes benefit because they can be more productive pumping and working from home, versus moving to a private area in a work building.
Me: 34 Him: 40
Dx: Severe MFI (low count)
IVF #1 : BFN
IVF #2 : BFP
2 Snowbabies
It's a GIRL!
When I commuted into the city, it cost me $365 a month for train tickets. Add in lunches (often too lazy to bring mine), and over 3 hours of commuting a day. That in and of itself is enough reason to love working from home. It also enables me to see DS for more than an hour a day and saves me a ton of money. I can hang in my sweats all day. In the nice weather, I bring my laptop out on the deck and work in the fresh air.
Now I have a job with a 10 minute commute and still take advantage of the opportunity to work from home one day a week. Why not?
I think managers of those who WAH focus on measurable results and output rather than worrying about the minute details of the employees' daily routine.
To the original post - as pretty much covered, there are perks to working from home that has nothing to do w/ a parent. I enjoy being able to take DS to preschool on my one day at home, but even if I didn't have him - I'd still LOVE my one day. WAH isn't just for/about parents.
~Benjamin Franklin
DS dx with celiac disease 5/28/10
Sure, as should all managers but that is easier said than done with a problem employee & in my other post asking for ppl who actually supervise ppl who WFH for their thoughts (which only 1 person responded to & her company has 2 ppl in the company who WFH vs the 100's I imagine do at yahoo), I also gave my opinion about how having just 1 employee who is in the same location as you who is a low performer is hard enough to deal with, takes a ton of time, and can be pretty stressful, so supervising ppl who never come in &are low performers has got to be extremely difficult.
So do you supervise ppl who WFH full time? Can you elaborate on what this is like when you have an employee that is a problem? Do you supervise ppl at all? I'm just wondering b/c it is easy to comment on unless you've done it. Measurable results & output are all well & good but unfortunately if they're not being met & you have no way of seeing WTH someone is doing all day long every day, it is pretty hard to counsel, come up with a good plan, etc.
That's what I figured. My company is going through the process of eliminating my position right now (I'm up for a promotion to stay on... fingers crossed) and people are dropping like flies. It sounds unlikely to happen, but I would laugh my @55 off if Yahoo retains more employees than they expect and have no place to put them.
I'm really not sure there is much difference in managing a person who WFH v. in the office. Why do you think there is such a big difference? My DH works from home for a company located across the country. His boss is in one city and all his immediate reports are located all over the country and the world. They have frequent team calls, they utilize technology like go-to meeting, they skype, they have IM chat, etc. He is in constant communication with his boss and his colleagues, much the same way I have even though I work in an office.
If he isn't performing, his boss would address it the same way my boss would. He would counsel him and put him on an improvement plan. My work productivity has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that my boss can see me. I have an office, and my computer is turned away from the door. When he approaches my office, if I'm on TB or FB or something, I just minimize that screen, so he thinks I'm working. This isn't a problem because I'm productive, but if I weren't productive, he would counsel me and put me on an improvement plan. Why is that any different than my DH?
Do you not have to produce at your work? I don't have billable hours or sales goals or anything, but my boss asks me to do things, and I have to get those things done. Whether I'm in the office or WFH, I would have to get things done (respond promptly to questions/emails, draft documents/policies/procedures, produce presentations, etc.). Those things just don't seem difficult to measure.
Also, why punish the whole company just becuase there are a few rogue Yahoos. If you are having trouble managing some people who WFH, then require them to come into the office. I just don't understand why everyone has to now come to the office when there are a substantial number of people, my DH included, who are much more productive WFH.
We posted at the same time, but clearly I totally agree with you.
Commuting and flexibility are the only real WFH perks I can see. Other things such as working w/o distractions, work clothes, lunches out, etc. seem a bit ancillary to me.
I still maintain that I don't see what the huge deal is. Yahoo can do what it needs to do to see an improvment in their company. It always sucks to take away something that is seen as a "perk" but our economy isn't the best right now and I think that all businesses are having to make compromises.
I also don't see them sparking a trend that other companies will follow. That's like saying that Google's 5 month paid maternity leave will spark a trend that other companies will follow....and we all know that most likely won't happen.
This. Prior to my move due to my active duty DH, I had 2.5 hours a day of commuting. I used to work full time in the office, but after DD I WFH 3 days a week. When we moved to this new crappy military town with no jobs, I was able to keep my job. Obviously, my employer thinks it is worth it. I also could make more, but choose to stay (well chose when we were in metro DC) because of the flexibility.
Yahoo can do what they want, but the concern is that there are 'industry trends'. Many of us who do WFH do not want to see the new trend swing toward sheparding everyone back to an office to try and see if that will help struggling companies.
I WFH at least 1-2 days a week for 5 years. After I had B, I could no longer do so because my DC is in my office building.
I can absolutely, without a doubt tell you that my quality of life and job satisfaction has plummeted since I had to stop WFH.
My commute is about an hour each way, so I've lost 2-4 hours a week of time I used to use to run errands, clean the house, etc., so now I have to shift those responsibilities to the weekends. I have to pay to park at the Metro every day. I can no longer be home to accept packages (we get a ton) so I have to squeeze in time to run around to UPS, Fed Ex, etc., each of which is at least a 20 minute drive one way. I can't have repairmen come and do work on my house during the week without taking a day off and having my child home with me, who is then usually woken up from her nap by the work, causing a nightmare of an evening. My dry cleaning bill has gone up since I have to wear business clothes to the office, so that's an extra 1-2 outfits per week that need to be cleaned.
That's not even to begin to touch how much more productive I am at home. I work in cubicle land. Whatever moron decided that cubicles were conducive work environments ought to be shot and quartered. Right now, I'm listening to my shared cube wall mate having a loud (non-work related) convo with another cw. It's been going on for over 25 minutes. Let me tell you how productive any of the 3 of us that share the walls with that cube have been in the last 25 minutes.
Honestly, I can't wait for B to be in school so I can WFH again. It was such a blessing.
As for managing WFH emplyees, I've done that as well as managed a team that was located in 3 offices across the country. Being physically in the office with them made absolutely no difference that I could see in my ability to asses issues and address them.
BFP #2 4/13/10. Bridget born 12/28/10
BFP #3 Finn born 8/11/15
[url=http://www.thebump.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=UBB&utm_campaign=tickers][img]http://global.thebump.com/tickers/tt1cb8c4.aspx[/img][/url]
I don't work from home exclusively...but am allowed to do so at my discretion. So, usually a few days (4-8) a month I am working from home. My parents are currently living with us and care for DD...so essentially I have 2 live in nanny's.
The real advantages I see when I work form home are that 1) I save my commute time and cost. 2) I get to see DD during the day. When I am home I don't have to pump. I just stop working, run downstairs and feed DD when she wants to eat. 3) I am more productive overall. As an employee I can get a lot more work done at home than at work. I am not interrupted as often, I am not having to waste time moving from conference room to conference room in different building on campus for meetings. I can work and eat lunch at the same time. I am not having all the side conversations that happen with colleauges. As a wife and mom when I am home I can mutlitask and get some things done while I work. It only takes a few minutes to throw a load of laundry in, or get dinner thrown in the ovenand then I am back upstairs at my computer.
All that said I have a job I absolutely can not do solely working from home. Projects ebb and flow. Sometimes I need to be at work 12hrs a day for a few weeks straight on site at a plant, sometimes I need to travel to suppliers, sometimes I'm 8hrs at the office, and sometimes I can work from home. I love that my company and my boss trust me and support my decision to work from home when it makes sense.
I don't work from home but the benefits are well state above by previous posters. Additionally, I think it is difficult for people in smaller towns/communities to understand the commute issue that people in urban/larger areas have to deal with. I live in the nyc/nj newark area. Even though my job is literally 7 miles away, sometimes it can take me 2 hours to get to work or get home. I already work long hours - 9 a day and my baby is is daycare the whole time. is it really great to stick her in the car for another 3 hours a day? No. If I was allowed to work from home occasionally, she could go to a local daycare and we could improve the quality of our lives. In this modern era of two working parents, we need flexibility in the workplace. It wasn't so important back in the day when mom was staying home. moreover, we are an electronic world now. It's the way of the future.
Really what it comes down to from a supervisory perspective (I act in such a capacity and oversee about 8 people) is good management and honest evaluation. Programs such as telework should be reserved for high performing employees only. Unless you get rated at the high end of the scale, you simply don't qualify. Unfortunately, many managers have difficulty managing poorly performing employees whether they are in office or not in office. Simply taking away the ability to telecommute for all employees is just bad management and demoralizing.
The great employees at yahoo that valued the ability to telecommute will find other jobs. Yahoo will then be left with the mediocre.
I manage about 150 people across the country who have the option to work from home or in a local office and I can tell you that this is exactly my focus. I don't care where, when or how they get their work done as long as it's getting done well and they are available to me via phone, email or IM when I need them. We are spread out all over the country so I wouldn't see them in an office anyway. Some people like going into the office and some people like working from home. Some mix it up for variety, including myself.
I find that they are generally happier, more accepting of pitfalls (i.e. not ready to up and leave in a bad raise year), and more productive simply because they have the choice.
I wouldn't mind working in an office but my home office, my boss and all of my coworkers are 5 hours away from me so that part doesn't pertain to me. The biggest benefit for me is not having to pay for and send my school-age dd to before and after school care. The commute is also a biggie - I have to pick my son up from daycare by 5:30. When I worked in the office (which they have since closed down), I had to leave at 4:30. Now I can work until 5:00 - 5:15.
I mostly WFH and the main benefits (to me) are flexibility and the commute. My commute is about an hr with normal traffic, but 95 never has normal traffic during rush hour. I also work more than 40 hrs a week, so if I had to commute to the office, work my standard workday (pretty much 8am-7pm) then commute home, I would never see my child.
I'm also much happier because I have more flexibility and balance I wouldn't have with an office job. I am more productive because of this.
I don't think you understand the tech industry very well. Competition for engineers is HUGE. It's everything. The month after Google announced their maternity leave policy, my company announced an improved maternity leave policy.
I've been working from home for 2.5 years, or as it's called in my field: telecomuting. I will never go back to an office if I can help it. I control my work environment. If my company instituted that policy, I would be looking for a new job pronto. It's not a perk to me, it's a way of life.
With that said, it's def a personal preference. What you see as ancillary items may not be to others.
i see all points from both...,y thinking is more about those who don't perform...if the continue to not perform and don't respond and are not accessible to meet in person it just seems like a huge pain to try to deal with that... Obviously a huge pain when you're in the office too but I feel like it would be a lot easier for a manager to stay on top ofmthings and also see how the person is doing during the day, check in, see interactions with others, etc. I have just had a number of bad experiences with employees who worked In a different office in the same city and felt that was hard enough so I was trying to think about managing someone I have zero non technical access to... I would think when hired that way from the get go it would be much different bc of expectations from the start vs a movement toward that...
mostly why I was asking is bc all the posts on this topic seemed to be from pp, who wfh and why it is so great for them and not much about what it is like from a managers perspective....also I think 12000 employees, most of whom are located in the same state, is different than small companies or companies with few employees in the same area. I think this article kind of reiterated my feelings, regarding how we can all armchair quarterback and how there is a good chance marissa Mayer has a lot more info about what has happened at yahoo over the years with regard to wfh and the culture, productivity and outcomes and she is makings decisions she thinks are beat for her company, not decisions she thinks are best for all companies. I don't really think it is her job to try to take into account what other companies might do based on the actions she takes in her own place, and it seems to me that most of the anger is fear that other companies might go this way and ppl feel threatened. But, if their co and employees function as well in this way as everyone is saying then why should anyone fear that?
https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/27/living/parent-defends-yahoo-mayer-policy/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
I am an engineer, so I think I understand it pretty well. My company instituted a paid maternity leave policy this year because I am currently pregnant. While we are not the only engineering company in our area to have paid maternity leave, we are the only company relative to our size and type of work to have such a policy. Is this going to change other companies around us, no. It is just something that the owner of my company wanted to do for myself and for any other employee that has a child as a benefit.
2+ hours a day on the road in traffic.
I don't WAH, but my office recently moved and I honestly could not do it if I still had my old commute and was working full-time.
2011: FSH 13.3 & E 99; AMH 0.54 2nd FSH 6.2 E 40's AFC: 8
BFP from Clomid/IUI ~ Pre-e and IUGR during pregnancy ~ DS born 9/4/12
Feb./March 2013: AMH less than 0.16 (undectable) and AFC = 4;
BFP from supps ~ DS#2 due May 2014
May 2014 January Siggy Challenge:
I'm sorry you have 150 direct reports? That is quite something, your job must be 100% doing performance evaluations since you'd have 1 every 1-2 days for the entire work year? I'm confused. I assume you mean you have 150 people 'under' you, but how many directly report to you? It sounds like you have a good system & good workers who meet those criteria but I also think a lot of this depends on what type of work you do- in jobs where there are clear deliverables (sales, contracts, billable hours, some product) I can see this working better than some other fields.
I'm not saying this is not possible, I just feel like it makes for tough management, and I can see it getting out of control. Clearly I'm alone in this.
I think it would be way easier to manage WAH employees. You would have to completely go on results.
You know that co-worker that drives you nuts? You wouldn't have to manage that. You could look at employee output instead of having to overlook things like their working style, their hair cut, the fact that they chew gum too loudly...
LOL true. But I still don't think it is easier unless it started out that way. If it transitions that way, it is tough. I am in a situation right now where I work somewhere where telecommuting is not the norm for staff level positions & there is not a formal policy against it but I have been told that staff are not typically supposed to telecommute...and then my staff ask to telecommute b/c they have a sick child at home- I know the troubles of having sick kids but I also know that getting any work done while having a sick toddler is pretty unlikely and they interpret me as being rigid & controlling if I ask for further info about what the plan is for them to do that day & expect them to report/deliver on it. But I feel like i have to be fair considering the others in similar positions are not WFH and the fact that I know the reality is that very little will be done in this situation, esp based on this person's performance in general. I'm not typically a micromanager but this situation is hard for me.
I think so much of this whole WFH debate depends on the workplace, the circumstances, the type of work and I still think that all the armchair quarterbacking that is going on with little to no knowledge of what went into her decision (from what I have read, they analyzed VPN data to see how many ppl were really online & available, etc as part of the analysis, which makes sense) or about the culture there is pointless---- all of us have made decisions at work based on facts that we had access to and others have judged those decisions as bad ones b/c of how they were affected and sometimes we are not in a position to share all the details or choose not to...just seems to me this is the case here & I actually admire that yahoo has not come out all defensively about this. It was their decision based on the information they had and none of us know what that is.