Discussion on:

Huh? Yahoo puts kibosh on employee telecommuting

It has been widely noted elsewhere that the real intent of this move is probably to get rid of a bunch of workers without having to pay severance benefits. After all, the company will have offered them continuing employment; the fact that it requires relocation, and living in a city where the employee can't afford to live, is irrelevant.

BINGO!

It's no secret that it's much, much easier to force telecommuting employees to take an unpaid day off than it is to force site based employees to clock out.

Sure, rounding up the troops and making them interact face to face can generate ideas and team building. At the same time it can kill innovation due to office politics and the distance that allows workers to do some thinking.

FORCING the troops to breathe each other's air is more likely to do the latter.

Not everyone is cut out for either scenario. Genious isn't a forced thing and sometimes we try too hard to make others like ourselves.

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.

Having spent 40 years in Fortune 500s R&D and large education institutional research environments, I completely understand the purpose of the above directive. Absolutely nothing makes parasitic managers (especially those with little to no technical understanding) more nervous and fearful for their jobs - than not have constant access to the creativity and productivity of their underlings - which they can claim as their own to their superiors (including boards) - therefore and apparently justifying their existence. Nothing more, nothing less.

I wrote the first book on Telecommuting: The Future Technology of Work - here's the free ebook http://techtionary.com/books/telecommuting/index.pdf in 1986 - seriously this is crazy to stop this critically important aspect of work and life. For many going to work ruins their life because of their family and other reasons such as today someone is doing to die just driving to or from work.

if I still used Yahoo, or if I ever did...

Yes, we got that message at our company too.

Ironic. When management wants to sell us on outsourcing and the benefits of collaboration, we live in a global economy where teleconferencing is a great thing. On the other hand, when management wants to sell us on the advantages of physical face-to-face communication, physical location becomes all important and teleconferencing is a bad thing.

Management once again impresses us with its facility for talking out of both sides of its mouth. What this really comes down to is management's desire to keep employees under its control and under its thumb.

How many layers of middle management would be sitting on their hands if there are no employees to "supervise".

Really? More productive? Its 2013 for Chrissake! If a tech company that is barely holding on makes such a draconian switch, my guess is that there is some other reason behind their decision. My experience is that 99% of those hallway, cafeteria and impromtu meetings are not about work. Just saying....

The author does not appear to understand the reasoning behind this decision, as his reference to this as a "feel-good workplace policy" and several other statements attest. I think many innovative ways of thinking and ideas are not coming to light based on the isolation of working from home and literally "phoning it in" (yes, in addition to the implication of that phrase, as well).

If a company has a policy allowing telecommuting for purely economic reasons (no commute, lower overhead, etc.), then they are probably not getting the big picture regarding how many decisions are made and information is truly exchanged in a highly communicative organization. I have lost count of the number of ideas and projects that have been proposed or generated as a result of my discussions with upper management either immediately before or after meetings, or even through chance meetings in my office of approximately 110 people, including the 3 family members that are owners of my company.

I do believe that telecommuting may be appropriate for some and a total ban may be a bit over the top. However, doing it because everyone else is doing it and have been for a while and it saves money and the technology exist to do so and the US government is doing it does not necessarily make it right or the best business decision. Yes, you may save relocation costs and "real-estate costs" (whatever those may be), but perhaps you are losing more in the lost innovation and creativity that does come from face-to-face discussions and exchanges of ideas.

And who knows, maybe our floundering housing market may benefit from people actually buying and selling houses in order to have to go to an office to work. Said a bit tongue-in-cheek, but you never know.

If you had to have a meeting to have and idea - I suggest you didn't have the idea. I'll agree that association prospers through discussion of ideas. However, as someone dealing with intellectual property on a daily basis - I want all my ideas and responses to them on paper, recorded in multiple places and not floating around in the air for anyone (like you) to claim or build upon without crediting and appropriately rewarding the source of the original idea.

I agree that in intellectual property circumstances, and many others, documentation is crucial and necessary, but I do not and have not laid "claim" to anything (quite the opposite...see below). Open communication in many instances is clearly superior to closed, hush-hush conversations so someone gets the "credit", as opposed to what could and should happen for the betterment of the company as a whole.

Your assumptions about my intentions are obviously based on your vast knowledge of me, my company, and my job position, but just in case you do not have this information, I will enlighten you. We are a 5th generation family-owned company, the largest in the world for many of our products, with an excellent safety history (I am the Safety Director for all of our operations) in one of the most hazardous industries in the US. We have been ahead of the curve regarding environmental and safety compliance for many years and have been actively involved in guiding state and national policy in many aspects of these two areas.

Since I started with the company, we have seen a our marked improvement in safety performance and safety culture for many reasons. I do not and have never claimed responsibility for this improvement (and I correct anyone that congratulates me personally), as it is everyone's efforts that have lead us to this improvement and continued performance.

As for 'taking credit', I have had 2 specific instances just this year where one of our owners suggested some improvements that we may be able to make (did not say we had to do them, just to think about it) and after implementation, showed them to him and thanked him for the suggestion and our discussion. No this was not brown-nosing; it was recognizing that sometimes casual conversations can generate ideas that may save a person from having an injury or becoming a fatality. That was the point of my initial post.

Hey, Shep. Since you're such a business mogul, why can't companies host open video conferencing for employees ? An open door policy by internet for ideas would seem to work also. Control seems to be a little too important to you. Good management involves inspiring teamwork and listening to what these people are saying , (it is an unpopular idea for numerous reasons) and not handing out collars for your leash.

Hey, Mr. Wrinkles. You must have hit the wrong reply button, as your response has absolutely nothing to do with what I have posted. In case you were, however, I never claimed to be a business mogul. My company hosts numerous video conferencing sessions and meetings and they are cumbersome and often inefficient (not always, but fairly often), in my opinion, as well as having an open door policy via several means, including Internet, for exchange of ideas.

In an effort to correct your mistake, I will look for posts referencing 'control' and 'leash' for this article and forward a request to the admin to have this comment attached to same.

... is using technology to virtually meet and discuss things, either formally or informally. Your earlier statement about "phoning it in" may just indicate rather old-fashioned ideas about telecommuting that today's technology can improve on.
Perhaps this discussion is somewhat related to companies trying to offload communications/computing costs to their employees - for instance companies thinking that all they need to support telecommuting is a computer and a phone at their employees premises, and they can often offload even those costs on their employees. Accountants are probably slathering over the capital savings from the BYOD movement, especially as more and more computing power can be carried in the employees' purse or pocket. I predict the failure of these initiatives due to unconsidered costs - just like telecommuting will fail if the company fails to provide an adequate support environment.

I telecommute and was recently involved in the conception of a new cell of telecommuters for the company I work for. The person put in charge of the operation was site based. He decided to not allow a certain tool to the new employees that was available to all the other telecommuting cells, evidently thinking that they would never be the wiser. Never, ever underestimate the ability of people to utilize social networking and other digital forms of communication. It was a matter of days before these brand new employees discovered that they had not been granted access to a tool that all the other telecommuters were allowed to use. So the lack of communication argument is ridiculously outdated.

What does this comment have to do with what I posted?

In today's technology environment that offers very good teleconferencing and intstant messaging facilities there is absolutely no reason for people having to meet face to face. Having worked for large enterprises like HP where there may be thousands of people working on projects in some form all over the globe you could not get them in one room anyway and you end up teleconferencing. Therefore, there can be only one reason as stated elsewhere, insecure below par workers need others around so they can try and make up for their weaknesses.
I for one telecommute and I am much more effective and productive than working from an office; often I get an idea late at night and go to my computer to work on it there and then. Something I would never do if I had to work from an office.
Yahoo? Who needs them they are probably dieing anyway and this is probably the first sign of their demise.

Note going to be pleasant for some to read, but "work from home" is often way over sold. I suspect that this perk of the last decade is about to go and often for good reason, productivity. Lots of younger employees will fell "management abuses, power grab, not fair etc", but suspect management across the nation is starting to sense they can get more real work at office then at home. Know this is not popular concept among many as they have this ego problems of "creative, highly talented, special folks" etc, but reality is now going to find out what is actually being done for the bucks. Having had jobs both ways, I rather think that "at the office" will win out for productivity, as looking the person in eye and listening across table not same as via computer.
' Now many many not like it, but this is going to be a coming trend, and just might be justified by increase in products, quality and profits. Will have to wait a bit, but if Yahoo does it, other management will follow, kind of means the benefit is gone and choice is rather simple, go along or leave, same as has always been as only badly managed companies have more then couple of employees critical to their success's, others can be replaced. So that is the reality, sorry but this thing was fun, but over now for most. Suspect some basic time/work studies behind this one.

What I find most irritating about Corp/LLC's is not this thing, but their nearly total lack of hammering the elected for more competitive world class educational standards, K-12 and colleges.

I'm gonna guess your way over 50.

This entire thing is someone in management doesn't feel they are getting enough brown nosing. They are so sick and twisted thet they desperately need brown nosing in order to feel like they matter.

You should indeed never trust anyone over 50 if you're out for quick profits from existing, yet virtually outdated products (e.g. the traditional motorcar or family house).

Older inventors have the experience and knowledge to invent products that are way ahead of their times -- should this be a reason to discard them?

I'm 70, and 30 years ago I invented a revolutionary rotary-wing concept -- hence I like the metaphor of the caterpillar transforming into a butterfly in the secrecy of the cocoon, a solitary process called metamorphosis...

It takes 20 days from caterpillar to butterfly, yet 20 years at least from motorcar to personal aircraft...

Are you irresponsible enough to think we can get humanity out of the mud without that kind of metamorphoses?

Amusing post, on the 50 thing, but since at one time or other we all either heard it or said, not to worry, you will grow out of it and be worth something to company, self and nation and then some day some mouthy type with little real experience will say same about over 50 and you will smile.

About 14 years ago, I started my own Engineering Company. I worked from Home for about 4 month, then, I rented office space. The reason was simple. I got twice as much done.

At home, there were too many distractions. Kids, the dog, the wife, with something that just had to be done right now. With an office, I could have clients over, work undisturbed, and have private phone and internet access with no interruptions. There was also more space for CAD station and storage of drawings.

It also made it easier when I needed another drafter.

Working from home is good for some, but, there is a reason why working from an office is better.

Oh, and for the response about a tie, it depends on who you will be working with. Some Clients expect a suit and tie. Some do not. For me, a Bolo Tie works. That's because I live in Arizona, where the Architects and factory administrators who were my main clients often didn't wear suits.

The rule is 'Always dress for the job. Dress to meet your Clients expectations. Never be the worst dressed nor the best dressed in the room." blue Jeans and work boots with a button shirt or a polo shirt are fine for a job site, but not for a corporate board room.

If you couldn't find yourself the space that you need at home, or have family that won't accept the discipline you should have imposed; or you needed a special space for special tools; or you needed space for another employee (I'm assuming you didn't have the technology for him to telecommute); or you needed a physically impressive space to woo clients, then neither you nor the job you needed to do were good candidates for telecommuting. There are lots of cases where telecommuting is impractical - like brain surgery, or construction, or hair-dressing. But there are many jobs where a lot of money can be saved, as long as the worker is provided with both the tools and the supervision (yes, you can supervise telecommuting employees).
I have a feeling that Yahoo's problem may relate to failure to provide the right tools, or failing to develop the right supervision and management for its home workers, probably with the expectation that they were going to save a bundle by not providing these prerequisites.

Yahoo! won't do
What they sell you?

Have a NICE net.

I wonder if Yahoo is admitting what many in my industry have said all along. Working from home is a security nightmare.

Being the ultimate insider as a remote services provider, I think Yahoo has given us a glimpse at what they see happens behind the telecommuting curtin. And they are scared by it.

Personally I think this has nothing to do with the hollow "bash the big company" comments being made above.

This is not about management wanting people in the building.

This is not some draconian corporate power play or big brother company wanting to chain people to their desks.

In fact, I think many of the comments above reflect how shallow and entitled people have become that the notion of getting off your back sides and going to a place of work is abhorrent to you. Suck it up boys and girls. This is what it is like to work a real job.

I think this is a major player in the telecommuting, remote services industry, firing a warning shot of what they think of their own industry. They do not like where it is going.

I would heed the warning. If I was one of the sheep that went down the telecommuting fantasy path.

You won't be able to stop them from communicating on the sly just by forcing them to report to a central location at this point. That ship has sailed.

Shut off all systems that provide remote access.

The company I work for has recently cut back on the number of users with Smartphone access to corporate email after a PCI audit called the percentage of remote users "dangerously high" causing "unnecessary vulnerabilities."

It is common that a companys public statements do not reveal the real reason why changes are being made.

In our case it was a PCI audit that drove the decision. Publicly it was pitched as an effort to reduce the number of people doing 'after hours' work.

The old ' the company feels when you are home you should focus on family time' line. It makes the company look like it cares about it's employees.

And patronizing too.
At 60 years of age, I'm hardly "boys and girls".
One advantage to working at a centralized spot could be the satisfaction of letting a dinosaur know face-to-face how unacceptable your attitude toward your co-workers is.

And how immature and selfish most responses have been here, I felt the term boys and girls was appropriate for the people complaining about their right to work from home being challenged by this move.

The many security concerns of telecommuting have been brought up. No discussion.

The changing cost effectiveness of telecommuting based on the expensive enhanced security requirements has been brought up. No discussion.

Legitimate concerns about the extent of telecommuting hurting Yahoos performance has been brought up. The response has been nothing but rhetoric of the oppressed worker. There has been no discussion of how Yahoos sorry state as a company COULD be in part a result of the lax corporate telecommute mentality. Instead people are angry that telecommuters are being called out to justify their existence in a failing company.

All there has been is self entitled bashing of management denying them of something they feel entitled to. Most of the posters sound like a bunch of spoiled brats.

Personally I hope the telecommuters here do get called back to work. I am tired of carrying the load for them. Most of them have not put in an honest days work in years.

Anyone who telecommutes is arguably replaceable by a chap in [insert foreign country here].

Hmm.

That has not been the recent trend. It is cheaper to replace site based employees with foreign employees than it is home based employees.

Score one for us humans being together at work, and functioning like the social species we are instead of turning into O's and 1's at home. Cheers!

... neck ties, shined shoes and crisply pressed trousers. And you, over there, get a haircut. Ladies will wear skirts and heels. The best decisions and insights are obtained when we all portray a professional appearance.

Yahoo quickly forgot the hygene issues of the nerd employees that led them to allow telecommuting in the first place. It won't take long for them to get a wiff of reality.

and you are threatening them with coming back with more of your odorous ways.

I worked in the civil engineering division of a multi-business type Company. After the CEO got embarass by a punk dressed kid in the marketing department when traveling in the same lift with some important guess on a Friday morning, he set a a new dress code of including not allowing to jeans and trainers when entering the Company HQ building. This prove to be totally idotic and everyone end up trying to slip through the bace door and delivery lobby. Similiar case here I guess

Another reason to NOT work for Yahoo!!

Typical stupid upper management decision. Obviously they are attempting to cut payroll, but they will lose their best people doing it. Their best people will have no trouble finding a new job where they can telecommute, so they will leave. Its their worst people that will stay. Kind of luck cutting costs by getting rid of the highest salaries. Counter productive.

jobs is very fierce.

Yah Who?

Yahoo was the absolute top of their game at one point, but then someone built a better mouse-trap and they have lost relevancy in the market place. I am trying to see the angle being worked in this idea that might restore them to their former glory..... I'm not seeing it? Anyone else got any ideas on how bringing everyone back to the office could help Yahoo as a company to compete?

I agree that this is a disaster move, a Hail Mary pass, an act of desperation.

In the mid 90's, I was at a company that mandated hotelling for all the sales staff. They were supposed to be out seeing customers and only come in once per week. They called in first to reserve a desk where their phone extension would be forwarded for the day. Their rolling file cabinet was stored in a personal locker and rolled to their assigned desk. Once per month, each department had a meeting. The quarterly meeting was nuts. All the sales people came in and there were not enough desks for them. They doubled up on desks and phones. We engineers were given tasks in the lab so our desks could be used. The strategy was effective. The sales staff tripled without the office space increasing. They got to manage their own time, and still report in person. The social interaction was there, as well as the workplace flexibility. And that was before the internet and smart phones. But it could not rescue a company with an uncompetitive product. We went out of business.

My present employer does not allow telecommuting because of security concerns and antiquated union rules. But we do have flex time. So there are reasons why an employer would need all the staff on site. But Yahoo is probably not one of them. So it sound to me that they are desperate to try something, anything, to stay alive. If this is the best they can do, I would sell their stock now.

(I in no way have any relation to any professional investing anything. This is totally my own opinion.)

struggling to survive. Sometimes, even telecommuting can be a luxury that helps to drain the energy out of a company.

I notice that a large percentage of the "commuting is bad and Yahoo is good posts and replies in this thread are from one person. Hmmn.

and I only use their e-mail service, mostly because I've used that service for well over 10 years, and some habits are hard to break. Other than e-mail, I hate everything they stand for, especially with their liberal views and liberal articles, and I wish for them to go away or get taken over.

The only part that I agreed with, and that you are apparently too dense to notice, is their telecommuting policy.

There is one thing where I agree with Obama about, but I dislike 99.99999% of what he stands for. That one little thing doesn't make me an Obama lover, unless you believe that, that once in a million is the same as loving Obama.