Rich, In principal I agree, and I've said this many times, for years I've telecommuted myself, mostly effectively. I'd work much longer hours, but not always worked as efficiently during all of those hours. When I started my own company, with $$ be in short supply like all start ups I I planned to have as many folks telecommute as possible. In some cases it worked out, in others it was a terrible failure. Maybe it was my hiring choices, maybe it was being a bad "manager" but without people in the office it was harder to tell. Also with "most" people under one roof now, I also see the on going information sharing that isn't as possible with a mostly remote office.
-jim On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 8:04 AM, Rich Kulawiec <r...@gsp.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 05:35:45PM -0700, Scott Weeks wrote: > > One day, hopefully, telecommuting really takes off [...] > > It often strikes me as incredibly ironic that companies which *would > not exist* were it not for the Internet are among the most resistant > to the simple, obvious concept that telecommuting allows them to hire > the best and brightest regardless of geography. > > Telecommuting should not be a rare exception: it should be the default. > And "corporate headquarters" should be as small and inexpensive as > possible, > staffed (in person) only by a handful of people -- if even that. Asking > net admins to do stupid, wasteful, expensive things like "commute 3 hours > a day" and "live in areas with ridiculously inflated housing prices" is a > good way to filter *out* the employees one would most like to have. > > ---rsk >
