This is ridiculous. My friend Trey works at a big company in Portland, OR. <\/p>\n
Move or Quit<\/a>: “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.<\/p>\n 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.”<\/p>\n 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.\n<\/p>\n (Via Trey<\/a>.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … Continue reading