Avoiding RTO Forum

[Anonymous User]

Just want to point out if long term we end up in a situation where those who want to make partner / be in firm leadership RTO (at least hybrid) and everyone else just WFHs that will 100% lead to some comically messed up firm leadership down the road and have some unintended negative side effects (could definitely see it leading to a decrease in female/minority partners).

Obviously doesn't matter much if you're already at a firm and plan to bounce, but long term that seems like a bad plan.

[Anonymous User]

Just want to point out if long term we end up in a situation where those who want to make partner / be in firm leadership RTO (at least hybrid) and everyone else just WFHs that will 100% lead to some comically messed up firm leadership down the road and have some unintended negative side effects (could definitely see it leading to a decrease in female/minority partners).

Obviously doesn't matter much if you're already at a firm and plan to bounce, but long term that seems like a bad plan.

I'm not sure in-office folk can match the WFH grind. I am billing at a pace beyond my ability. No shower, no shave, no commute, no free bagels, no chit-chat, no problem.

[Anonymous User]

Just want to point out if long term we end up in a situation where those who want to make partner / be in firm leadership RTO (at least hybrid) and everyone else just WFHs that will 100% lead to some comically messed up firm leadership down the road and have some unintended negative side effects (could definitely see it leading to a decrease in female/minority partners).

Obviously doesn't matter much if you're already at a firm and plan to bounce, but long term that seems like a bad plan.

I'm not sure in-office folk can match the WFH grind. I am billing at a pace beyond my ability. No shower, no shave, no commute, no free bagels, no chit-chat, no problem.

It’s good to grind from both home and office. Good to mix it up.

[Anonymous User]

Just want to point out if long term we end up in a situation where those who want to make partner / be in firm leadership RTO (at least hybrid) and everyone else just WFHs that will 100% lead to some comically messed up firm leadership down the road and have some unintended negative side effects (could definitely see it leading to a decrease in female/minority partners).

Obviously doesn't matter much if you're already at a firm and plan to bounce, but long term that seems like a bad plan.

Because women should prefer the home? Sexist much?

[Anonymous User]

I’ve been very pro-WFH since 2020 because it’s better for my lifestyle but my thinking has evolved over the last few weeks. Although it’s against my self interest from a lifestyle and personal life perspective, I think certain people in certain groups need to go back. There are certain practice groups that are very technical and have an incredibly steep learning curve such that younger associates can’t learn what they need to learn alone at home.

I’m a tax associate specializing in asset management and M&A. Tax is hard. Asset management and M&A is hard. Understanding the transactions and the economic and commercial perspectives is hard. Understanding the fund formation, securities, debt financing, capital markets, ERISA, and employee benefits laws is hard. Understanding the tax consequences and planning opportunities is hard. Understanding all of it in order to effectively issue-spot and add value is even harder. Junior associates can’t efficiently learn everything they need from home. They need to sit with their senior associates and partners and be able to learn from them. Junior associates need to sit in with their senior associates/partners on calls and be exposed to everything. They need to be able to ask their senior associates and partners questions that come up on transactions without the necessity to schedule a call to ask questions.

There may be some practice areas where associates can learn and begin to master their area of law from home. But for the groups where that’s not possible, RTO (at least 1-2 days per week) is necessary.

[Anonymous User]

Just want to point out if long term we end up in a situation where those who want to make partner / be in firm leadership RTO (at least hybrid) and everyone else just WFHs that will 100% lead to some comically messed up firm leadership down the road and have some unintended negative side effects (could definitely see it leading to a decrease in female/minority partners).

Obviously doesn't matter much if you're already at a firm and plan to bounce, but long term that seems like a bad plan.

Because women should prefer the home? Sexist much?

I think they probably meant that because in our sexist society the burden of home/childcare still falls disproportionately on women, women will be more likely to WFH because it gives greater them flexibility to handle all the additional non-job work that falls on their shoulders. And this will likely be reflected in partner outcomes. Of course the solution to this isn't mandatory RTO, it's men doing their fair share around the house, but this requires a larger social shift that, if it is happening, is happening verrrrrry slowly.

[BrowsingTLS]

Junior associates can’t efficiently learn everything they need from home. They need to sit with their senior associates and partners and be able to learn from them. Junior associates need to sit in with their senior associates/partners on calls and be exposed to everything. They need to be able to ask their senior associates and partners questions that come up on transactions without the necessity to schedule a call to ask questions.

"Junior associates can't efficiently learn everything they need from home," here's a list of things you can efficiently learn at home. Great post 5/5. Will never work from home again. Nonsense like this makes me all the more glad to be joining a firm that welcomes WFH next week.

[Sporty1911]

Junior associates can’t efficiently learn everything they need from home. They need to sit with their senior associates and partners and be able to learn from them. Junior associates need to sit in with their senior associates/partners on calls and be exposed to everything. They need to be able to ask their senior associates and partners questions that come up on transactions without the necessity to schedule a call to ask questions.

"Junior associates can't efficiently learn everything they need from home," here's a list of things you can efficiently learn at home. Great post 5/5. Will never work from home again. Nonsense like this makes me all the more glad to be joining a firm that welcomes WFH next week.

I’m a second year in a highly technical practice. It’s not nonsense, actually, and I love WFH. I don’t really know how else to put it but training from home is just not the same as being able to knock on a seniors door and say “hey, just ran into X issue on matter Y, could you help walk through this with me?” Scheduling/hopping on a call works at times, but it’s not the same.

[nixy]

Junior associates can’t efficiently learn everything they need from home. They need to sit with their senior associates and partners and be able to learn from them. Junior associates need to sit in with their senior associates/partners on calls and be exposed to everything. They need to be able to ask their senior associates and partners questions that come up on transactions without the necessity to schedule a call to ask questions.

"Junior associates can't efficiently learn everything they need from home," here's a list of things you can efficiently learn at home. Great post 5/5. Will never work from home again. Nonsense like this makes me all the more glad to be joining a firm that welcomes WFH next week.

I’m a second year in a highly technical practice. It’s not nonsense, actually, and I love WFH. I don’t really know how else to put it but training from home is just not the same as being able to knock on a seniors door and say “hey, just ran into X issue on matter Y, could you help walk through this with me?” Scheduling/hopping on a call works at times, but it’s not the same.

I tend to agree with this, reluctantly. I’m sure it depends on the practice and the people involved, so I don’t think this *has* to be the case, but I think that given the way the legal profession worked up till the pandemic, it’s often the case. I think too people are overlooking (or defining differently) “efficiently.” It’s probably more efficient in some ways for a jr to pick up the phone and ask questions from home, rather than walk around an office and find someone. Personally, I often *learn* more efficiently in person, or in the moment of working on something. Again, probably that’s not the case for everyone, but I think it’s a thing. It probably applies less to really rote work (the kind of work people say a trained monkey could do. I just don’t have a lot of work like that).

I also think that people who have only trained as new attorneys from home may not quite realize what they don’t know. I look back at when I started practice and it took me 2 years to figure out how much I had no idea was even going on when I started.

But those who don’t agree and have found a firm where they can WFH 100%, that’s great, I’m glad it worked out for you.

[Anonymous User]

Junior associates can’t efficiently learn everything they need from home. They need to sit with their senior associates and partners and be able to learn from them. Junior associates need to sit in with their senior associates/partners on calls and be exposed to everything. They need to be able to ask their senior associates and partners questions that come up on transactions without the necessity to schedule a call to ask questions.

"Junior associates can't efficiently learn everything they need from home," here's a list of things you can efficiently learn at home. Great post 5/5. Will never work from home again. Nonsense like this makes me all the more glad to be joining a firm that welcomes WFH next week.

I’m a second year in a highly technical practice. It’s not nonsense, actually, and I love WFH. I don’t really know how else to put it but training from home is just not the same as being able to knock on a seniors door and say “hey, just ran into X issue on matter Y, could you help walk through this with me?” Scheduling/hopping on a call works at times, but it’s not the same.

I tend to agree with this, reluctantly. I’m sure it depends on the practice and the people involved, so I don’t think this *has* to be the case, but I think that given the way the legal profession worked up till the pandemic, it’s often the case. I think too people are overlooking (or defining differently) “efficiently.” It’s probably more efficient in some ways for a jr to pick up the phone and ask questions from home, rather than walk around an office and find someone. Personally, I often *learn* more efficiently in person, or in the moment of working on something. Again, probably that’s not the case for everyone, but I think it’s a thing. It probably applies less to really rote work (the kind of work people say a trained monkey could do. I just don’t have a lot of work like that).

I also think that people who have only trained as new attorneys from home may not quite realize what they don’t know. I look back at when I started practice and it took me 2 years to figure out how much I had no idea was even going on when I started.

But those who don’t agree and have found a firm where they can WFH 100%, that’s great, I’m glad it worked out for you.

Question to anyone in a litigation group -- what is WFH like for you? I would think that litigation is more conducive to WFH (except preparing for trials or may be depos), is that true?

[Anonymous User]

Junior associates can’t efficiently learn everything they need from home. They need to sit with their senior associates and partners and be able to learn from them. Junior associates need to sit in with their senior associates/partners on calls and be exposed to everything. They need to be able to ask their senior associates and partners questions that come up on transactions without the necessity to schedule a call to ask questions.

"Junior associates can't efficiently learn everything they need from home," here's a list of things you can efficiently learn at home. Great post 5/5. Will never work from home again. Nonsense like this makes me all the more glad to be joining a firm that welcomes WFH next week.

I’m a second year in a highly technical practice. It’s not nonsense, actually, and I love WFH. I don’t really know how else to put it but training from home is just not the same as being able to knock on a seniors door and say “hey, just ran into X issue on matter Y, could you help walk through this with me?” Scheduling/hopping on a call works at times, but it’s not the same.

I tend to agree with this, reluctantly. I’m sure it depends on the practice and the people involved, so I don’t think this *has* to be the case, but I think that given the way the legal profession worked up till the pandemic, it’s often the case. I think too people are overlooking (or defining differently) “efficiently.” It’s probably more efficient in some ways for a jr to pick up the phone and ask questions from home, rather than walk around an office and find someone. Personally, I often *learn* more efficiently in person, or in the moment of working on something. Again, probably that’s not the case for everyone, but I think it’s a thing. It probably applies less to really rote work (the kind of work people say a trained monkey could do. I just don’t have a lot of work like that).

I also think that people who have only trained as new attorneys from home may not quite realize what they don’t know. I look back at when I started practice and it took me 2 years to figure out how much I had no idea was even going on when I started.

But those who don’t agree and have found a firm where they can WFH 100%, that’s great, I’m glad it worked out for you.

Question to anyone in a litigation group -- what is WFH like for you? I would think that litigation is more conducive to WFH (except preparing for trials or may be depos), is that true?

I'm in lit and a lot of the work can be done remotely - research, drafting briefs, etc. But I also find some value in coming in occasionally because it allows for casual conversations with partners about the overall strategy of the case (the kind of chit chat/questions that I suppose I could ask on the phone but which seem intrusive over the phone and more natural in person). In one of my big cases, those conversations have been invaluable to help me shape the way I am pursuing research/organizing my thoughts and have saved me a lot of time/rabbit holes. It's not like these conversations can't happen on the phone/zoom, it's just that they are less likely to because of how humans engage in different settings. It's a balance.

[Joachim2017]

Question to anyone in a litigation group -- what is WFH like for you? I would think that litigation is more conducive to WFH (except preparing for trials or may be depos), is that true?

It is absolutely true. Sure, when you're in person you can drop by someone's office and chat strategy or even specific questions about the case/brief you're working on, but in terms of day-to-day work and especially training, there's MUCH less benefit in coming into the office.

Some of the best brief writers, for example (folks who got top grades from top schools, clerked on 2/9/DC/SCOTUS, etc.) sit with the record, craft arguments, and put out a brief that would not be any better if they had to be coming into the office to do that.

Obviously litigation is more than just brief-writing, but most parts of it are similarly just as well if not better done from home for a whole lot more people than in the transactional space.

[Anonymous User]

Question to anyone in a litigation group -- what is WFH like for you? I would think that litigation is more conducive to WFH (except preparing for trials or may be depos), is that true?

It is absolutely true. Sure, when you're in person you can drop by someone's office and chat strategy or even specific questions about the case/brief you're working on, but in terms of day-to-day work and especially training, there's MUCH less benefit in coming into the office.

Some of the best brief writers, for example (folks who got top grades from top schools, clerked on 2/9/DC/SCOTUS, etc.) sit with the record, craft arguments, and put out a brief that would not be any better if they had to be coming into the office to do that.

Obviously litigation is more than just brief-writing, but most parts of it are similarly just as well if not better done from home for a whole lot more people than in the transactional space.

Funny, I feel a little differently. You’re not wrong - brief-writing and research can absolutely be done from home just as effectively, if not more, if it helps minimize interruptions and you’re doing sustained research/writing. But I agree with the other post that understanding the case strategy (and even facts) is important for my work and easier from face to face discussions. I also find anything to do with witness prep much easier in person.

But again, it depends on your practice and how much that kind of stuff actually plays a role. Like if you’re pure appellate, you can do that from anywhere. And as the earlier post suggested, too, that doesn’t mean all office all the time, just sometimes.

(Though I also don’t really have enough of a clue what transactional people do to compare very effectively. So I guess I can’t really say lit needs RTO *more* than corp, but that for me, in lit, there are some benefits. If the most collaborative part of transactional is closing a deal and the most collaborative part of lit is trial, though, it’s certainly true than trial happens much less often in biglaw, so there’s that.)

[Anonymous User]

Just want to point out if long term we end up in a situation where those who want to make partner / be in firm leadership RTO (at least hybrid) and everyone else just WFHs that will 100% lead to some comically messed up firm leadership down the road and have some unintended negative side effects (could definitely see it leading to a decrease in female/minority partners).

Obviously doesn't matter much if you're already at a firm and plan to bounce, but long term that seems like a bad plan.

Because women should prefer the home? Sexist much?

This is not sexism. It is a well-documented preference of women in workplace:

"Zapier recently released our remote work report, and one of our findings stood out: women are more likely to want to work remotely, but they’re less likely to be given the option.

According to our survey, female knowledge workers are more likely than male knowledge workers to say the option to work remotely is one of the work perks they would most prefer to be offered (62% vs. 53%) and that home is where they would be the most productive when working (50% vs. 37%). At the same time, female knowledge workers are more likely than male knowledge workers to say they don’t work remotely because their company does not allow it (40% vs. 25%), and that they have quit a job because the company didn’t offer a flexible work schedule (24% vs. 17%)."

https://www.fastcompany.com/90477102/4- ... -for-women

[Res Ipsa Loquitter]

Just want to point out if long term we end up in a situation where those who want to make partner / be in firm leadership RTO (at least hybrid) and everyone else just WFHs that will 100% lead to some comically messed up firm leadership down the road and have some unintended negative side effects (could definitely see it leading to a decrease in female/minority partners).

Obviously doesn't matter much if you're already at a firm and plan to bounce, but long term that seems like a bad plan.

Because women should prefer the home? Sexist much?

This is not sexism. It is a well-documented preference of women in workplace:

"Zapier recently released our remote work report, and one of our findings stood out: women are more likely to want to work remotely, but they’re less likely to be given the option.

According to our survey, female knowledge workers are more likely than male knowledge workers to say the option to work remotely is one of the work perks they would most prefer to be offered (62% vs. 53%) and that home is where they would be the most productive when working (50% vs. 37%). At the same time, female knowledge workers are more likely than male knowledge workers to say they don’t work remotely because their company does not allow it (40% vs. 25%), and that they have quit a job because the company didn’t offer a flexible work schedule (24% vs. 17%)."

https://www.fastcompany.com/90477102/4- ... -for-women

There's a huge contingent of people who think pointing out any gender difference is sexist. They are correct that population-level statistics can't be blanketly applied to individuals, e.g. we can't assume any given woman wants to WFH. They're wrong to the extent they are denying facts and stymieing open discourse.

At my v20 btw the dynamic is a little different than the overall statistics. The women associates are just as likely to show up at the office. And in my group they show up even more than the guys. It's at the partner level where I see the difference (man partners more likely show up in office).

[nixy]

I’m sure societal expectations around parenting play a part in these differences.

In any case, I understood the original comment about how WFH could affect making partner as suggesting that in the absence of developing the kinds of relationships fostered by in-person contact, those in power (predominantly white men) would likely default to favoring people more like themselves. I didn’t take the original comment as suggesting women should be in the home more at all.

[Anonymous User]

I'm in lit and a lot of the work can be done remotely - research, drafting briefs, etc. But I also find some value in coming in occasionally because it allows for casual conversations with partners about the overall strategy of the case (the kind of chit chat/questions that I suppose I could ask on the phone but which seem intrusive over the phone and more natural in person). In one of my big cases, those conversations have been invaluable to help me shape the way I am pursuing research/organizing my thoughts and have saved me a lot of time/rabbit holes. It's not like these conversations can't happen on the phone/zoom, it's just that they are less likely to because of how humans engage in different settings. It's a balance.

Just want to emphasize this. The conversation (which I have not been able to replicate to the same degree or frequency with WFH) goes as follows:

*Bump into partner or start chatting walking back to offices after meeting*
Me: [small talk, useless and no reason for RTO].
Partner: [small talk, useless and no reason for RTO].
Me: So how about that motion plaintiffs just filed, seems pretty [adjective], huh?
Partner: well actually, [really helpful practice tip/information about why I may be wrong/advice on how to respond].

Sure, I could get that last point by just calling the partner and asking them about the motion. Thing is, I'll probably never do that. And there's a reason for that. The partner is probably incredibly busy, so they don't have the time or appetite to be fielding calls from every junior who wants to learn more about the case. Insert value judgment about what that says about our profession here, but unless there are some (highly unlikely) systemic changes in how we do things, I don't think we'll pick this piece back up without some form of RTO.

Others may feel this isn't worth RTOing for. That's totally fine. But I do because it makes me a better lawyer, and helps obtain better outcomes for my clients.

[Prudent_Jurist]

If by lit you’re talking drafting, sure, work from home is fine.

But I personally hate talking over a deposition outline, trial strategy, or something less written and more appearance oriented over the phone or zoom. So do the partners in my experience. Anecdotally, I hear behind-the-back comments about associates who don’t make an effort to show up in person for some key meetings.

Not saying that’s right, of course. Also likely doesn’t matter to those associates because they’ll likely dip in a few years anyway. But angling as I am for a career at my firm, I’m doing my damn well best to show up. Helps that I tend to like that better, too.

[jotarokujo]

Question to anyone in a litigation group -- what is WFH like for you? I would think that litigation is more conducive to WFH (except preparing for trials or may be depos), is that true?

It is absolutely true. Sure, when you're in person you can drop by someone's office and chat strategy or even specific questions about the case/brief you're working on, but in terms of day-to-day work and especially training, there's MUCH less benefit in coming into the office.

Some of the best brief writers, for example (folks who got top grades from top schools, clerked on 2/9/DC/SCOTUS, etc.) sit with the record, craft arguments, and put out a brief that would not be any better if they had to be coming into the office to do that.

Obviously litigation is more than just brief-writing, but most parts of it are similarly just as well if not better done from home for a whole lot more people than in the transactional space.

Funny, I feel a little differently. You’re not wrong - brief-writing and research can absolutely be done from home just as effectively, if not more, if it helps minimize interruptions and you’re doing sustained research/writing. But I agree with the other post that understanding the case strategy (and even facts) is important for my work and easier from face to face discussions. I also find anything to do with witness prep much easier in person.

But again, it depends on your practice and how much that kind of stuff actually plays a role. Like if you’re pure appellate, you can do that from anywhere. And as the earlier post suggested, too, that doesn’t mean all office all the time, just sometimes.

(Though I also don’t really have enough of a clue what transactional people do to compare very effectively. So I guess I can’t really say lit needs RTO *more* than corp, but that for me, in lit, there are some benefits. If the most collaborative part of transactional is closing a deal and the most collaborative part of lit is trial, though, it’s certainly true than trial happens much less often in biglaw, so there’s that.)

i don't know much about transactional but i've always heard it's better for extroverts/there's more teamwork and collaboration. so i assume transactional is more conducive to RTO?

[Anonymous User]

I'm in lit and a lot of the work can be done remotely - research, drafting briefs, etc. But I also find some value in coming in occasionally because it allows for casual conversations with partners about the overall strategy of the case (the kind of chit chat/questions that I suppose I could ask on the phone but which seem intrusive over the phone and more natural in person). In one of my big cases, those conversations have been invaluable to help me shape the way I am pursuing research/organizing my thoughts and have saved me a lot of time/rabbit holes. It's not like these conversations can't happen on the phone/zoom, it's just that they are less likely to because of how humans engage in different settings. It's a balance.

Just want to emphasize this. The conversation (which I have not been able to replicate to the same degree or frequency with WFH) goes as follows:

*Bump into partner or start chatting walking back to offices after meeting*
Me: [small talk, useless and no reason for RTO].
Partner: [small talk, useless and no reason for RTO].
Me: So how about that motion plaintiffs just filed, seems pretty [adjective], huh?
Partner: well actually, [really helpful practice tip/information about why I may be wrong/advice on how to respond].

Sure, I could get that last point by just calling the partner and asking them about the motion. Thing is, I'll probably never do that. And there's a reason for that. The partner is probably incredibly busy, so they don't have the time or appetite to be fielding calls from every junior who wants to learn more about the case. Insert value judgment about what that says about our profession here, but unless there are some (highly unlikely) systemic changes in how we do things, I don't think we'll pick this piece back up without some form of RTO.

Others may feel this isn't worth RTOing for. That's totally fine. But I do because it makes me a better lawyer, and helps obtain better outcomes for my clients.

The one thing I’ve heard anecdotally about tech/WFH is that it’s been pretty bad across the board and a ton of tech firms are relying on incremental product upgrades from existing tech as of 2019.

Product pushes are taking more time, syncing code is worse, everything is just more jarring. My buddies in FAANG in supervisory positions are convinced that widespread WFH is dragging down the industry.

Like, instead of doing a screenshare to figure out why some code/software isn’t working, you used to just walk by their station and figure it out in real time. Same thing in law tbh.

[Anonymous User]

i don't know much about transactional but i've always heard it's better for extroverts/there's more teamwork and collaboration. so i assume transactional is more conducive to RTO?

No - after the first few years, anything that requires "collaboration" requires having documents open so a call to the person sitting 15 feet from me so I can keep reference to the documents was more efficient than walking over.

Like, instead of doing a screenshare to figure out why some code/software isn’t working, you used to just walk by their station and figure it out in real time. Same thing in law tbh.

I have never seen someone point to my screen to figure out a problem in 5+ years. I'm just imaging how uncomfortable it would be when partners sit over your shoulder and read a paragraph in their fast-read garbled voice ..

[Excellent117]

Junior associates can’t efficiently learn everything they need from home. They need to sit with their senior associates and partners and be able to learn from them. Junior associates need to sit in with their senior associates/partners on calls and be exposed to everything. They need to be able to ask their senior associates and partners questions that come up on transactions without the necessity to schedule a call to ask questions.

"Junior associates can't efficiently learn everything they need from home," here's a list of things you can efficiently learn at home. Great post 5/5. Will never work from home again. Nonsense like this makes me all the more glad to be joining a firm that welcomes WFH next week.

I’m a second year in a highly technical practice. It’s not nonsense, actually, and I love WFH. I don’t really know how else to put it but training from home is just not the same as being able to knock on a seniors door and say “hey, just ran into X issue on matter Y, could you help walk through this with me?” Scheduling/hopping on a call works at times, but it’s not the same.

This could just as easily be accomplished through use of your firm's internal messaging system, which would also be a lot less disruptive to the senior.

[nixy]

Junior associates can’t efficiently learn everything they need from home. They need to sit with their senior associates and partners and be able to learn from them. Junior associates need to sit in with their senior associates/partners on calls and be exposed to everything. They need to be able to ask their senior associates and partners questions that come up on transactions without the necessity to schedule a call to ask questions.

"Junior associates can't efficiently learn everything they need from home," here's a list of things you can efficiently learn at home. Great post 5/5. Will never work from home again. Nonsense like this makes me all the more glad to be joining a firm that welcomes WFH next week.

I’m a second year in a highly technical practice. It’s not nonsense, actually, and I love WFH. I don’t really know how else to put it but training from home is just not the same as being able to knock on a seniors door and say “hey, just ran into X issue on matter Y, could you help walk through this with me?” Scheduling/hopping on a call works at times, but it’s not the same.

This could just as easily be accomplished through use of your firm's internal messaging system, which would also be a lot less disruptive to the senior.

Eh, writing stuff out is more work and often less clear than discussing it. Like for very basic questions, sure, but if someone actually wants to walk through an issue with me I’m not doing that on an IM.

[Excellent117]

Eh, writing stuff out is more work and often less clear than discussing it.

I was talking about requesting a time to discuss that's convenient for both parties, not providing the whole explanation via Skype/Teams/etc. Agreed that's not always useful.

[Anonymous User]

Eh, writing stuff out is more work and often less clear than discussing it.

I was talking about requesting a time to discuss that's convenient for both parties, not providing the whole explanation via Skype/Teams/etc. Agreed that's not always useful.

If you have to schedule it it's not the same. Also, why do people keep reviving this thread every couple weeks? It's literally the same stupid debate over and over. It's like there's an endless stream of WFH warrior who come to the party late thinking they've got the lynchpin argument that's going to vindicate 11 pages of stupidity. After each round we end up in the same place - it's a judgment call. Go (or stay?) home.