Avoiding RTO Forum

[Anonymous User]

Your inability to see (or disagreement with) an argument doesn't mean doesn't exist. Let me explain it again real simple like:
- Some people need in-office interactions, others don't.
- If a firm lets people decide whether they want to come in, two things may happen: (1) some people who actually need in-office interactions will nonetheless opt for WFH and their work will suffer, and (2) people who actually don't need to be in the office will stay home and reduce the number of available mentors in the office.
- If there are enough people in either camp, affording a permanent WFH option will have the effect of curtailing any benefits for RTO for those who need it because either those who could benefit don't come in and/or there won't be a critical mass of people in the office for those who do.
- In that case, a firm may make the judgment call that it's worth hauling everyone in for the benefit of those who need in-office interactions.

This is a ridiculous misstatement. Throughout the thread, nobody has been able to point out why a profession where one sits behind their desk alone and types away is substantially helped by in-person interaction. And you somehow interpret that as: “there are two types of people in the world: Those who need RTO and will suck without; and those who can work in the office and from home.” Of course, if we just ignore the entire group of people who do way better WFH, then yes, your representation is correct and I cede the entire argument. We should be in the office 5 days a week. You win.

False and sad. Just read the thread and you'll find a plethora of posts about how people improved because of in-person interaction that wouldn't occur with 100% WFH. You must be in corporate because your argument reeks of straw men and slippery slopes.

You make a valid point that maybe firms could do better encouraging mentorship remotely and that until then RTO should be treated as a last resort. But do you have any ideas on how to do that effectively? I doubt it, given that you hardly seem to understand why some people would need in-person interaction in the first place. I've done a lot of thinking on this (alongside others in my department), and I haven't seen anything during WFH that remotely (pun intended) approximates an open door. Besides, you and I both know that firms' failure to act during the pandemic has nothing to do with whether there's merit to RTO - only whether it's the least restrictive means to reap the benefits of human interaction.

Yes, let’s discredit a point because random poster on the Internet doesn’t have all the answers ready-made and don’t look at multibillion dollar firms and multimillionaires to put in a modicum of effort for their own business model. But whatever, maybe just give all lawyers a course on how to manage people. I never had an issue mentoring people, whether in person or remotely and I go above and beyond to be accessible and approachable. But thanks for putting the sly insult in there, hope you can now enjoy the rest of your day with glee.

You literally tried to do this yourself by pointing out that firms haven't done it either - I was just throwing it back at you sad man. I happen to think firms have put effort into this and come up short for 2 years straight and come up short. That's why I asked for your sad ideas. if you've been so successful mentoring remotely then why don't you share your ideas instead of trying to pick at the one ad hominen that you sadly thinks helps your cause (it doesn't).

Anyway, I think I've given your arguments good faith consideration, so please pay mine the same respect.
Time will tell whether your prediction that RTO burns people out will come to fruition. That's just another factor for firms to consider in the calculus I outlined above.

Yeah, I could really feel the good faith here, thanks dude. Totally can't see why your office is relatively empty despite your enlightened presence. And “time will tell if RTO burns people out?” You are aware biglaw has been around for a very long time and it is known to burn people out, right? What, you think all these people who are saying WFH has made their life so much better are pulling it out of their ass?

Sentence by sentence: sad ad hominem, sadder ad hominem, correct quote, irrelevant point that hasn't been tied to RTO, attempt to remedy the previous sentence while ignoring that retention was at an all time low during the pandemic.

Jesus dude you gotta start practicing with some philosophy majors or something before you try to play with real lawyers. You're sadly incapable of making an argument.

[nixy]

Anyway, I think I've given your arguments good faith consideration, so please pay mine the same respect.
Time will tell whether your prediction that RTO burns people out will come to fruition. That's just another factor for firms to consider in the calculus I outlined above.

Yeah, I could really feel the good faith here, thanks dude. Totally can't see why your office is relatively empty despite your enlightened presence. And “time will tell if RTO burns people out?” You are aware biglaw has been around for a very long time and it is known to burn people out, right? What, you think all these people who are saying WFH has made their life so much better are pulling it out of their ass?

You’re right, of course, that biglaw burns people out. But that’s baked into the model. The issue isn’t “will RTO burn people out compared to WFH,” it’s “will RTO after WFH burn people out more than being in the office before Covid did such that it finally becomes unsustainable.”

[1styearlateral]

Why is Sad248 trying so hard to convince other law firm associates that RTO is bad when he or she should be making that argument to his or her partners? Just ignore your firm's mandate or lateral to a firm that allows 100% remote work. Convincing people on this forum will not change your situation.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Anti-RTOers take this shit really personally.

[Anonymous User]

Why is Sad248 trying so hard to convince other law firm associates that RTO is bad when he or she should be making that argument to his or her partners? Just ignore your firm's mandate or lateral to a firm that allows 100% remote work. Convincing people on this forum will not change your situation.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Anti-RTOers take this shit really personally.

Right. They aren't comfortable with "there are valid reasons we all should be in the office and there are valid reasons that we all shouldn't, just like any other judgment call." Instead, for some reason that's likely personal, they need to be 100% right that there's no reason for them to come in at all. It just baffles me that you could think there's a perfect answer to something so fuzzy.

[Anonymous User]

I also don't see how your argument disproves that RTO should be 100% optional. The people who want this form of "mentoring" can go to the office and get it from the people who want to provide it. And the people who don't want to participate can stay home and get their work done and whatever else just like they've done the past two years. This is probably how it was pre-pandemic anyway, except instead of people sitting in their home communicating with people via zoom/teams/phone, they sat in their office with the door closed and communicated with people via teams/phone.

First reasonable argument in the anti-RTO camp I've seen in a while, but it's still coming from the wrong perspective. Nobody is proving or disproving anything - this is an inherently fuzzy judgment call that firms will have to make. So we're talking about why some firms may make some RTO decisions over others, and I think there are some good reasons to do that.

I'm currently at a 3-days in RTO firm, but hardly anybody follows it, so it's basically optional as you suggest it should be. That means there isn't a critical mass of people in the office to support in-person meetings, etc., so they don't happen. Also, many of the seniors I learned most from are avoiding the office completely. They may see no benefit to coming in, but I would have lost something if they made that decision for themselves pre-pandemic. Given these facts, I can see why my firm would inconvenience some who would would perform great with pure WFH in order to help others like me who need mentorship/in-person interaction to grow.

To be clear, I'm not saying that because I benefited from in-office interactions, every firm must mandate in-office time. This is all pretty dang squishy. All I'm saying is it's reasonable for a firm to say that given the (admittedly unmeasurable) benefits an (admittedly unmeasurable) number of juniors could reap from a large number of people being in the office at a given time, it may be worth hauling everyone into the office once or twice a week.

But your point about not going to class continues to miss the mark. RTO, again, is not about those who can get along just fine without in-person interaction. It's about creating the proper environment for those who decidedly cannot. Using my firm as an example, you may need to haul some people who would be fine working from him in order to help those who would not.

Characterizing forced RTO as an "inconvenience" is absolutely ridiculous from my perspective. For me (and I imagine for many others), WFH has fundamentally changed the way I live my life, how I conceptualize work, and the balance I am able to strike between the two. Downtimes at work no longer consist of staring at the wall or aimlessly browsing the internet in my small corporate cage. Instead, I can use that time to run errands, pursue leisure activities, or just spend time with the people I love.

I literally cannot imagine going back to the way things used to be when I've seen how much better life can be. I'm sure there are at least some benefits to RTO (though I am skeptical of many arguments from the RTO crowd). But, to my mind, the benefits of RTO could NEVER outweigh the benefits of WFH.

[Anonymous User]

Why is Sad248 trying so hard to convince other law firm associates that RTO is bad when he or she should be making that argument to his or her partners? Just ignore your firm's mandate or lateral to a firm that allows 100% remote work. Convincing people on this forum will not change your situation.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Anti-RTOers take this shit really personally.

Right. They aren't comfortable with "there are valid reasons we all should be in the office and there are valid reasons that we all shouldn't, just like any other judgment call." Instead, for some reason that's likely personal, they need to be 100% right that there's no reason for them to come in at all. It just baffles me that you could think there's a perfect answer to something so fuzzy.

I think a lot of the angst from the anti-RTOers comes from the fact that it feels like pro-RTOers are selfishly imposing their preferences on them at great cost. "I want to get to know co-workers so RTO is good" is only palatable for those who want to rub shoulders with their co-workers for ~10ish hours per day. Those people can do that themselves without imposing on the person who wants to WFH. "Mentorship opportunities can't be replicated in a WFH setting" is only sensible for those who can't imagine being mentored remotely or by others outside their firm. This is very imprecise, but the RTO advocates' arguments sort of resemble the "my religion doesn't approve of that behavior, so it should be illegal" line of thinking.

[Anonymous User]

Why is Sad248 trying so hard to convince other law firm associates that RTO is bad when he or she should be making that argument to his or her partners? Just ignore your firm's mandate or lateral to a firm that allows 100% remote work. Convincing people on this forum will not change your situation.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Anti-RTOers take this shit really personally.

Right. They aren't comfortable with "there are valid reasons we all should be in the office and there are valid reasons that we all shouldn't, just like any other judgment call." Instead, for some reason that's likely personal, they need to be 100% right that there's no reason for them to come in at all. It just baffles me that you could think there's a perfect answer to something so fuzzy.

I think a lot of the angst from the anti-RTOers comes from the fact that it feels like pro-RTOers are selfishly imposing their preferences on them at great cost. "I want to get to know co-workers so RTO is good" is only palatable for those who want to rub shoulders with their co-workers for ~10ish hours per day. Those people can do that themselves without imposing on the person who wants to WFH. "Mentorship opportunities can't be replicated in a WFH setting" is only sensible for those who can't imagine being mentored remotely or by others outside their firm. This is very imprecise, but the RTO advocates' arguments sort of resemble the "my religion doesn't approve of that behavior, so it should be illegal" line of thinking.

This fails the ideological Turing test. I fully get that WFH is more convenient and that's why I don't think 5 days / week 9-10 in person is ever coming back. 2-3 days 9-5 or even 10-4 is more reasonable.

I'm not sure where you got the "can't imagine being mentored remotely" part, nobody said that. Pro hybrid or pro RTO ppl think there is value to in person interactions, that's all. There is an element that cannot be replicated remote.

[Anonymous User]

Why is Sad248 trying so hard to convince other law firm associates that RTO is bad when he or she should be making that argument to his or her partners? Just ignore your firm's mandate or lateral to a firm that allows 100% remote work. Convincing people on this forum will not change your situation.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Anti-RTOers take this shit really personally.

Right. They aren't comfortable with "there are valid reasons we all should be in the office and there are valid reasons that we all shouldn't, just like any other judgment call." Instead, for some reason that's likely personal, they need to be 100% right that there's no reason for them to come in at all. It just baffles me that you could think there's a perfect answer to something so fuzzy.

I think a lot of the angst from the anti-RTOers comes from the fact that it feels like pro-RTOers are selfishly imposing their preferences on them at great cost. "I want to get to know co-workers so RTO is good" is only palatable for those who want to rub shoulders with their co-workers for ~10ish hours per day. Those people can do that themselves without imposing on the person who wants to WFH. "Mentorship opportunities can't be replicated in a WFH setting" is only sensible for those who can't imagine being mentored remotely or by others outside their firm. This is very imprecise, but the RTO advocates' arguments sort of resemble the "my religion doesn't approve of that behavior, so it should be illegal" line of thinking.

This fails the ideological Turing test. I fully get that WFH is more convenient and that's why I don't think 5 days / week 9-10 in person is ever coming back. 2-3 days 9-5 or even 10-4 is more reasonable.

I'm not sure where you got the "can't imagine being mentored remotely" part, nobody said that. Pro hybrid or pro RTO ppl think there is value to in person interactions, that's all. There is an element that cannot be replicated remote.

Ad hominems are silly, but I think your argument fails the ideological Turing test. Yes, I understand that you think there is value to in-person interactions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say -- gasp! -- that you think the benefits to in-person interactions outweigh the negatives. You'd misunderstand me, at least, if you think that I deny the value to in-person interactions. But I believe that the costs outweigh those benefits, and so am very much for WFH. And I bristle at you, and others, imposing your preferences on me.

[JusticeChuckleNutz]

I also don't see how your argument disproves that RTO should be 100% optional. The people who want this form of "mentoring" can go to the office and get it from the people who want to provide it. And the people who don't want to participate can stay home and get their work done and whatever else just like they've done the past two years. This is probably how it was pre-pandemic anyway, except instead of people sitting in their home communicating with people via zoom/teams/phone, they sat in their office with the door closed and communicated with people via teams/phone.

First reasonable argument in the anti-RTO camp I've seen in a while, but it's still coming from the wrong perspective. Nobody is proving or disproving anything - this is an inherently fuzzy judgment call that firms will have to make. So we're talking about why some firms may make some RTO decisions over others, and I think there are some good reasons to do that.

I'm currently at a 3-days in RTO firm, but hardly anybody follows it, so it's basically optional as you suggest it should be. That means there isn't a critical mass of people in the office to support in-person meetings, etc., so they don't happen. Also, many of the seniors I learned most from are avoiding the office completely. They may see no benefit to coming in, but I would have lost something if they made that decision for themselves pre-pandemic. Given these facts, I can see why my firm would inconvenience some who would would perform great with pure WFH in order to help others like me who need mentorship/in-person interaction to grow.

To be clear, I'm not saying that because I benefited from in-office interactions, every firm must mandate in-office time. This is all pretty dang squishy. All I'm saying is it's reasonable for a firm to say that given the (admittedly unmeasurable) benefits an (admittedly unmeasurable) number of juniors could reap from a large number of people being in the office at a given time, it may be worth hauling everyone into the office once or twice a week.

But your point about not going to class continues to miss the mark. RTO, again, is not about those who can get along just fine without in-person interaction. It's about creating the proper environment for those who decidedly cannot. Using my firm as an example, you may need to haul some people who would be fine working from him in order to help those who would not.

Characterizing forced RTO as an "inconvenience" is absolutely ridiculous from my perspective. For me (and I imagine for many others), WFH has fundamentally changed the way I live my life, how I conceptualize work, and the balance I am able to strike between the two. Downtimes at work no longer consist of staring at the wall or aimlessly browsing the internet in my small corporate cage. Instead, I can use that time to run errands, pursue leisure activities, or just spend time with the people I love.

I literally cannot imagine going back to the way things used to be when I've seen how much better life can be. I'm sure there are at least some benefits to RTO (though I am skeptical of many arguments from the RTO crowd). But, to my mind, the benefits of RTO could NEVER outweigh the benefits of WFH.

Amen. Couldn't agree more.

[Anonymous User]

Ad hominems are silly, but I think your argument fails the ideological Turing test. Yes, I understand that you think there is value to in-person interactions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say -- gasp! -- that you think the benefits to in-person interactions outweigh the negatives. You'd misunderstand me, at least, if you think that I deny the value to in-person interactions. But I believe that the costs outweigh those benefits, and so am very much for WFH. And I bristle at you, and others, imposing your preferences on me.

I'm happy that we're moving to talking about weighing the positives/negatives. I fully respect that you weigh those differently.

The only piece I disagree with is that it's only the RTO folks imposing on anybody. First, apart from the last couple years during which a pandemic was sort of an important factor, the default rule is you must show your face in the office. By asking firms to change that, you're imposing your preferences on the status quo, not them. I don't think that argument will get much tractions so I'll move to the next one.

Second, and more importantly, allowing a full WFH option creates a tragedy of the commons scenario that ends up imposing on those who want the benefits of a flexible schedule. As I've belabored before, in my office so few people follow the RTO guidelines that it's laughable. That means that nobody gets the important mentorship opportunities that are necessary for growth. In effect, by imposing your preference for WFH on the firm, you're preventing others from getting what they need out of RTO. I get that this too is a bit attenuated, and I totally respect that you don't think that's important enough to prevent you from running errands three days a week, but it's not like you can WFH without any imposition on others.

Finally, and this is old school, but if you do as you suggest and run errands or do other stuff while working from home during business hours, you are absolutely imposing on others who might need you on short notice. Hauling you into the office and having you sit there 9-5 is the only way to make sure you're available during business hours.

I'm sure there's other reasons here. Others should chime in.

[Anonymous User]

Ad hominems are silly, but I think your argument fails the ideological Turing test. Yes, I understand that you think there is value to in-person interactions. In fact, I'd go so far as to say -- gasp! -- that you think the benefits to in-person interactions outweigh the negatives. You'd misunderstand me, at least, if you think that I deny the value to in-person interactions. But I believe that the costs outweigh those benefits, and so am very much for WFH. And I bristle at you, and others, imposing your preferences on me.

I'm happy that we're moving to talking about weighing the positives/negatives. I fully respect that you weigh those differently.

The only piece I disagree with is that it's only the RTO folks imposing on anybody. First, apart from the last couple years during which a pandemic was sort of an important factor, the default rule is you must show your face in the office. By asking firms to change that, you're imposing your preferences on the status quo, not them. I don't think that argument will get much tractions so I'll move to the next one.

Second, and more importantly, allowing a full WFH option creates a tragedy of the commons scenario that ends up imposing on those who want the benefits of a flexible schedule. As I've belabored before, in my office so few people follow the RTO guidelines that it's laughable. That means that nobody gets the important mentorship opportunities that are necessary for growth. In effect, by imposing your preference for WFH on the firm, you're preventing others from getting what they need out of RTO. I get that this too is a bit attenuated, and I totally respect that you don't think that's important enough to prevent you from running errands three days a week, but it's not like you can WFH without any imposition on others.

Finally, and this is old school, but if you do as you suggest and run errands or do other stuff while working from home during business hours, you are absolutely imposing on others who might need you on short notice. Hauling you into the office and having you sit there 9-5 is the only way to make sure you're available during business hours.

I'm sure there's other reasons here. Others should chime in.

"By asking firms to change [to RTO], you're imposing your preferences on the status quo, not them."

I submit that the baseline you've chosen (pre-pandemic, every one in office) is arbitrary. WFH people would have the same arguments then that they have now. They were then having their values trampled upon as they would in an RTO-world. The "R" just was not a thing in the pre-pandemic world.

"As I've belabored before, in my office so few people follow the RTO guidelines that it's laughable. That means that nobody gets the important mentorship opportunities that are necessary for growth."

Again, this is you imposing your preferences on others. People get mentorship in a variety of different ways. Who is to say that the person sitting at home isn't learning very valuable things that they wouldn't be learning if they were forced to work in an office all day?

"if you do as you suggest and run errands or do other stuff while working from home during business hours, you are absolutely imposing on others who might need you on short notice. Hauling you into the office and having you sit there 9-5 is the only way to make sure you're available during business hours."

I am not the earlier anon, I am a new person, and I am not advocating for fucking around during the workday. TBH, I would work more in a fully virtual world -- I am more productive there. My availability is superficial if I am turning into a potato at my desk. Yes, I will tell you that I'll review x, y, or z, but I'm not going to be very efficient at it if I am miserable. I don't feel very miserable sitting at home, hanging with my dog and wife, listening to my music, and drinking my fancy coffee. That's how I operate best and I simply cannot do that in a RTO world.

[nixy]

I also don't see how your argument disproves that RTO should be 100% optional. The people who want this form of "mentoring" can go to the office and get it from the people who want to provide it. And the people who don't want to participate can stay home and get their work done and whatever else just like they've done the past two years. This is probably how it was pre-pandemic anyway, except instead of people sitting in their home communicating with people via zoom/teams/phone, they sat in their office with the door closed and communicated with people via teams/phone.

First reasonable argument in the anti-RTO camp I've seen in a while, but it's still coming from the wrong perspective. Nobody is proving or disproving anything - this is an inherently fuzzy judgment call that firms will have to make. So we're talking about why some firms may make some RTO decisions over others, and I think there are some good reasons to do that.

I'm currently at a 3-days in RTO firm, but hardly anybody follows it, so it's basically optional as you suggest it should be. That means there isn't a critical mass of people in the office to support in-person meetings, etc., so they don't happen. Also, many of the seniors I learned most from are avoiding the office completely. They may see no benefit to coming in, but I would have lost something if they made that decision for themselves pre-pandemic. Given these facts, I can see why my firm would inconvenience some who would would perform great with pure WFH in order to help others like me who need mentorship/in-person interaction to grow.

To be clear, I'm not saying that because I benefited from in-office interactions, every firm must mandate in-office time. This is all pretty dang squishy. All I'm saying is it's reasonable for a firm to say that given the (admittedly unmeasurable) benefits an (admittedly unmeasurable) number of juniors could reap from a large number of people being in the office at a given time, it may be worth hauling everyone into the office once or twice a week.

But your point about not going to class continues to miss the mark. RTO, again, is not about those who can get along just fine without in-person interaction. It's about creating the proper environment for those who decidedly cannot. Using my firm as an example, you may need to haul some people who would be fine working from him in order to help those who would not.

Characterizing forced RTO as an "inconvenience" is absolutely ridiculous from my perspective. For me (and I imagine for many others), WFH has fundamentally changed the way I live my life, how I conceptualize work, and the balance I am able to strike between the two. Downtimes at work no longer consist of staring at the wall or aimlessly browsing the internet in my small corporate cage. Instead, I can use that time to run errands, pursue leisure activities, or just spend time with the people I love.

I literally cannot imagine going back to the way things used to be when I've seen how much better life can be. I'm sure there are at least some benefits to RTO (though I am skeptical of many arguments from the RTO crowd). But, to my mind, the benefits of RTO could NEVER outweigh the benefits of WFH.

This is fair enough, but I don’t know that it’s inconsistent with spending *any* time in the office ever, like once every couple of weeks or once a month or something. (NOT 4 days a week or the like.) It seems like the only justification for not having to come into the office *ever* is so you can move to a completely different city, or work while traveling, and I’ll admit I think those are a hard sell to employers who hired you to work in a particular office. If you can negotiate that as part of your job (living somewhere else entirely), that’s great, but it seems a bit of a stretch to assume it should follow from WFH.

Though, to contradict myself a little, an anchor day may not really replicate the kind of serendipitous contacts that underlie a lot of mentoring/networking, which isn’t to say that everyone should come into the office more, but that there should definitely be more efforts to replicate that kind of thing virtually.

[1styearlateral]

Why is Sad248 trying so hard to convince other law firm associates that RTO is bad when he or she should be making that argument to his or her partners? Just ignore your firm's mandate or lateral to a firm that allows 100% remote work. Convincing people on this forum will not change your situation.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Anti-RTOers take this shit really personally.

Right. They aren't comfortable with "there are valid reasons we all should be in the office and there are valid reasons that we all shouldn't, just like any other judgment call." Instead, for some reason that's likely personal, they need to be 100% right that there's no reason for them to come in at all. It just baffles me that you could think there's a perfect answer to something so fuzzy.

I think a lot of the angst from the anti-RTOers comes from the fact that it feels like pro-RTOers are selfishly imposing their preferences on them at great cost. "I want to get to know co-workers so RTO is good" is only palatable for those who want to rub shoulders with their co-workers for ~10ish hours per day. Those people can do that themselves without imposing on the person who wants to WFH. "Mentorship opportunities can't be replicated in a WFH setting" is only sensible for those who can't imagine being mentored remotely or by others outside their firm. This is very imprecise, but the RTO advocates' arguments sort of resemble the "my religion doesn't approve of that behavior, so it should be illegal" line of thinking.

It doesn't really have anything to do with what pro-RTOers want. It's all about what management and leadership want. The pro-RTOers are just the ones who acknowledge that and accept it; the anti-RTOers view management's decision to RTO as a personal attack on their freedom. The argument to give employees the option is dubious at best. Almost certainly 9 out of 10 people would choose to stay home.

More broadly, I just don't understand how anyone could think that the hundreds of trillions of dollars of commercial/office real estate will simply become ancient ruins overnight. Of course, some companies/firms will go fully remote, while the majority will implement at least some hybrid model, and a fair bit will require five days in the office. But to suggest that working in an office is and should be a thing of the past is really shortsighted and ignores the material impact a society only working remotely would have on the economy.

[Anonymous User]

"By asking firms to change [to RTO], you're imposing your preferences on the status quo, not them."

I submit that the baseline you've chosen (pre-pandemic, every one in office) is arbitrary. WFH people would have the same arguments then that they have now. They were then having their values trampled upon as they would in an RTO-world. The "R" just was not a thing in the pre-pandemic world.

"As I've belabored before, in my office so few people follow the RTO guidelines that it's laughable. That means that nobody gets the important mentorship opportunities that are necessary for growth."

Again, this is you imposing your preferences on others. People get mentorship in a variety of different ways. Who is to say that the person sitting at home isn't learning very valuable things that they wouldn't be learning if they were forced to work in an office all day?

"if you do as you suggest and run errands or do other stuff while working from home during business hours, you are absolutely imposing on others who might need you on short notice. Hauling you into the office and having you sit there 9-5 is the only way to make sure you're available during business hours."

I am not the earlier anon, I am a new person, and I am not advocating for fucking around during the workday. TBH, I would work more in a fully virtual world -- I am more productive there. My availability is superficial if I am turning into a potato at my desk. Yes, I will tell you that I'll review x, y, or z, but I'm not going to be very efficient at it if I am miserable. I don't feel very miserable sitting at home, hanging with my dog and wife, listening to my music, and drinking my fancy coffee. That's how I operate best and I simply cannot do that in a RTO world.

Can two people impose on each other at the same time? Asking for a friend, who happens to be imposing this on me cuz I'm imposing on him by using his TLS account.

You incessant RTO folks just cannot understand a two sided argument can you? We got you to finally see that it's a judgment call, but now you just complain about "who is imposing on whom." I get it. You want to WFH all day every day. Totally reasonable request. But that's just like your opinion man.

If you could step out of your antisocial homebody world for literally two seconds, how is it okay for you to say "I'm more productive at home with my wife" but not for a partner to say "I'm more productive when I can just walk down the hall and talk to the boots on the ground"? IDGAF if you feel imposed on, you work for the partner, the reason you get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars is because the partners hired you, so fuck if I know I'm going to let the partner pick. Someone said we're going to get more burnout. Fuck if I know, but my guess is aside from the self-selecting anti-social TLS types most of us would actually feel better seeing their colleagues. Call me a bootlicker, but if you don't like it, either leave or wait it out and prove me wrong.

Anyway, we part-time RTO people have dropped numerous valid arguments to appease your fragile, imposed-upon egos. Mentorship is just the beginning of it all. Face to face time builds loyalty (even if you work for jerks, you commiserate with colleagues). Personal relationships do mean something in the workplace, and if you don't care then that's your loss. Collaboration is indisputably easier in person. I'm done talking about how hard it is on you for us to go back to how it's been for literally all of ever.

[Anonymous User]

Look, you won't see me saying that everybody's experiences cannot be different. However, you're not making an argument here. If you love going to the office, by all means go. Why do others who do not see the appeal, have to go? It's nice that apparently somebody would ask a question in the office and they wouldn't do so at home (this more points to me that the question is unnecessary in the first place) but this again boils down to the same point: we live in the 21st century and firms have been slow to evolve and create a situation where the threshold for online ad hoc training is lowered. Instead of moving on and figuring out how you can have the best of both world, people are insisting on sitting in an office for 8 hours a day, and the main argument is "well, you know, you just learn by being around unhappy people who are tied to their desks, it just happens" and on the off-chance you might have a question while going back to your desk after chatting with your assistant at the office coffee machine.

If that's the argument, I think there is zero ground to stand on to mandate RTO. Again, sure, there might be benefits for some people to return to the office. I get it. That still doesn't explain why other people who don't want that environment need to come in. Why does somebody who does not want to be there not sees the value of the office have to come in? So you can pop into their office and say hi? So you can check in on them to see if they need more work/you can see if their door is open so you can ask them a question? If it's the former: it's work, not a social club. If it's the latter: we managed just fine for two years, and if it's a worry now and you're admitting it was all bad for two years, maybe you should have geared up the past two years to help people out more and be more accessible.

I'll say that is what I do think will happen, however, that everybody will be forced in to create an hospitable environment for some who love RTO. Especially under pressure from seniors who are gunning for partner who will bitch and moan that they need more bodies on the floor so they can pass around work on their way to partnership. (Let's face it, the push to RTO is not happening on a junior level, who we all supposedly want to help with mentoring). I get it. Obviously, juniors will get worn out more and leave sooner as a result, and then the RTO-fans can just shrug and be confused why all the awesome in-person mentoring did not yield better results.

I know people who are insisting on 4 to 5 days in the office, FWIW. Yes, they're all about to be up for partnership.

Your inability to see (or disagreement with) an argument doesn't mean doesn't exist. Let me explain it again real simple like:
- Some people need in-office interactions, others don't.
- If a firm lets people decide whether they want to come in, two things may happen: (1) some people who actually need in-office interactions will nonetheless opt for WFH and their work will suffer, and (2) people who actually don't need to be in the office will stay home and reduce the number of available mentors in the office.
- If there are enough people in either camp, affording a permanent WFH option will have the effect of curtailing any benefits for RTO for those who need it because either those who could benefit don't come in and/or there won't be a critical mass of people in the office for those who do.
- In that case, a firm may make the judgment call that it's worth hauling everyone in for the benefit of those who need in-office interactions.

You may disagree with a number of these points. Maybe there just aren't enough people who need in-office interaction. Maybe people in (1) don't actually exist, or maybe we shouldn't punish others for their shortcomings. Maybe there aren't enough people in (2) to make much of a difference. Maybe you disagree that a critical mass is needed for the benefits of RTO. Or maybe you think that it's not worth upsetting WFH fans to help with the development of those who need some form of RTO (which you may think is laughably small).

But each step in my logic is informed by what I have seen in the lit group of my V25 both during pandemic WFH during and now as we RTO. I think there are lots of new associates in desperate need of some mentoring who are performing poorly right now. But some of those associates have continued to work from home given my office's loosely enforced RTO policy. And many of the other people who those associates would benefit from interacting with (myself included) are just staying home all or most of the week because nobody else comes in anyway. If I were a junior showing up to my office 3 days a week now, I would see absolutely no point.

You make a valid point that maybe firms could do better encouraging mentorship remotely and that until then RTO should be treated as a last resort. But do you have any ideas on how to do that effectively? I doubt it, given that you hardly seem to understand why some people would need in-person interaction in the first place. I've done a lot of thinking on this (alongside others in my department), and I haven't seen anything during WFH that remotely (pun intended) approximates an open door. Besides, you and I both know that firms' failure to act during the pandemic has nothing to do with whether there's merit to RTO - only whether it's the least restrictive means to reap the benefits of human interaction.

Anyway, I think I've given your arguments good faith consideration, so please pay mine the same respect.
Time will tell whether your prediction that RTO burns people out will come to fruition. That's just another factor for firms to consider in the calculus I outlined above.

Wow, I am so glad I’m not a litigator and don’t work with litigators. Truly insufferable.

[Anonymous User]

Wow, I am so glad I’m not a litigator and don’t work with litigators. Truly insufferable.

Right? Thank you for saying that . It really hurts me so much too when they show me the logical flaws in my deeply held feelies.

[Anonymous User]

Why is Sad248 trying so hard to convince other law firm associates that RTO is bad when he or she should be making that argument to his or her partners? Just ignore your firm's mandate or lateral to a firm that allows 100% remote work. Convincing people on this forum will not change your situation.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Anti-RTOers take this shit really personally.

Right. They aren't comfortable with "there are valid reasons we all should be in the office and there are valid reasons that we all shouldn't, just like any other judgment call." Instead, for some reason that's likely personal, they need to be 100% right that there's no reason for them to come in at all. It just baffles me that you could think there's a perfect answer to something so fuzzy.

I think a lot of the angst from the anti-RTOers comes from the fact that it feels like pro-RTOers are selfishly imposing their preferences on them at great cost. "I want to get to know co-workers so RTO is good" is only palatable for those who want to rub shoulders with their co-workers for ~10ish hours per day. Those people can do that themselves without imposing on the person who wants to WFH. "Mentorship opportunities can't be replicated in a WFH setting" is only sensible for those who can't imagine being mentored remotely or by others outside their firm. This is very imprecise, but the RTO advocates' arguments sort of resemble the "my religion doesn't approve of that behavior, so it should be illegal" line of thinking.

It doesn't really have anything to do with what pro-RTOers want. It's all about what management and leadership want. The pro-RTOers are just the ones who acknowledge that and accept it; the anti-RTOers view management's decision to RTO as a personal attack on their freedom. The argument to give employees the option is dubious at best. Almost certainly 9 out of 10 people would choose to stay home.

More broadly, I just don't understand how anyone could think that the hundreds of trillions of dollars of commercial/office real estate will simply become ancient ruins overnight. Of course, some companies/firms will go fully remote, while the majority will implement at least some hybrid model, and a fair bit will require five days in the office. But to suggest that working in an office is and should be a thing of the past is really shortsighted and ignores the material impact a society only working remotely would have on the economy.

This is an incredible argument. You acknowledge that 9 out of 10 people would rather not work from home, but then go on to insist they do it anyways because the commercial real estate market would crumble if they were working from home. Seriously?

I submit: (1) a healthy economy with unhappy people is not a good thing, and (2) the disruption to the commercial real estate market by WFH is far overstated. Work spaces could change or giant skyscraper office buildings could be easily turned into giant skyscraper apartments.

[Anonymous User]

"By asking firms to change [to RTO], you're imposing your preferences on the status quo, not them."

I submit that the baseline you've chosen (pre-pandemic, every one in office) is arbitrary. WFH people would have the same arguments then that they have now. They were then having their values trampled upon as they would in an RTO-world. The "R" just was not a thing in the pre-pandemic world.

"As I've belabored before, in my office so few people follow the RTO guidelines that it's laughable. That means that nobody gets the important mentorship opportunities that are necessary for growth."

Again, this is you imposing your preferences on others. People get mentorship in a variety of different ways. Who is to say that the person sitting at home isn't learning very valuable things that they wouldn't be learning if they were forced to work in an office all day?

"if you do as you suggest and run errands or do other stuff while working from home during business hours, you are absolutely imposing on others who might need you on short notice. Hauling you into the office and having you sit there 9-5 is the only way to make sure you're available during business hours."

I am not the earlier anon, I am a new person, and I am not advocating for fucking around during the workday. TBH, I would work more in a fully virtual world -- I am more productive there. My availability is superficial if I am turning into a potato at my desk. Yes, I will tell you that I'll review x, y, or z, but I'm not going to be very efficient at it if I am miserable. I don't feel very miserable sitting at home, hanging with my dog and wife, listening to my music, and drinking my fancy coffee. That's how I operate best and I simply cannot do that in a RTO world.

Can two people impose on each other at the same time? Asking for a friend, who happens to be imposing this on me cuz I'm imposing on him by using his TLS account.

You incessant RTO folks just cannot understand a two sided argument can you? We got you to finally see that it's a judgment call, but now you just complain about "who is imposing on whom." I get it. You want to WFH all day every day. Totally reasonable request. But that's just like your opinion man.

If you could step out of your antisocial homebody world for literally two seconds, how is it okay for you to say "I'm more productive at home with my wife" but not for a partner to say "I'm more productive when I can just walk down the hall and talk to the boots on the ground"? IDGAF if you feel imposed on, you work for the partner, the reason you get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars is because the partners hired you, so fuck if I know I'm going to let the partner pick. Someone said we're going to get more burnout. Fuck if I know, but my guess is aside from the self-selecting anti-social TLS types most of us would actually feel better seeing their colleagues. Call me a bootlicker, but if you don't like it, either leave or wait it out and prove me wrong.

Anyway, we part-time RTO people have dropped numerous valid arguments to appease your fragile, imposed-upon egos. Mentorship is just the beginning of it all. Face to face time builds loyalty (even if you work for jerks, you commiserate with colleagues). Personal relationships do mean something in the workplace, and if you don't care then that's your loss. Collaboration is indisputably easier in person. I'm done talking about how hard it is on you for us to go back to how it's been for literally all of ever.

I am not going to lie, part of my disdain for the RTO crowd is it seems that those who want it center their (social) lives around work. You've called my antisocial because I prefer to work from home. Baked into your ad hominem is the idea that my social life comes from those I worked with. Silly. I don't hang with suits, I hang with friends. We do fun things, we don't talk about cases. I resent the suits that force me into an office so they have someone to talk to.

[nixy]

Pretty sure that turning massive skyscraper office buildings into massive skyscraper apartment buildings isn’t done “easily.” But I think too that the posts above are conflating ideal and reality. Whether propping up commercial real estate (and all the businesses dependent on that real estate) is good or bad or worthwhile or not, owners certainly think it’s important and will be (are) lobbying for RTO. I know not all law firms own their buildings, but leases aren’t always easy to get out of, either. So sure, maybe there are lots of ways that abandoning office buildings would be great for the economy/world, but there are a lot of people currently invested in them who are going to fight that.

[Anonymous User]

Pretty sure that turning massive skyscraper office buildings into massive skyscraper apartment buildings isn’t done “easily.” But I think too that the posts above are conflating ideal and reality. Whether propping up commercial real estate (and all the businesses dependent on that real estate) is good or bad or worthwhile or not, owners certainly think it’s important and will be (are) lobbying for RTO. I know not all law firms own their buildings, but leases aren’t always easy to get out of, either. So sure, maybe there are lots of ways that abandoning office buildings would be great for the economy/world, but there are a lot of people currently invested in them who are going to fight that.

If you are locked into a lease, isn't it a sunk cost? So if the costs of RTO > benefits, why add to your costs?

[nixy]

You incessant RTO folks just cannot understand a two sided argument can you? We got you to finally see that it's a judgment call, but now you just complain about "who is imposing on whom." I get it. You want to WFH all day every day. Totally reasonable request. But that's just like your opinion man.

If you could step out of your antisocial homebody world for literally two seconds, how is it okay for you to say "I'm more productive at home with my wife" but not for a partner to say "I'm more productive when I can just walk down the hall and talk to the boots on the ground"? IDGAF if you feel imposed on, you work for the partner, the reason you get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars is because the partners hired you, so fuck if I know I'm going to let the partner pick. Someone said we're going to get more burnout. Fuck if I know, but my guess is aside from the self-selecting anti-social TLS types most of us would actually feel better seeing their colleagues. Call me a bootlicker, but if you don't like it, either leave or wait it out and prove me wrong.

Anyway, we part-time RTO people have dropped numerous valid arguments to appease your fragile, imposed-upon egos. Mentorship is just the beginning of it all. Face to face time builds loyalty (even if you work for jerks, you commiserate with colleagues). Personal relationships do mean something in the workplace, and if you don't care then that's your loss. Collaboration is indisputably easier in person. I'm done talking about how hard it is on you for us to go back to how it's been for literally all of ever.

I am not going to lie, part of my disdain for the RTO crowd is it seems that those who want it center their (social) lives around work. You've called my antisocial because I prefer to work from home. Baked into your ad hominem is the idea that my social life comes from those I worked with. Silly. I don't hang with suits, I hang with friends. We do fun things, we don't talk about cases. I resent the suits that force me into an office so they have someone to talk to.

Your response to the bolded is fair enough, but I wish both sides could get over accusing the other of some kind of social deficiency based on their preference. It’s personalizing something that should be about work. Valuing in-person interaction as something that benefits your work due to collaboration and mentorship doesn’t mean you’re a suit whose only social outlet is the people stuck working with you. Valuing the autonomy and relative lack of interruption that comes from working at home doesn’t mean you’re an antisocial loser who can’t handle dealing with people.

I absolutely am an anti-social homebody and I own that proudly. I do think some in-office time helps me work more effectively because it’s easier to understand some matters by talking about them with people who know more than I do, and it can be easier to walk by an office than pick up a phone. (Like in an ideal world I’d just email everyone about everything, but that’s not efficient for everything and it’s not advised in my practice.)

I’m also not even sure what people are arguing about at this point. Is anyone (here) saying that everyone should be back in the office 5 days a week? Or are people just feeling like their own preferences have been attacked?

I do find it a little weird that a lot of the RTO crowd seem to say “back in the office at least to some extent” with room for WFH as well, and a lot of the WFH crowd seem to consider any requirement to be back in the office ever as illegitimate. Are there any WFH people who could get behind a minimal office requirement? Or is it just that RTO is pointless right now because when you go in no one’s there anyway? If that weren’t case, would your take be different?

[nixy]

Pretty sure that turning massive skyscraper office buildings into massive skyscraper apartment buildings isn’t done “easily.” But I think too that the posts above are conflating ideal and reality. Whether propping up commercial real estate (and all the businesses dependent on that real estate) is good or bad or worthwhile or not, owners certainly think it’s important and will be (are) lobbying for RTO. I know not all law firms own their buildings, but leases aren’t always easy to get out of, either. So sure, maybe there are lots of ways that abandoning office buildings would be great for the economy/world, but there are a lot of people currently invested in them who are going to fight that.

If you are locked into a lease, isn't it a sunk cost? So if the costs of RTO > benefits, why add to your costs?

Because the people who’ve signed the lease or own the buildings probably don’t agree that the costs of RTO > the benefits? It’s not clear to me that RTO costs more, monetarily, and the desire not to be paying money for a bunch of space no one’s using is pretty human. I’m not saying this is the only or best way to look at the situation, but I think it’s how a lot of employers will see it.

[Anonymous User]

I am not going to lie, part of my disdain for the RTO crowd is it seems that those who want it center their (social) lives around work. You've called my antisocial because I prefer to work from home. Baked into your ad hominem is the idea that my social life comes from those I worked with. Silly. I don't hang with suits, I hang with friends. We do fun things, we don't talk about cases. I resent the suits that force me into an office so they have someone to talk to.

"I have a black friend so I'm not racist."

Just because you have friends outside of work doesn't mean you're not being antisocial in the work context. I don't care if you have a personal life outside of work - many ITT (and countless studies) have emphasized the benefits to knowing your colleagues on a more personal level. I don't want to talk to you in the office because you're going to be my best friend, I want to talk to you in the office so that we can develop a better working/professional relationship. By denying the importance of that, which has been custom for the entirety of human existence, you're being antisocial (i.e., "averse to the society of others") - even if only in one context.

[1styearlateral]

Why is Sad248 trying so hard to convince other law firm associates that RTO is bad when he or she should be making that argument to his or her partners? Just ignore your firm's mandate or lateral to a firm that allows 100% remote work. Convincing people on this forum will not change your situation.

This is what I was referencing earlier. Anti-RTOers take this shit really personally.

Right. They aren't comfortable with "there are valid reasons we all should be in the office and there are valid reasons that we all shouldn't, just like any other judgment call." Instead, for some reason that's likely personal, they need to be 100% right that there's no reason for them to come in at all. It just baffles me that you could think there's a perfect answer to something so fuzzy.

I think a lot of the angst from the anti-RTOers comes from the fact that it feels like pro-RTOers are selfishly imposing their preferences on them at great cost. "I want to get to know co-workers so RTO is good" is only palatable for those who want to rub shoulders with their co-workers for ~10ish hours per day. Those people can do that themselves without imposing on the person who wants to WFH. "Mentorship opportunities can't be replicated in a WFH setting" is only sensible for those who can't imagine being mentored remotely or by others outside their firm. This is very imprecise, but the RTO advocates' arguments sort of resemble the "my religion doesn't approve of that behavior, so it should be illegal" line of thinking.

It doesn't really have anything to do with what pro-RTOers want. It's all about what management and leadership want. The pro-RTOers are just the ones who acknowledge that and accept it; the anti-RTOers view management's decision to RTO as a personal attack on their freedom. The argument to give employees the option is dubious at best. Almost certainly 9 out of 10 people would choose to stay home.

More broadly, I just don't understand how anyone could think that the hundreds of trillions of dollars of commercial/office real estate will simply become ancient ruins overnight. Of course, some companies/firms will go fully remote, while the majority will implement at least some hybrid model, and a fair bit will require five days in the office. But to suggest that working in an office is and should be a thing of the past is really shortsighted and ignores the material impact a society only working remotely would have on the economy.

This is an incredible argument. You acknowledge that 9 out of 10 people would rather not work from home, but then go on to insist they do it anyways because the commercial real estate market would crumble if they were working from home. Seriously?

I submit: (1) a healthy economy with unhappy people is not a good thing, and (2) the disruption to the commercial real estate market by WFH is far overstated. Work spaces could change or giant skyscraper office buildings could be easily turned into giant skyscraper apartments.

lol, I'm not "making an argument." I'm just stating facts. I acknowledge that 9 out of 10 Average Joe/Jane Office Workers would rather WFH 100% of the time. But in the real world, the masses don't dictate the status quo. The small percentage of those in power and with billions at stake do (this includes, by virtue but to a lesser extent, your law firm partners).

Setting aside the fact that converting office buildings into resi apartments has extreme hurdles, some that can be overcome and some that cannot (e.g., zoning/land use laws, oversupply, etc.), what anti-RTOers, K-JDs, current law students, recent grads, and younger associates all fail to realize is the simple cause-and-effect formula. There isn't enough time or space on this forum to dive into it extensively (and I am not an economist), but high-level:

If all companies implemented 100% remote work policies, there would be no tenants to fill the hundreds of trillions of square feet of office space on this planet, which means there would be no way for the owners to pay their mortgages, which means they default and the banks are left holding the bag (with no prospective buyers because, you know, WFH), which means the banks go under (or need federal bail outs), which means your taxes go up. Oh, and by the way, those building owners and banks that went out of business? They're clients of the law firms, which spend hundreds of millions in legal fees every year on dispositions, lease negotiations, real estate litigation, financing and refinancing, M&A, etc. Now your firm realizes millions less in revenue and who do you think suffers alongside the equity partners? The same anti-RTO associates who will now experience extreme job insecurity (and possibly those equity partners with banking/real estate clients, too). Let's also not forget the hundreds of thousands if not millions of jobs that are real estate adjacent (e.g., proptech, hospitality, property management). Those 1,000 software engineers at CBRE, Cherre, and Reonomy are out of jobs along side the brokers at Cushman, Newmark, and JLL and the analysts at JPM, Morgan Stanley, and BoA.

This is all to say there can be a situation that works for everyone. There are and will be more law firms and companies out there that implement 100% remote work or give their employees the choice. Why not just go to one of those firms/companies if yours will not implement the policy you so dearly desire? Why try and ignore facts and reality and take such an aggressive "all-or-nothing" approach? Maybe your firm already abandoned RTO plans and you're just here to stir the pot. Or maybe you're just lazy and don't want to take the steps you believe are necessary to improve your life, so it's easier to whine about it here and ignore reality. The irony is you resent "the suits" that force their agenda on you, yet you're just as quick to force your agenda on others. Gtfo here.

[Anonymous User]

Getting back to the topic here, a strategy I've been employing to minimize time in the office is just showing up for half the day (either 9-12 or 12-3) for like 3 days a week, just enough so that the partners see my face but in reality I'm only really there for like 1.5 days every week. Then I leave some papers on my desk (maybe a coffee cup or something if I'm really committed to the bit) and dip.

Only way it works is that my office is a short walk from my apartment, otherwise this strategy will not work since it's a huge pain getting to/from the office for just 3ish hours.