Skip Navigation

Remote or hybrid workers, would you rather work a 4 day week on site, or WFH completely for 5 days a week, for the same pay?

I know this will vary a lot, so hypothetically let’s say you currently WFH/work remotely at least 3 days a week. Your commute to work takes an hour max (door to door) each way. If you were given the choice of a 4 day week working onsite, or a 5 day week WFH (or as many days as you’d like) for the same pay, which would you choose?

140 comments
  • Full remote.

    I actually like going into the office ~2x per week. But tell me I have to and bump it to 4 days, I'm out. I also do not want my colleagues forced on site. My current ~2x/week is as productive as it is because the other people going on site now are there voluntarily and for specific reasons.

  • I will never commute again, ever. I'd rather work four days a week in my pajama pants and one day pantsless (Casual Friday) than waste my time schlepping my brain through meatspace.

  • I am WFH full time now.

    My commute was, at best, 30 minutes each way. Weather or traffic can easily drive up this time. So at least an hour a day. Being in the office 4 days/week = 4+ hours commuting and all the headaches of driving, parking expense, car expenses, etc. I was much less productive in the office so I think it actually hurts my work to be in the office.

    I'd prefer to drop the commute and be more productive. My employer will get MORE than 8 hours of work with that arrangement.

  • For me. 100% remote.

    But I work more for objectives rather than gross time/days. If the project is falling behind I work extra to gain some safeguard. If the project is going well I work more relaxed.

    I don't mind working extra hours if I'm already saving a lot of time avoiding travelling to the client or going to the office, living in another place away from a city. Etc.

  • In response to your question, I'd like to share my personal experience regarding remote work. I have been working entirely remotely for years, and given this background, I cannot imagine returning to an office setting, even if it was just for one day a month.

    The primary reason is tied to time and quality of life. If my office were an hour away from my home - and in reality, it's even further - I would be committing 8 hours a week just for commuting. This effectively means that in terms of hours, I'd still be tied to a five-day work commitment when considering the commute time.

    But beyond the simple tally of hours, there are aspects of daily life and routine to consider. On the days I'd be expected to be in the office, I would have significantly less time to spend with my son. This would majorly impact our daily routine. We wouldn't get the chance to have lunch together, and the management of daily commitments would become much more complex.

    In conclusion, given my background and personal priorities, I would unquestionably choose to continue working from home five days a week rather than commuting to the office for four days. The flexibility and time saved from commuting hold invaluable worth to me.

  • I’m 100% WFH, my commute is about 30 mins each way, and I like the social aspect of going into the office, but 5 days remote all the way.

  • WFH hands down. I would get two hours of each week day back that I spend commuting.

  • Hybrid work is idiotic. Remote all the way. Why do I need to travel two hours both ways to work at the same computer I can access from my bedroom? Even in office most meetings take place on teams anyway.

  • Not to feed into the bosses' paranoia, but I'd say WFH 5-days (on paper) and bunk off, which is a lot easier to do WFH anyway.

    I don't actually think the employer misses out here, even if most companies already take far more than they're owed from their employees to begin with.

    The reality for a lot of jobs, especially those that require deep work, creativity etc, is that watching how long people are sat at their desks is not a good way to improve results anyway. Better a motivated happy workforce, and managers that are thinking in terms of how well a team is delivering useful things for the org rather than obsessing about timesheets.

    If the company is happy to pay me X salary for the results I provide them, everybody wins. It's foolish for organisations to think that getting people to work longer hours, whether it's forcing people to work 4, 5, or 6 days, is going to get them more bang for buck.

    As for remote working, I've worked exclusively from home for over a decade in fully remote teams. Everyone wins with WFH. There can be problems to mitigate and there's always some subjective preference to consider, but on the whole the average employee and employer wins big from the arrangement.

    All the pushback I've seen on WFH since the pandemic seems in large part management using it as an excuse for their own incompetence.

    "How can I tell my employees are working if I can't see them at their desks?" If you cant tell if they're working now, then you didn't know they were working before either!

    On-boarding new people, building up young people, is just different from before. Make sure they have decent equilment for video and normalise teams sitting in video rooms when the work. Encourage buddy working at all levels. Recognise and respect the upfront cost of training. Encourage and fund opportunities for socialising both remotely and in person.

    Managers don't know what's happening without the "water cooler effect". They're used to be able to shout at teams across an office, or easedrop. Again, this demonstrates a weakness in their ability to communicate and interact with the people they claim to "lead". Good managers will be in the same video rooms and chatting shit with the people they lead while they work as a united teams. Shitty managers will sit on their hands while not even noticing their team does everything they can to avoid a unhelpful or unsupportive "leader".

    The worse one is productivity. I have no doubt things are going worse for corpos since the pandemic. This likely correlates with increase WFH. The ideas that this is proof that WFH is outrageously. During the pandemic we had teams working 17 hour days. Corpos took the opportunity to cut every corner and show contempt to the workforces, and they didn't fix things when the COVID numbers went down. The big shots made some truly terrible strategic calls. All these things and more are seeming to lead to a kind of mass enshittification across a ton of organisations. But bosses don't want to own their mistakes, let alone fix them , so WFH ends up the scapegoat.

    (Sorry! This thread seems to have brought out the rant in me!)

  • My comment goes against the trend, but I'd choose to go into work since I find it much easier to focus, to the point where I could likely get the same amount of work done in 4 days at the office vs 5 days at home.

    Currently my employer makes us come into the office three days per week, unless we choose to switch to full-time remote.

140 comments