Marissa Mayer's Yahoo telecommuting ban

[ilfaith]

Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer has issued a call for all company employees wo work from home to begin reporting to a Yahoo office.

Of course, Ms. Mayer is probably the most high-profile working mom in America. Hired by Yahoo while she was pregnant, she had a nursery built (at her own expense) at her office, so that her own son (and nanny) could stay onsite while she worked long hours.

I somehow doubt she intends to let other working moms bring their own babies to work.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-yahoo-telecommuting-20130226,0,5913345.story

[♥ms.pacman♥]

Ugh. Well, after her "having a baby was easy!!" comment, I'm not surprised.

But i guess i can't knock her too much. In many ways, she is acting like many other male CEO would..getting all these perks yet not giving a crap of what the average employee may need.

[TwinFoxes]

Ugh, I feel bad for employees who've probably crafted a delicate balance.

[elbenn]

I thought more companies were going to telecommuting and I would have thought Yahoo would be the perfect sort of company for telecommuting. I wonder why she doesn't think it's as efficient?

[janine]

Yea not a fan of her after pregnancy was EASY comment. This seems to be another anti-woman move IMO although maybe it wasn't intended that way.
I think with women increasingly entering the workforce and becoming breadwinners there has to be more flexibility allowed and it's never going to happen without some support from the few women at the top! Of course this goes for men too, but the fact still is that most SAHP are the moms, and many of them are professional and might have more options if given flexibiity.

[larig]

DH who telecommutes 100% and I have had some discussions about this. He went through something similar with his former employer. he was 100% telecommuting, and they all of a sudden wanted him to be inoffice (while other members of the team were outsourced employees in india (made tons of sense). :shake: DH let them force him out, took his severance and got a better job at nicer company for more money.

mayer's move seems like a layoff without the company having to pay unemployment/severance benefits. I think it's sad on many levels for people who care about the environment, and individuals who can use the time spent commuting in other more productive ways. I just don't buy the argument that you have to be together physically to get things done and innovate.

[ourbabygirl]

Totally! DH works from home unless he's traveling (about every 2-3 weeks)... he says he's so much more productive working from home; he would get interrupted constantly when he was working in an office. The commute is also a huge pain if you're used to not doing it anymore, and DH uses those extra 2 hours to work rather than sit in frustrating traffic.
I, too, feel bad for those families who were enjoying working from home... I would be looking for another job if it were me or my DH working there.

[minnie-zb]

I heard a blip about this on NPR last night, but did not hear the full feature.

It saddened me to hear Yahoo wants to do this, it is a huge step backwards. I think it is naive on her part: a full parking lot is no indication of how successful or productive a company is. It's been proven that happy employees are more productive and more motivated. She's going to lose the good people who work for her because they will be able to find other jobs. She's going to keep the underperformers who are not motivated and can't easily switch jobs. Morale and loyalty are going to be in the toilet.

ETA: in full disclosure, I'm a 100% telecommuter, so maybe I'm biased.

[boolady]

See, when I started a thread after her baby is easy comment asking what the trickledown from her comments would be for working mothers, some posters chided me because it's not productive to tear other women down and why can't we support each other. That was not at all my intent; to the contrary, I simply asked what, if any, the ramifications of her comments and her situation would have on the 99.9% of working mothers who aren't in her situation. I'd be very hardpressed to believe that any of us on this board have been offered the opportunity to have a nursery built at our offices, unless someone's self-employed.

I'm not suggesting for a minute that she doesn't deserve her job, doesn't work hard, or anything else. What worries me is that her very unusual situation and the comments, and now corporate changes she's instituting, which seem to be based largely on her own experiences, will have a trickledown effect for the average WOHP. And while under no circumstances is it probably practicable to WAH and care for your own children, it's undoubtedly a tremendous opportunity in terms of flexibility, lack of commuting time, and the like. As twinfoxes put it very eloquently, it's permitted people to craft "a delicate balance."

I understand she's got shareholders and others to satisfy, and to prove that she's got the chops to turn Yahoo around. I really do. And I don't have the opportunity to telecommute, and never will in my current office, and that's okay. My DH doesn't either, so it's not about my family. I just wonder, again, what the trickledown will be from her decision, as the most senior female CEO and most-watched female CEO in the US and whether it's based on any research about productivity whatsoever.

[mommylamb]

IMO, there are always times when there is no substitute for face to face interaction. But there are also times when I'm doing something in my office that I could easily do from home, with fewer distractions, and I could do it faster and with my full attention.

I WOH 100% of the time. I wish I could do more from home, but this is how it has always been and I don't see it changing in my current job. Fortunately, my boss is flexible about when I come in and leave, so I can't complain too much. DH WAH 3-4 days/week, and it is a godsend for our family. He also works longer hours than I do because he logs on while I'm commuting to work and logs off when I'm commuting home, so he's working during much of my back and forth time.

I think it shows very little foresight for a CEO of a technology company to make a rule like this. Kind of like biting off your nose to spite your face.

[kristenk]

DH's brother works for yahoo. At his office, they recently either put in or revamped the staff lunch room. There are now tons of breakfast and snack options and a hot lunch available daily (if I'm remembering correctly). The staff was very excited about their new perk. Guess we know why they did it now.

This moves takes yahoo off of DH's list of possible employers. The local yahoo office is too far away for DH to happily commute every work day. Ugh.

[janine]

IMO, there are always times when there is no substitute for face to face interaction. But there are also times when I'm doing something in my office that I could easily do from home, with fewer distractions, and I could do it faster and with my full attention.

I WOH 100% of the time. I wish I could do more from home, but this is how it has always been and I don't see it changing in my current job. Fortunately, my boss is flexible about when I come in and leave, so I can't complain too much. DH WAH 3-4 days/week, and it is a godsend for our family. He also works longer hours than I do because he logs on while I'm commuting to work and logs off when I'm commuting home, so he's working during much of my back and forth time.

I think it shows very little foresight for a CEO of a technology company to make a rule like this. Kind of like biting off your nose to spite your face.

It really is for many families - I get one day and it is huge for me, but I'm already feeling the sharks circle and ask if I really need it. It's unfortunate and a step backwards (to insist on WOH 100%), because women will dominate the working world in a few geneartions (and I have 2 DD's) and technology allows us to change the norms (not to mention all the other advantages to society like less traffic, congestion). Women need to not try to stop being like men if they're at the top, and intead change the paradigm!

Boolady, I was in agreement with much of what you said in that original thread.

[arivecchi]

I think it shows very little foresight for a CEO of a technology company to make a rule like this. Kind of like biting off your nose to spite your face. Totally agree.

I gave her some slack on the baby comment, but this just makes her seem out of touch and honestly, strikes me as grandstanding - she seems so deperate to be taken "seriously" by the boys' club. It's a stupid move in this day and age.

[scrooks]

I wonder if this could backfire on her in the sense that people who telecommute are probably more likely to put in extra time on nights and weekends because work is always "there". You force people into the office and they mÃ*y resent any intrusion on their personal lives from work.

[mom3boys]

It's parent un-friendly and environmentally unfriendly. It also limits the pool of potential employees.

I recently applied for a job (unfortunately did not get it--came down to me and 1 other applicant) that I might not have considered had I needed to be in office all the time. The commute was a bit rough and I don't know that I could have done it 5 days a week, but it was WAH 2x a week which made the other days tolerable. The department is nearly all working moms and is somewhat unique in the company for having most employees WAH part-time, but the employees recognized the utility and efficiency of it. I too think there needs to be times of face to face interaction but lots of the time there is just "facetime" which is not the same thing.

I am finishing my thesis and stopped going into my campus office and WAH 9-3 while kids are at school. Since I have few interruptions I am as efficient as I was going on to my campus office 8 hours a day. The 1 day a week I go in to talk to my thesis advisor and attend a weekly meeting feels like lost time!

[boolady]

Totally agree.

I gave her some slack on the baby comment, but this just makes her seem out of touch and honestly, strikes me as grandstanding - she seems so deperate to be taken "seriously" by the boys' club. It's a stupid move in this day and age.

Couldn't agree more, when it doesn't sound like there is any evidence that there will be a positive, real world impact.

[elbenn]

I could understand if the ban was temporary, i.e. to establish the expectations of the work output for each job and whether the current requirements are too much or too little. However, if the ban is not temporary, then it does seem like a bad move by Mayer because Yahoo's job flexibility will be much less than other competitive companies.

[wellyes]

mayer's move seems like a layoff without the company having to pay unemployment/severance benefits.

:yeahthat:
It's a very cynical and calculated move.

[minnie-zb]

DH's brother works for yahoo. At his office, they recently either put in or revamped the staff lunch room. There are now tons of breakfast and snack options and a hot lunch available daily (if I'm remembering correctly). The staff was very excited about their new perk. Guess we know why they did it now.

This moves takes yahoo off of DH's list of possible employers. The local yahoo office is too far away for DH to happily commute every work day. Ugh.

They mention this new perk in the article and talk about it being a carrot and here comes the stick....

[edurnemk]

IMO, there are always times when there is no substitute for face to face interaction. But there are also times when I'm doing something in my office that I could easily do from home, with fewer distractions, and I could do it faster and with my full attention.


ITA. At DH's office most of them travel, telecommute, etc all the time, but they have a "home office day" when everyone has to go to the office, so they get to interact, have face to face time, meetings, etc. It's supposed to be every friday but because they all travel so much, it's more like 2-3 fridays a month. I think it would be a good compromise to do something like this at Yahoo!

[BayGirl2]

I've been thinking about this and I am mixed. I am local to Yahoo!, I've sold to them and worked with them, and I am a WAH mom working for a large company. I have found that "delicate balance" and most of my firm is remote. I usually travel to meet with my team. I'm also a big proponent of women in executive roles and I have some skin in the game on this point. BTW I advise executives in global businesses so I also have some insight into what other companies are thinking.

I still believe the trend is more work location flexibility, more "right shoring" of roles to find the right cost balance between knowledge workers and transactional processes with added automation. To find the right talent most leading companies NEED to hire geographically dispersed teams and treat them well. Many of my corporate clients have trouble finding the talent they need locally these days. (They can find poeple, maybe not the RIGHT people) This is more typical in tech and life sciences companies, in my experience. So in short, flexible work situations are not going away.

On the other hand, there are times when teams need to be together. I spent last week away from home but the time face to face is productive in a different way than when I'm working by myself. Its invaluable. With decreasing travel budgets its hard to come by. Companies that are 100% remote all the time are missing out on that.

Yahoo! is in my opinion a distressed company. They need to get the brains they have left together in a room every day to turn things around. They will probably lose some great people, but that' may be ok given their current state. In a turnaround situation tough measures are necessarily, but that doesn't mean they will dominate the industry over the long term.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I think its getting them a lot of negative PR and it may or may not be effective. But I don't think many other companies will follow suit.

[AnnieW625]

I have never once had the opportunity to work from home ever unless I brought extra work home for myself, which is now high discouraged.

I commute 25 to 30 miles each way every day I go to work. Because of the sensitivity of the high amounts of personal information we deal with working from home is not an option, and unfortunately will probably never be an option.

If I were one of these Yahoo! employees I would be thankful that I even had the chance to work from home.


Ugh, I feel bad for employees who've probably crafted a delicate balance.

I guess I see this a little differently and it is 100% based on my experience of never once having a chance to work from home, but I think no matter whether you work from home full time or part time or you commute every day there is always a delicate balance, not just a delicate balance for those that have the luxury of being able to work from home.


IMO, there are always times when there is no substitute for face to face interaction. But there are also times when I'm doing something in my office that I could easily do from home, with fewer distractions, and I could do it faster and with my full attention.

I WOH 100% of the time. I wish I could do more from home, but this is how it has always been and I don't see it changing in my current job. Fortunately, my boss is flexible about when I come in and leave, so I can't complain too much. DH WAH 3-4 days/week, and it is a godsend for our family. He also works longer hours than I do because he logs on while I'm commuting to work and logs off when I'm commuting home, so he's working during much of my back and forth time.

I think it shows very little foresight for a CEO of a technology company to make a rule like this. Kind of like biting off your nose to spite your face.

:yeahthat: my job is very similar with similar flexibilities. My DH works from home when he can one day a week.


It's parent un-friendly and environmentally unfriendly. It also limits the pool of potential employees......

In general IMHO I don't think that the tech industry is female friendly and even though there always seem to be perks many of the men and women (do a search for the Google Perks video from a few years ago) I know who work in the tech industry and have worked for large companies like Google (a classmate of mine from elementary-high school was one of the first 100-150 employees at Google; he is now retired at 35 yrs. old), Yahoo (another classmate of mine worked for Yahoo! right out of college as well in the early 2000s), and Microsoft are all "go go go" types of people. My friend who worked at Microsoft actually quit because she hated it so much. They also understand that they have to move around a lot, like every two years and if they aren't moving around it makes them look complacent, which is bad on a resume especially if you are an entrepenuer. We have another friend who does security based engineering and is a gifted entrepenuer, he has had more jobs in the 15 yrs. than anyone else I have ever known. I don't think I can count them on two hands. At this point in his career he finally has enough business that he is able to work from home, but most of the time he is on the road or actually enjoys office time because he knows that he can be home with his family (he has a 17 yr. old, a 13 yr. old, and a 4 yr. old). He also plans to be retired in anothe 5 to 10 years (he will be 40 this year) and he'll be able to do it, but he has sacrificed a lot to do it. He hasn't stopped working since he was 18.

[Globetrotter]

oh wow. My friend's group got laid off from yahoo recently. She used to telecommute at least half the time, and this is how they made it work for their family. Both she and dh are in software, and the flexibility is honestly the main reason they are able to handle the logistics, but she worked very hard and compensated on weekends and after the kids were in bed. I guess it's a good thing that she got her severance and found a new job before this new Yahoo policy!

ETA: Most of our friends are techies, and MOST of them telecommute at least once in a while as it makes sense. People call in from all over the world! On the flip side, they have to be available all the time. DH takes his laptop on vacations so he is never really away from work.

[BayGirl2]

I have never once had the opportunity to work from home ever unless I brought extra work home for myself, which is now high discouraged.

I commute 25 to 30 miles each way every day I go to work. Because of the sensitivity of the high amounts of personal information we deal with working from home is not an option, and unfortunately will probably never be an option.

If I were one of these Yahoo! employees I would be thankful that I even had the chance to work from home.



I guess I see this a little differently and it is 100% based on my experience of never once having a chance to work from home, but I think no matter whether you work from home full time or part time or you commute every day there is always a delicate balance, not just a delicate balance for those that have the luxury of being able to work from home.



:yeahthat: my job is very similar with similar flexibilities. My DH works from home when he can one day a week.



In general the tech industry is not female friendly and even though there always seem to be perks many of the men and women I know who work in the tech industry and have worked for large companies like Google (a classmate of mine from elementary-high school was one of the first 100-150 employees at Google; he is now retired at 35 yrs. old), Yahoo (another classmate of mine worked for Yahoo! right out of college as well in the early 2000s), and Microsoft are all "go go go" types of people. They also understand that they have to move around a lot, like every two years and if they aren't moving around it makes them look complacent, which is bad on a resume especially if you are an entrepenuer. We have another friend who does security based engineering and is a gifted entrepenuer, he has had more jobs in the 15 yrs. than anyone else I have ever known. I don't think I can count them on two hands. At this point in his career he finally has enough business that he is able to work from home, but most of the time he is on the road or actually enjoys office time because he knows that he can be home with his family (he has a 17 yr. old, a 13 yr. old, and a 4 yr. old). He also plans to be retired in anothe 5 to 10 years (he will be 40 this year) and he'll be able to do it, but he has sacrificed a lot to do it. He hasn't stopped working since he was 18.

I disagree with the bold. I've worked in and around the tech industry as well as with other industries and I feel tech is far more advanced in work life balance, flexibility, and goal-based management (vs. putting in hours) than other industries. Yes, its hard work and you need to be fairly career driven, but I don't see that different for those trying to be successful in other industries. Much, much further along than government,educational or non-profit sectors.

What Yahoo! employees have is pretty typical in the industry and many of them can go to other companies and get those same benefits again. Yes, they should be thankful if they have work-life balance, because its hard for anyone to achieve. But I think its narrow to think they should be thankful they ever had that opportunity at all and should just shut up and pretend they are in a different (less advanced) industry. Its not the industry with the problem, its Yahoo! specifically.

[Globetrotter]

I disagree with the bold. I've worked in and around the tech industry as well as with other industries and I feel tech is far more advanced in work life balance, flexibility, and goal-based management (vs. putting in hours) than other industries. Yes, its hard work and you need to be fairly career driven, but I don't see that different for those trying to be successful in other industries. Much, much further along than government,educational or non-profit sectors.

:yeahthat:

[AnnieW625]

I disagree with the bold. I've worked in and around the tech industry as well as with other industries and I feel tech is far more advanced in work life balance, flexibility, and goal-based management (vs. putting in hours) than other industries. Yes, its hard work and you need to be fairly career driven, but I don't see that different for those trying to be successful in other industries. Much, much further along than government,educational or non-profit sectors.

What Yahoo! employees have is pretty typical in the industry and many of them can go to other companies and get those same benefits again. Yes, they should be thankful if they have work-life balance, because its hard for anyone to achieve. But I think its narrow to think they should be thankful they ever had that opportunity at all and should just shut up and pretend they are in a different (less advanced) industry. Its not the industry with the problem, its Yahoo! specifically.

thanks. I changed my post a bit so I didn't sound so negative, but I guess a lot of the people I have known who have worked in the tech industry are a lot of A type workaholics, or computer engineers who just seemed to have no issue with not having a much of a life, and then my friend who worked as a software designer/client problem solver for Microsoft from around 97 to 2002 and hated it esp. the last two years or so she was there (which is when I started to get to know here well).

[BayGirl2]

thanks. I changed my post a bit so I didn't sound so negative, but I guess a lot of the people I have known who have worked in the tech industry are a lot of A type workaholics, or computer engineers who just seemed to have no issue with not having a much of a life, and then my friend who worked as a software designer/client problem solver for Microsoft from around 97 to 2002 and hated it esp. the last two years or so she was there (which is when I started to get to know here well).

I hear you. I just don't think you can mix "career driven individual" with "non-family friendly industry", they are not the same thing. There are career driven individuals in every industry, I actually think Tech gives people MORE of an opportunity to be career driven AND have a family. There are some industries (heavy mfg for instance) where its still almost unheard of. And there are companies in every industry that do better/worse for their employees - in the long run I believe it impacts their business and the data is starting to prove that.

[Side note - I also don't like it when career driven people are called "workaholics", like having high personal goals is some kind of evil addiction. But that's a debate for a different thread. :wink2:]

[bisous]

This doesn't really surprise me. I've "seen" this trend away from telecommuting for the past year or so at DH's work (He's a Disney employee). When he started four years ago, each person was permitted a day to work from home, some employees rarely came into the office and some were strictly telecommuters. Over the past four years, all of the employees that are not at work every day were gradually let go. I find it particularly interesting because it is not like Disney is hurting for profit. They're actually doing really well. I'm not sure what is driving this trend.

[egoldber]

I now work for the federal government, but have worked in the tech field, in Silicon Valley and DH was a SW engineer in the valley and we have many, many friends in the valley. I totally agree with Annie. I think the tech industry in general, while many managers mouth flexibility, what they really mean is they expect you to work all the time and be available all the time, but they aren't watching the clock. The "perks" at these companies are designed to get you in the office early and keep you there late.

There is no way we could have any semblance of the family life we have now in the valley if either of us worked at a place like Google or Yahoo or the tech companies we worked for previously.

I and many of my co-workers, especially the female ones, are at the government because of the mandated telework, mandated flexible schedules, mandated leave, and ZERO expectation of work beyond my 80 hours per pay period. I can't work more than 80 hours without getting special permission and I get overtime if I do.

[rlu]

I've worked in SW since 1996 but in Finance not an engineer, so my perspective is different in that my work is fairly stand-alone. I use data from other people, easily gathered off our ERP or via email, so my face-to-face time is non-existant. It wasn't like that back in the 90s when we were still paper-drive to an extent. I don't know enough of how engineers work together to know if facetime is necessary - we have engineers around the world but they are generally clustered by product line in our major offices. I could see requiring certain departments to be onsite all the time but a blanket requirement for all employees is sure to put a distaste in the mouth.

OTH, I don't get the perks google-type companies give either - lobster for lunch, beer parties, onsite daycare with gourmet organic, locally-sourced food (my cousin used to work there), dry-cleaning service, etc. If you have to practically live there, at least it's a cushy cell.

eta: I don't think the tech industry is female unfriendly - we have a ton of female engineers and IT (and in the Finance/Tax departments I've worked in we outnumber the men, even at the VP level). That's not to say there aren't problems, of course, my cousin is a female engineer and she constantly clashed with her boss and he would "fire" her every few weeks in a fit of temper but then chase her down the hall and ask her to come back. He made remarks about her figure, weight, intelligence, that all appeared to be related to the fact she was a woman (she was the only woman in his department, but a supervisor so not an ineffectual worker) and eventually the only one RIFed from her department. That seems more an individual issue than a systemic issue though.

[KDsMommy]

I work for a huge financial services company and work at home 2x a week. In various locations the company has actually instituted a policy where employees are REQUIRED to WAH at least 3 days/week. Desks are shared and if you really need to come in on one of your WAH days, you need to reserve a "hotel desk". The push to WAH has really become apparent at my company over the last 2 years or so.

I am a single mom and the ability for me to WAH is a huge perk. I do find myself logging on earlier and staying logged on much later when I'm WAH than when I am in the office. I find myself checking emails and working on the weekends and at night. I am a salaried employee, so I get no overtime. I wouldn't say it's required to work extra hours, but those that do are highly favored.

I really don't see our WAH flexibility going away anytime soon, at least I hope not.

[janine]

I work for a huge financial services company and work at home 2x a week. In various locations the company has actually instituted a policy where employees are REQUIRED to WAH at least 3 days/week. Desks are shared and if you really need to come in on one of your WAH days, you need to reserve a "hotel desk". The push to WAH has really become apparent at my company over the last 2 years or so.

I am a single mom and the ability for me to WAH is a huge perk. I do find myself logging on earlier and staying logged on much later when I'm WAH than when I am in the office. I find myself checking emails and working on the weekends and at night. I am a salaried employee, so I get no overtime. I wouldn't say it's required to work extra hours, but those that do are highly favored.

I really don't see our WAH flexibility going away anytime soon, at least I hope not.

I'd love to know where you work. I am a large financial services co. I had to fight tooth and nail for my one day, draft a proposal, get HR involved, provide measures. It was given grudgingly. I tried to present how other firms were moving towards this, cost saving, desk saring and was told we are not progressive like that.

There have been significant layoffs in my industry as of late - cost saving to offset al the increasing regs and due to economic stalemate's effect on business and growth. So there isn't alot of levarage for employees.

[larig]

And I would tell these yahooligans (as they were once called) to go get a job in tech outside of the tradtional tech industry. When he was forced out of his previous job we were living in Seattle, and interviewed and turned down jobs from some big names in the tech world to take the job he now has. DH is a developer and does work on federal government contracts. The work is stable, he has a traditional pension, good benefits, 4 weeks vacation, etc. Working remotely for their team makes sense, however, because they develop complex web applications for the fed government--their clients are in D.C., while most of DH's dev team is in Chicago.

His work is demanding, but his managers are very understanding and expect people to be able to meet family obligations and demands from time-to-time. Even those who chose to work in-office work from home a decent part of the time. And, yes, there are trade-offs. He has had calls at odd times of day and on holidays, but the rest of the year is is available to see DS off for school, eat lunch and breakfast with us every day, and when DS starts Kindy next year, he'll walk to pick him up from school (when I go back to teaching). His work has allowed him to be a much more active presence in DS's life and I know he's quite grateful for it. BUT, he has worked himself into this position. He has been 100% telecommute since 1999. He has a sterling reputation as someone who is diligent and easy-to-reach. His most recent project, for example, is due end of March, but he has already finished it and deployed it. So, his company is willing to accommodate him, because he would be difficult to replace (they have a very difficult time attracting talent to his company, because most top developers want more glamorous jobs for tech giants).

Our lives will change a great deal next year when I go back to work, as we're used to spending almost all of our time together.

As an aside, he works with lots and lots of women developers...probably more women than men, actually. His sister is also a developer, as a mother of two (her DH is a SAHD), I know she enjoys her time working from home (although she is not 100% like DH).

[Globetrotter]

I think the tech industry in general, while many managers mouth flexibility, what they really mean is they expect you to work all the time and be available all the time, but they aren't watching the clock. The "perks" at these companies are designed to get you in the office early and keep you there late.

This is true, but I find my WOHM friends value flexibility over structure so it works for them. They are able to set their schedule and get home at a reasonable time but put in time at night, whereas my non-tech friends have rigid schedules that make child care more difficult.

[TwinFoxes]

I gave her some slack on the baby comment, but this just makes her seem out of touch and honestly, strikes me as grandstanding - she seems so deperate to be taken "seriously" by the boys' club. It's a stupid move in this day and age.

:yeahthat:

[KDsMommy]

I'd love to know where you work. I am a large financial services co. I had to fight tooth and nail for my one day, draft a proposal, get HR involved, provide measures. It was given grudgingly. I tried to present how other firms were moving towards this, cost saving, desk saring and was told we are not progressive like that.

There have been significant layoffs in my industry as of late - cost saving to offset al the increasing regs and due to economic stalemate's effect on business and growth. So there isn't alot of levarage for employees.

PM me.

There are significant layoffs happening at my company this year, as there have been in recent years.

[AnnieW625]

I now work for the federal government, but have worked in the tech field, in Silicon Valley and DH was a SW engineer in the valley and we have many, many friends in the valley. I totally agree with Annie. I think the tech industry in general, while many managers mouth flexibility, what they really mean is they expect you to work all the time and be available all the time, but they aren't watching the clock. The "perks" at these companies are designed to get you in the office early and keep you there late.

There is no way we could have any semblance of the family life we have now in the valley if either of us worked at a place like Google or Yahoo or the tech companies we worked for previously.

I and many of my co-workers, especially the female ones, are at the government because of the mandated telework, mandated flexible schedules, mandated leave, and ZERO expectation of work beyond my 80 hours per pay period. I can't work more than 80 hours without getting special permission and I get overtime if I do.

I think you and your DH were in the area at the same time as my DH was, he got laid off in November, 2002, and when he was laid off he knew he probably could have gotten a job in less than the 18 months it took him to find the one he has now had he wanted to stay in the SV. However, he just didn't want to do that cut throat type of IT/engineering related stuff that paid really well or work for a govt. contractor like Lockheed because he either knew the hours would be too much or it would be a tad unstable. I think you have to have a specific mindset and skill set to be able to thrive and do well in that industry then that is no problem and the tech industry with it's perks seems great, but if you don't then you might have a tendency to think it is a tad unfriendly compared to other private, and public sector jobs.

Maybe things have changed for the better, but it seemed really male oriented and dominated when he worked in the SV for a large electronics testing firm from 2000 to 2002, and that company was pretty flexible and rarely did people work oodles or overtime or were demanded to be on call 24-7. It was a stable company as well which is why DH went to work there. It was kind of an anomaly I guess.

Beth, I do not know any moms here who work in the tech industry. A mom in DD1's class works in IT for Toyota, but that is as close to the tech industry female employee I know of.

[knaidel]

I wonder if this could backfire on her in the sense that people who telecommute are probably more likely to put in extra time on nights and weekends because work is always "there". You force people into the office and they mÃ*y resent any intrusion on their personal lives from work.



THIS! I work from home most of the time (go in to the office 1 abbreviated day per week). I am working ALL the time...much more than 40 hours per week! When my baby doesn't sleep at night, I stick him in in the pouch, and head downstairs to get some work done.

[BayGirl2]

....
Maybe things have changed for the better, but it seemed really male oriented and dominated when he worked in the SV for a large electronics testing firm from 2000 to 2002, and that company was pretty flexible and rarely did people work oodles or overtime or were demanded to be on call 24-7. It was a stable company as well which is why DH went to work there. It was kind of an anomaly I guess.

Beth, I do not know any moms here who work in the tech industry. A mom in DD1's class works in IT for Toyota, but that is as close to the tech industry female employee I know of.

I entered the tech industry in 2001, worked there until 2006, and still work closely with many tech companies. I would argue the environment in the industry is very different now than it was in the early 2000's, right after the dot.com bubble and before Web2.0. Where I worked (HP) there was a very diverse mix of males and females in all functions (including R&D) and most people had families. The cropping up of new companies and rise of the old (FB, Google, Apple's rise) has made companies like HP and Dell old-school. Its just a highly dynamic industry where year over year there are cultural changes. The up and coming companies tend to be more demanding in time, but people are there because they love the return on their time investment, ie. You don't go work at FB because you want a steady, low pressure, 9-5 job for 30 years! My former colleagues who are still at HP are fairly settled into non-demanding jobs - in some cases for the benefit of family balance and stability but at the expense of their career satisfaction.


THIS! I work from home most of the time (go in to the office 1 abbreviated day per week). I am working ALL the time...much more than 40 hours per week! When my baby doesn't sleep at night, I stick him in in the pouch, and head downstairs to get some work done.

Oh I agree this will likely come back to bite her. I think Yahoo! has been struggling for the last decade and she's acting as if in a crisis, turnaround situation. She's put in place a fairly broad, rigid policy which implies her management team is incapable of using discretion with their teams. I think remote work is effective 90% of the time in steady state for most jobs, but for a company in rapid Transformation a higher level of collaboration is needed. She's forcing that, probably because they need a major transformation to survive. I suspect she believes she's got little to lose by forcing the issue at this point.

[Sweetum]

mayer's move seems like a layoff without the company having to pay unemployment/severance benefits.

this. I think so too. yahoo is not exactly doing great and is not really the company that everyone wants to work for. My understanding is that there is a lot of abuse of the flexibility not to mention politics. So, this may even be a temporary thing to weed out the slackers.

ETA: I have to add that I have very flexible work with quite some time working from home and going in late etc. but I put it a lot of work and am washed out by the end of the week making me a weekend recluse. I wish I could just go to work, do my stuff and get out the same time everyday, and forget about it the second I am out. But that doesn't happen, so I get flexibility in return. It's not ideal for me but it's the least I can have to maintain a semblence of work-life balance. Unfortunately or fortunately daycares don't go beyond 6pm :)

[BayGirl2]

this. I think so too. yahoo is not exactly doing great and is not really the company that everyone wants to work for. My understanding is that there is a lot of abuse of the flexibility not to mention politics. So, this may even be a temporary thing to weed out the slackers.


Exactly my point. If this announcement was coming from Google I would interpret it very differently than from Yahoo! Saying that Yahoo! is leading a trend or is representative of the tech industry is like saying Yugo is leading the global auto industry.

[hillview]

I think it is a mistake. Yahoo already has issues. Telecommuting is a way to get talent the comeptition cannot get if they don't allow telecommuting.

I work from home 70% of the time and travel the other 30%. The company gets full time + from me. I wouldn't work as many hours as I do if I went into an office.

[daisymommy]

I'm not a WOHM. But things like this make my blood boil for those of you who are. I feel like women in positions of power owe it to The Sisterhood to help pave the way for a revolution for working parents everywhere. She just set everyone back by ten years.


Sent from my iPad

[NJ_Mom2011]

She's put in place a fairly broad, rigid policy which implies her management team is incapable of using discretion with their teams.

I agree. This is micromanaging personnel issues to the silly level. She should have trusted supervisors to determine what is best for their departments, especially if some exceptions could keep star employees.

Oh well, competence in corporate America is a rare thing.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

I don't really see this as a working woman issue. I'm sure there are plenty of men who work remotely as well.

I also work in tech in Silicon Valley, btw. We have very few that work remotely and I spend much of my day working collaboratively. I'm hardware, though, not software.

[LizLemon]

Exactly my point. If this announcement was coming from Google I would interpret it very differently than from Yahoo! Saying that Yahoo! is leading a trend or is representative of the tech industry is like saying Yugo is leading the global auto industry.

Doesn't Google already have most of their employees working on-site?

This is from an LA Times article:


But the unwritten rule at major Silicon Valley companies is: Just because you can work from anywhere doesn't mean you should. Most Silicon Valley companies such as Google and Facebook Inc. have informal policies allowing telecommuting, but they champion the concept of closeness. They design their campuses to encourage it with gourmet cafes dishing out free food and inviting, comfortable meeting rooms where employees can lounge and talk.

"The surprising question we get is: 'How many people telecommute at Google?' And our answer is: 'As few as possible,'" Patrick Pichette, Google's chief financial officer, said recently. "There is something magical about spending the time together."

[knaidel]

Saying that Yahoo! is leading a trend or is representative of the tech industry is like saying Yugo is leading the global auto industry.

ROFL! Are Yugos still around?

[crl]

I don't really see this as a working woman issue. I'm sure there are plenty of men who work remotely as well.

I also work in tech in Silicon Valley, btw. We have very few that work remotely and I spend much of my day working collaboratively. I'm hardware, though, not software.

I do think it is a working parent issue.

Catherine

[maestramommy]

Exactly my point. If this announcement was coming from Google I would interpret it very differently than from Yahoo! Saying that Yahoo! is leading a trend or is representative of the tech industry is like saying Yugo is leading the global auto industry.


Ouch!:hysterical: I had no idea Yahoo! was doing so badly!

I agree that I don't think this is necessarily a hit on working moms, as I agree with pp who said many dads telecommute. It might look like it, because SHE is a working mom. I don't know whether this is a good move or not because none of Dh's coworkers have ever telecommuted for long. He had one coworker who did it when he moved out of state to be near his Ils. A couple of years later the company was acquired and he was laid off very soon after. Dh actually approached his supervisor about telecommuting when we talked about busting a move out of SoCal. His supervisor said no way, and that letting the other coworker do it was a mistake. Guess it wasn't working out so well.

Dh will occasionally work from home but he doesn't like doing it, he doesn't get as productive with the kids around, even with the office door shut and the kids essentially acting like he's not home. OTOH, he has brought work on our last two vacays, because of deadlines. In fact, as I'm typing this at almost 10 pm he is working right now and has been working every morning on this trip.

[GaPeach_in_Ca]

I do think it is a working parent issue.


Honestly, I don't even see this as a parent issue. Many workers (with and without children) like the flexibility telecommuting brings.

The coworkers I know who telecommute most often actually are childless (single and married) and live up in the city for the lifestyle and therefore like to work from home to avoid the commute to the South Bay.

Ha, I am typing this while working from home in the evening.

[larig]

Honestly, I don't even see this as a parent issue. Many workers (with and without children) like the flexibility telecommuting brings.


Agreed. DH telecommuted for 9 years before we had kids. He did when he was single.

The amount of money and time he has saved over the course of the 13 years astounds me. When we lived in Chicago it would have been 2-3 hours daily (depending on the place we lived, as we moved a couple of times to be closer to my job). Would have cost a lot of $$. And, we'd have had to owned a second car all this time. Financially it has been a boon to our family to have DH at home.

[crl]

Honestly, I don't even see this as a parent issue. Many workers (with and without children) like the flexibility telecommuting brings.

The coworkers I know who telecommute most often actually are childless (single and married) and live up in the city for the lifestyle and therefore like to work from home to avoid the commute to the South Bay.

Ha, I am typing this while working from home in the evening.

I totally agree that people who aren't parents telecommute and/or can benefit from telecommuting. But I do think that some parents rely on it to meet all their obligations and that it can be more difficult for people with kids to suddenly have to start commuting into work. For example, someone might be handling day care drop off and if that person now has an hour commute, he or she might not be able to do drop off any more.

Catherine

[goldenpig]

I can see why she is doing this, to try to get rid of people without firing them, but I do think it is short-sighted to ban telecommuting altogether because there are a lot of benefits to both workers and company. She is not being very family- or working-mom friendly. I posted before about her short maternity leave:
http://windsorpeak.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=442518
It just seems like she is trying to join the old boys club and turn the clock back.

[niccig]

Why must Melissa Mayer be the champion for working families? I understand why people want her to be, she is high profile, she could bring in changes. But that's not her job. Her job is to run Yahoo!.

And maybe she agrees with the Old Boys club.

I don't know all the ins/outs of what they're trying to do at Yahoo! so I don't know if this decision will help or not.

I do though think there's a lot of pressure on her...she must turn around a failing company, be a role model for working moms, and promote family-friendly work practices. She only agreed to do the first one.

Honestly, I don't think she's family friendly from anything I've read, so maybe this move isn't so surprising.

[citymama]

mayer's move seems like a layoff without the company having to pay unemployment/severance benefits. I think it's sad on many levels for people who care about the environment, and individuals who can use the time spent commuting in other more productive ways. I just don't buy the argument that you have to be together physically to get things done and innovate.

I totally agree with this.

Regardless of her motivations for doing this, I think it's going to backfire. This reminds me of when Netflix hiked their fees - that's all that they were in the news for for weeks. This is all Yahoo is in the news for. Not for any new products, revenues, cutting edge R&D - but their sneaky way of getting people to quit without layoffs. Hotmail died a quiet death last week - is Yahoo going to be next?


I have never once had the opportunity to work from home ever unless I brought extra work home for myself, which is now high discouraged.

I commute 25 to 30 miles each way every day I go to work.

If I were one of these Yahoo! employees I would be thankful that I even had the chance to work from home.


This makes it sound like telecommuters are spoiled employees who should just grow up and stop feeling so entitled. If you are hired as a telecommuter, you make certain choices based on that - where to live being a principal one. Telecommuters bring many benefits to companies - they save them money, and can be a lot more productive. If they're anything like me, they work at midnight, they work on weekends, they work at 5 am when needed - because the office is 15 seconds away from your bedroom. There are no boundaries, and you are always bringing work home. Honestly, not just the tech industry but many, many industries and fields are moving towards telecommuting, rather than away from it. I save my employer a significant amount of money in office space and overhead - something acknowledged by my employer.

Government jobs are different - they have incurred sunk costs that aren't going to be reduced by having a telecommuter. As an employer, the federal, state or local gov't is more likely to want to continue in the same way it always has, rather than rock the boat or adapt to a changing world. With that refusal to change also comes the benefits of a stable job, pensions, etc. that compensate for a less flexible work environment.

Just because it isn't an option for everyone here, I don't think telecommuting employees at Yahoo or elsewhere should be pegged as spoiled brats!

[kara97210]

I think it shows very little foresight for a CEO of a technology company to make a rule like this. Kind of like biting off your nose to spite your face.

This was my first thought. I work in marketing at a big tech company (Fortune 50) and for the past 5 years most of our marketing has been around mobile devices and cloud infrastructure. These are kind of the backbone of disengaging work from a specific office location. Most of our ads show someone sitting in a coffee shop or on a beach, working on their tablet or laptop. We never use images of someone sitting in an office anymore. This move definitely reinforces to me that Yahoo! is kind of a relic in the industry at this point.

I work from home 2-3 days/week and in the past have been on teams that are 100% remote so no one was working regularly from the office. This is obviously different for our manufacturing teams that have to be onsite. I definitely see it as a huge benefit, but I also tend to work more on the days I telecommute. Part of this is that I’m working from the time I get up and I’m also working the 30-45 minutes (x2) that I would be on the road commuting, working though lunch, etc.

Also wonder about the lost benefits to the local community. All of our employees who are based in my state fill out surveys about how often we telecommute, because the company gets grants from the state because telecommuting saves a lot in state resources (less people on the road, less car accidents, etc).

[JBaxter]

Its not feasible for DH to work from home except on rare occasions but he did interview for a job that was about 90% work from home. The position was open because they had let go the previous employee ( he found this out through other channels) The previous employee had 2 smaller children an did not have childcare. It started to cause problems with conference calls, work, scheduling meetings etc. One of the questions he was asked was did we have childcare for non school age children. I guess if you are trying to do a full time job and not have childcare it could cause issues.

[kara97210]

Its not feasible for DH to work from home except on rare occasions but he did interview for a job that was about 90% work from home. The position was open because they had let go the previous employee ( he found this out through other channels) The previous employee had 2 smaller children an did not have childcare. It started to cause problems with conference calls, work, scheduling meetings etc. One of the questions he was asked was did we have childcare for non school age children. I guess if you are trying to do a full time job and not have childcare it could cause issues.

That's crazy that someone would try and work (conference calls, etc) with kids in the house, without childcare. I can't imagine that working out unless the kids were much older (high school). We have pretty strict telecommuting rules at my company - you need a dedicated workspace and can't be caring for someone else during your work time. I'm really lucky that our house has a detached studio so my kids are able to be in the house (I have a relative who babysits when my kids aren't in daycare) when I'm working from home. If I'm working from home and my kids are sick, I either have to take the day off or arrange alternative childcare.

[egoldber]

Government jobs are different - they have incurred sunk costs that aren't going to be reduced by having a telecommuter. As an employer, the federal, state or local gov't is more likely to want to continue in the same way it always has, rather than rock the boat or adapt to a changing world. With that refusal to change also comes the benefits of a stable job, pensions, etc. that compensate for a less flexible work environment.

At least at the federal level, there are many flexible work programs. There are several compressed schedules and mandatory telework availability. You can also combine them to have a compressed schedule and telework some days. The trick is your job has to be able to be done from home. Not all jobs can be done from home, have enough work that can be done at home on a regular basis, or (like Annie) they involve working with sensitive personal data that cannot securely be accessed from home. This was my problem at my last federal job. We were not allowed to access PII data (personally identifiable information) from home and my whole job involved working with PII data. I knew better when I took my next federal job. ;)

I work at a large federal agency and almost everyone here works a compressed schedule. Most people also telework at least occasionally. Being "telework ready" is part of the official government disaster preparedness plan. If you can't get to the office, they expect most employees to be ready and available to work from home.

ETA: And people who telework as part of their regular schedule are expected to have child care for young children.

ETA2: Telework and flexible schedules by the feds are also extremely important for traffic reduction in the DC area. Most people have off or telework on Mondays and Fridays. You can tell a huge difference in traffic on those days. They are trying to encourage more people to telework mid week as well.

[Twoboos]

DH works in software. Telecommuting is HIGHLY discouraged. Flex-time is basically non-existent. They want you there, on campus, for as many hours as possible. They have pretty much come out and said they are not family-friendly. They're not in the business of your family, they're in the software business. (I left there about 10 years ago and figured this mentality would have changed by now!)

When there was a blizzard here a few weeks ago, they sent out an email the day before that basically said, "Come to work tomorrow. We're not closing and you're not staying home unless you take a vacation day." Of course, once the Governor banned driving they had to shut down a couple hours before the ban started so people could get home.

[mommylamb]

ETA2: Telework and flexible schedules by the feds are also extremely important for traffic reduction in the DC area. Most people have off or telework on Mondays and Fridays. You can tell a huge difference in traffic on those days. They are trying to encourage more people to telework mid week as well.

:yeahthat: Obviously, I know that this isn't the top issue for Yahoo, but from a societal perspective teleworking has a lot of benefits. Reduced wear and tear on our infrastructure to lower carbon emissions and less reliance on oil, fewer accidents (lowering insurance costs, health care costs, and obviously just fewer hurt people). I know this isn't Marissa Mayer's concern, but I wish more of us could telecommute. You see the difference here in the DC region for sure on Mondays and Fridays and whenever there is a recess.

[janine]

So I wonder, what is her goal? I know people say she can do what she wants, she is CEO first (although she says, God, Family & then Yahoo) and she can support the boys club all she wants (seems self defeating to me, but ok)...but then is the goal to turn Yahoo around or become the least liked CEO in the public eye? She has made some very unpopular yet highly publicized moves and it seems she might at the very least need a good PR person to help her out a bit. The turnaround hasn't happened yet and I can see people avoiding Yahoo the employer at this point. I know the tech world is different but outside of tech or straight sales, working from home is more rare and if these kinds of moves get press, it only hurts the concept more all around. For everyone.

[knaidel]

Its not feasible for DH to work from home except on rare occasions but he did interview for a job that was about 90% work from home. The position was open because they had let go the previous employee ( he found this out through other channels) The previous employee had 2 smaller children an did not have childcare. It started to cause problems with conference calls, work, scheduling meetings etc. One of the questions he was asked was did we have childcare for non school age children. I guess if you are trying to do a full time job and not have childcare it could cause issues.


In my company handbook, it clearly states "telecommuting is not a substitute for dependent care." Even though I work from home, my 3 month old is still out at a babysitter. While I hold him in my KKAFP when working night hours, he is usually at the sitter during the day.

Sometimes things come up, and one of my kids is around when I have a conference call--ie, a late start because of bad weather, etc.... but that would happen even if I didn't telework.

Also regarding commuting costs: on the DC metro, from union station to my office is $4.00 round trip. If I had to pay for that 4 days a week....over $600 a year. That doesn't include the cost of the commuter rail

[janine]

In my company handbook, it clearly states "telecommuting is not a substitute for dependent care." Even though I work from home, my 3 month old is still out at a babysitter. While I hold him in my KKAFP when working night hours, he is usually at the sitter during the day.

Sometimes things come up, and one of my kids is around when I have a conference call--ie, a late start because of bad weather, etc.... but that would happen even if I didn't telework.

Also regarding commuting costs: on the DC metro, from union station to my office is $4.00 round trip. If I had to pay for that 4 days a week....over $600 a year. That doesn't include the cost of the commuter rail

My commute is over $4000 a year (train, not counting gas, subway). Time is 1.5hrs each way. I do not live in far off area, it is the immediate surroundings. Even a day or 2 for telecommuting is beneficial expense wise (and could be a way a company could justify lower bonses and increases) and gets cars off the roads.
All my friends who work from home have full time have nannies and babysitters. It absolutely does not replace dependent care but does allow wondefrul flexiblity -- to step out for a short period to drop off/pick your child occassionally is huge for parents. To at least be in the same house while a caretaker watches your children is also hugely reassuring and opens up your pool of candidates for caretakers.
Another friend of mine works at a tech firm and her boss has given her a 1/2 day each Friday so she can volunteer at her DD's kindergarten - wow, I'd love that! Is she less productive? I'd argue the opposite.

[kara97210]

So I wonder, what is her goal? I know people say she can do what she wants, she is CEO first (although she says, God, Family & then Yahoo) and she can support the boys club all she wants (seems self defeating to me, but ok)...but then is the goal to turn Yahoo around or become the least liked CEO in the public eye?

I think it's what others said in this post, it's to thin Yahoo employees by driving some to quit. I think her goal is to make Yahoo more attractive to potential buyers.

[larig]

My commute is over $4000 a year (train, not counting gas, subway). Time is 1.5hrs each way. I do not live in far off area, it is the immediate surroundings. Even a day or 2 for telecommuting is beneficial expense wise (and could be a way a company could justify lower bonses and increases) and gets cars off the roads.
All my friends who work from home have full time have nannies and babysitters. It absolutely does not replace dependent care but does allow wondefrul flexiblity -- to step out for a short period to drop off/pick your child occassionally is huge for parents. To at least be in the same house while a caretaker watches your children is also hugely reassuring and opens up your pool of candidates for caretakers.
Another friend of mine works at a tech firm and her boss has given her a 1/2 day each Friday so she can volunteer at her DD's kindergarten - wow, I'd love that! Is she less productive? I'd argue the opposite.

Agreed, completely. DH who works from home, has me (I am a SAHM).

He also takes far fewer sick days. He can work, even when he feels he might be contagious, but isn't so bad off that he can't do his job. If he had to go into an office he'd lose a day.

[chottumommy]

I way I understood the policy (from friends working in Yahoo) is that its not a true blanket work from office policy, more like they would like most/all developers who need close collaboration and brainstorming to work from office. There will always be people who are on the product/sales side who travel a lot and need to communicate with people from other sites who would be allowed to telecommute. It was also done to stop the abuse of the telecommte option by entire teams (where even the management was abusing) .

I personally think this was to start a culture of collaboration and participation instead of the punching card mentality. I donot believe this is the forever plan.

Marissa comes from a startup culture where the best ideas were the ones that started during a coffee break. Yahoo is a internet company where things evolve and change sometimes in the span of a day. Being present makes a big difference in how involved the developer can be. I am a tech architect in a internet company and my team can truly never 100% or even 50% telecommute.

I don't think Yahoo's policy dictates the office hours or discourages people from working from home on days for valid reasons. It leaves that upto the individual, team and manager.

[cvanbrunt]

I think her goal has been clearly stated from the beginning. It is to increase innovation in a company that has been lagging behind the other giants in the industry. The data show that face to face interaction and collaboration is what produces innovation. It doesn't matter if you "believe" that. The data is the data.

No one disputes that telecommuting increases productivity, is a great retention tool, reduces commuting costs, good for the environment, etc. But that isn't the issue. It's the survival of the company. Sure, some talent will leave. But I think folks overestimate how "indispensable" a given individual is. Of course it's better to retain a person than replace them, but really; every one can be replaced.

The needs of business change, products fail, CEO's come and go with different ideas and agendas, it seems to me that is the nature of business. My DH works for a company that built a beautiful facility in a town a few miles from the R&D labs. Well, one year later a new CEO takes over and believes that the entire company should be in the same physical place. Guess what? They are all moving to a new location by the end of the year. Folks who bought houses near the current building are looking at a much longer commute now. It's a b!tch but that's life.

I feel bad for the folks who are losing a nice arrangement. Work-life balance is hard for everyone. It's great if a company can do something to ease that burden for it's employees but there is no obligation to do so.

[Globetrotter]

It was also done to stop the abuse of the telecommte option by entire teams (where even the management was abusing) .

I personally think this was to start a culture of collaboration and participation instead of the punching card mentality. I donot believe this is the forever plan.

This would make more sense to me. If they are trying to weed out the poor performers, fine, but I would hope they allow the productive telecommuters to continue.

ETA: And yes, they need to have child care or work around it. My friend used to work in the office or home until pick up, then started again at night and weekends, so she got the work done in the end and was available for meetings.

[codex57]

So I wonder, what is her goal? I know people say she can do what she wants, she is CEO first (although she says, God, Family & then Yahoo) and she can support the boys club all she wants (seems self defeating to me, but ok)...but then is the goal to turn Yahoo around or become the least liked CEO in the public eye? She has made some very unpopular yet highly publicized moves and it seems she might at the very least need a good PR person to help her out a bit. The turnaround hasn't happened yet and I can see people avoiding Yahoo the employer at this point. I know the tech world is different but outside of tech or straight sales, working from home is more rare and if these kinds of moves get press, it only hurts the concept more all around. For everyone.

Like what? I found articles explaining her various motivations. Seems normal moves to me.

Layoffs? Well duh. Typical CEO move when a company isn't performing so hot. Quick way to cut costs and appease Wall Street.

Sell off China operations? They need money and were getting killed anyways. Gotta right the home ship first.

Ban telecommuting? Apparently extremely widely abused (so had Yahoo specific circumstances) and is also a sneaky way to have layoffs without layoffs. Deserves applause actually.

And she's done good things such as the free non-Blackberries and other perks the tech companies often have.

Considering how bad things were before, I think she's doing great.

If you want bad, look at Ron Johnson, the former Apple guy now in charge of JC Penny. A high school classmate of mine works for Yahoo and posts about life. She sure doesn't seem all that unpopular based on what he and his friends talk about. And this guy currently telecommutes. The abuse is that bad that while it is annoying for those who don't abuse it, they understand why the policy was implemented.

[citymama]

Telecommuters have to have child care! I've had child care the whole time I've telecommuted, which is now coming on 9 years, 7 of which as a mom. It's a real job, folks, and good supervision has to be in place to prevent abuse. That goes for all employees, anywhere - folks could spend all day writing their personal blogs even from their offices!

[egoldber]

That goes for all employees, anywhere - folks could spend all day writing their personal blogs even from their offices!

Exactly. I don't have to be at home to goof off. People do it alllll day long in the office.

[larig]

Ban telecommuting? Apparently extremely widely abused (so had Yahoo specific circumstances) and is also a sneaky way to have layoffs without layoffs. Deserves applause actually.
.

Maybe it deserves applause if you're a shareholder. I'm not, so I think it's a weasely way to lay people off. If you care about the company you'd evaluatete people's performance and layoff those not performing. Otherwise you risk losing talent that you may not be able to afford losing.

And Cvanbrunt, I'm unfamiliar with the studies you alluded to, would you mind sharing them?