Nothing to employees: Get back in the office 5 days a week or find somewhere else to work

midian182

Posts: 10,047   +134
Staff member
A hot potato: Another company has decided to drag its employees back to the office full-time while blasting the alleged disadvantages of remote and hybrid work. Nothing, the British firm behind several stylish and well-received phones and earbuds, has decided that "Remote work is not compatible with a high ambition level plus high speed." CEO Carl Pei wants workers back five days per week, suggesting that those unable to make this commitment should leave the company.

Pei made the announcement to his 450 employees in an internal email last Friday that he later shared on LinkedIn. He notes that when the company started in 2020, Covid rules meant that fully remote work was the only option.

Nothing later moved to a hybrid work schedule at its London site and fully in-office at other sites. Now, it is transitioning to fully in-office at London, too.

Pei said there were three reasons why hybrid and remote setups are not right for Nothing's business. First, the fact the company makes physical products means design, engineering, manufacturing, and quality have to collaborate closely.

Second, Pei said creativity and innovation allow Nothing to compete with bigger companies, and these things do not work well remotely, apparently.

Third, the CEO said remote work was not compatible with Nothing's ambitions of becoming a generation-defining company that moves fast.

Pei essentially told employees unwilling or unable to come into the office five days per week to quit, though he did so using typical CEO-speak: "We know it's not the right type of setup for everybody, and that's OK," he wrote. "We should look for a mutual fit. You should find an environment where you thrive, and we need to find people who want to go the full mile with us in the decades ahead."

Pei's phrasing brings to mind a similar message from Andy Jassy last year. The Amazon CEO told employees who didn't want to return to the office that "It's probably not going to work out for you."

Most companies calling back workers adopt a 3-day per week hybrid work setup, and even that has been causing outcry among staff who say they are more productive and certainly happier being at home full time. Other companies, such as those belonging to Elon Musk, have been much harsher in their demands: get in the office at least 40 hours per week or leave.

CEOs (and former CEOs) don't seem to care very much about employee happiness, of course. Ex-Google boss Eric Schmidt recently blamed Google's hybrid work policy for it lagging behind OpenAI, though he later said he "misspoke" and regretted his error.

Permalink to story:

 
Why is TechSpot reporting on the office policies of a small British company that makes earbuds? Who cares what this one tiny insignificant company thinks or does.

The more tech news sites report on companies banning work-from-home, the more "normal" and "expected" it gets that more and more companies make the same policies. The agenda is probably for the entire industry to stop work-from-home.

That's my guess as to why a small London office of a small earbud manufacturer matters enough to be news.
 
The more tech news sites report on companies banning work-from-home, the more "normal" and "expected" it gets that more and more companies make the same policies. The agenda is probably for the entire industry to stop work-from-home.

That's my guess as to why a small London office of a small earbud manufacturer matters enough to be news.
TechSpots employees are remote tho, so why do they care about this.
 
The way I look at it is if a company says they want you to work from home, fine.
Also, if a company says you have to work from an office fine.
It's the OWNER of the company that makes that decision. If you don't like it, so somewhere else.
 
It's a private company and they aren't twisting people's arms to work for them. If you can't abide by their rules then go find another job. People who work in the restaurant industry can't work from home so how do you think they feel? We would tell them if they didn't like it then go find another job.
 
The way I look at it is if a company says they want you to work from home, fine.
Also, if a company says you have to work from an office fine.
It's the OWNER of the company that makes that decision. If you don't like it, so somewhere else.

A lot of those people may indeed go somewhere else.

It's a slightly easier pill to swallow being told to go back to the office if you at least started off in one pre-covid. This lot didn't exist before then so their staff have no old routine to go back to, and are effectively being given the choice of taking a huge compensation reduction - commuting costs and time, work/life balance etc. - or losing their job (our employment law will have fun with that one). Why did it take them this long to realise the location of their staff was the reason they're not more successful in the market? Reads like a blame-game to me and I have a feeling they might find it backfiring. The world isn't in short supply of earbud vendors.
 
Dont care, people with jobs that let them work from home are usually in careers that pay pretty damn well, who cares they have to drive a bit?

Meanwhile all the other jobs for average people are never spoken about, or when they are its usually just to look down on them, point and gawk.

I dont feel bad that you have to leave your nice home to work.
 
Dont care, people with jobs that let them work from home are usually in careers that pay pretty damn well, who cares they have to drive a bit?

Meanwhile all the other jobs for average people are never spoken about, or when they are its usually just to look down on them, point and gawk.

I dont feel bad that you have to leave your nice home to work.
I was hired during the pandemic with the promise to be able to work from anywhere in the US. They put it into my offer letter. They then changed their mind 6 months later. I lived a 3 hour drive from the office. I am not driving for 6 hours a day to work for 10-12 and still be expected to put in mandatory OT. My job paid me barely enough to rent a room in a house, not an apartment, a room. So I said I would not be coming into the office as it was not part of the agreement that included a No-Compete clause. So I got "laid off". My job can be done 100% not in the office. I never had a complaint about my work and always got reviewed every 3 months with exceeds expectations. When I got "laid off" It was just the people who said no to go back into the office. Some of them made less than me and had further to go.
 
I support 100% the right of an employer to set work rules, just as I support 100% the right of an employee to leave if an employer changes the rules.

I've worked remotely in IT for 8 years now and can say that the excuses given about teamwork and innovation and kismet requiring in person workplace is nothing but bs, at least if a company is hiring talented people. I'm sure the less skilled will goof off more when remote, or continue to struggle to perform. But that's a management issue. There are plenty of remote work companies that thrive, Red hat and WordPress come to mind, that make me doubt the requirement for anything other than occasional office time for many positions.

The reality that companies won't acknowledge is that when they make these rules, it's the talented people that are most able to leave if they don't like it, and it's the most talented people that are less likely to accept a position or even apply. Not allowing remote work at some level is guaranteed to reduce the skill levels of the employees over time
 
When a company asks employees to come back into the office it's because they're not doing very well and they need to lay off some people without actually laying them off. By force engineers into an office most of us were quit because a good engineer would never work in it $20 cubicle purchased from Goodwill.
I'm sure those things were perfect when we were all teenagers and working at call centers but a talented grown up will never work in one of those.... Those companies who have engineers coming back into the office what those are the engineers who couldn't find the job anywhere else.
100% of our job is online regardless of where we are putting our asses, so my guess is the lack of sales has Nothing asking for in office employees
 
The more tech news sites report on companies banning work-from-home, the more "normal" and "expected" it gets that more and more companies make the same policies. The agenda is probably for the entire industry to stop work-from-home.

That's my guess as to why a small London office of a small earbud manufacturer matters enough to be news.

Simply put it's slavery, in a little bit more detail... everybody was working from home and productivity increased by 30%... Then everybody looked at the managers as to why are you here...
Considering over 60% of a company's profit goes to executives and managers who shouldn't even be in the company, it's obvious why companies report in office slavery... So managers can still have a place to manage, WFH made them realize they are worthless in 2024
 
The only important question is, are the companies taking no remote position policies more successful? It will take time get an answer, but staking a position on whether remote work is right or wrong is pretty pointless.
 
The only important question is, are the companies taking no remote position policies more successful? It will take time get an answer, but staking a position on whether remote work is right or wrong is pretty pointless.
The only important question is: are workers who work in office only are able to live comfortably, getting paid more to commute or buy a house nearby, have enough time for family, friends and hobbies? Because if not, then doesnt matter how well company is doing, it is clear they have slaves instead of employees.
 
The only important question is: are workers who work in office only are able to live comfortably, getting paid more to commute or buy a house nearby, have enough time for family, friends and hobbies? Because if not, then doesnt matter how well company is doing, it is clear they have slaves instead of employees.
Exactly, this sort of rationalization is pointless. Companies can set the terms of employment, that's their right, and people can pick the company to work for, that is our right. The question is, what affects the success of the company more: reducing the talent search of workers to those nearby and increasing individual productivity, or expanding the talent search to nationwide or worldwide, with perhaps a reduction in productivity?
 
Obviously those fighting against going back into their work places do not have families to look after otherwise they would realize their priorities in life.
 
The more tech news sites report on companies banning work-from-home, the more "normal" and "expected" it gets that more and more companies make the same policies. The agenda is probably for the entire industry to stop work-from-home.

That's my guess as to why a small London office of a small earbud manufacturer matters enough to be news.

Hey now, didn't you hear, it's a "generation-defining" company?
 
Back