What Yahoo's no work from home policy means

Am I the only one who isn't that outraged by this?<p>I'm as big of a proponent for remote workers as anyone (I basically quit my last job over it), but it makes a lot of sense for yahoo in this case.<p>1. They're regrouping, reorganizing and refocusing their vision. All of which are much easier to do in person.<p>2. The group buy-in that she needs to shift Yahoo's culture, product and focus is much easier to get when they're all in one centralized location.<p>3. Remote workers count for a fraction of their workforce? It's not like it's going to be a massive change for 50%+ of their workforce. They're just getting the few remoters back in house.<p>Like I said, I'm a big proponent of remote working, but this seems a little overblown to me.

Looks like a great way to reduce headcount without saying the dreaded layoff word.

I know we need to measure good workers versus bad workers, but I also find it hard to get too enraged by this (despite having been a remote worker for some time). The problem as I see it is: everybody has at some point run into the a double points bad worker who is also a remote worker, and it tends to be memorable. Mine was the remote support woman who never answered her emails and didn't want to give out her personal number. As I said, it sticks in you memory.

If "Successful incorporation of remote work boils down to a few things that sound simple but are difficult in practice," and "difficult" actually means "impossible," then this writer's argument is … what, exactly?

The author is director at a company specializing in remote presence hardware and software. Of course he's going to disparage any company that cuts remote working.

Of course Mayer doesn't trust the management structure. What is the point of bringing in a new CEO if they're just going to "trust the management structure"?

Spoken like a true individual contributor.