This is ridiculous. My friend Trey works at a big company in Portland, OR.
Move or Quit: “I’ve been working from home for nearly 7 years now. In 2000 I asked my boss if I could work part-time from Corvallis because Mary was moving there. He agreed, and I’ve done work ever since.
The mother organization (12000 employees) has made the decision that people working remotely is not to be allowed. I must either move up to Portland (Santa Clara, CA and Hudson, MA are also allowed) or quit.”
I can imagine that there are a variety of reasons why this big company would want to institute such a policy: security issues, to reduce slack-iness, etc. But rather than forcing people (like my friend Trey) to move, wouldn’t it be better to address the specific security or productivity issues that gave rise to this new “no-tolerance” policy? Or perhaps, in the long run, it’s better for big companies to drive away good people.
(Via Trey.)