Remote Work is About What Workers Will Tolerate Not About What Is More Productive

Remote work will win because workers will demand it, whether its better for companies or not

The seemingly never-ending remote work debate seemed to re-erupt online last week when Flo Crivello, the founder and CEO of Lindy, an AI personal assistant startup, shared an internal memo that he shared with his company stating his change of heart on remote work:

I’ve made a 180º on remote. I think everyone here can attest to the fact that we tried harder than anyone else. And I’m more bummed out about it than anyone.

Remote is more comfortable from a lifestyle standpoint. You save on commute, have your own office, can work from anywhere, and get more flexibility on your schedule (especially important for folks with families).

But it makes it harder for a startup to succeed or find product / market fit. That’s especially so if you’re building something very new, like we are doing.

Crivello goes on to discuss the challenges of remote work and emphasizes the importance of office work for coordination and alignment among colleagues. He also makes the case that the office uniquely builds fun, community, and trust. 

But more than the memo itself, the debate was reignited by Crivello’s viral tweet and a subsequent viral quote tweet by venture capitalist David Sacks claiming that “remote work doesn’t work.”  

Both Crivello and Sacks claim that remote work is less productive for the organization, which misses the most salient point in predicting the future of remote work:

Remote work will prevail regardless of whether it is less or more productive for the organization. Remote work will prevail because workers will demand it.

First, we don’t have definitive answers on remote vs. in-office work. Plenty of peer-reviewed research suggests remote workers are as productive or more productive than their office counterparts. For example, a 2013 Stanford study found that remote workers were 13% more productive when working from home four days a week. 

But let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that remote work is less productive. That misses the point.

Remote work isn’t about what is more productive. Remote work is about what workers will tolerate.

There is a long list of abandoned labor norms that would undoubtedly be more productive for companies than the status quo. Here are a few examples:

• 10+ hour workdays

• Six-Day Work Weeks

• Child labor

• No minimum wages

The only difference between these relics and mandated office work is that workers, as a result of movements, markets, and laws, no longer tolerate these things.

• 10+ Hour Workdays. Before the Industrial Revolution, workdays were commonly 10-16 hours. One of the critical labor movements of the 19th century was the "eight-hour day," which sought to limit workdays to eight hours. In the United States, it wasn’t until the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938 that the eight-hour workday and 40-hour workweek became standard.

• Six Day Work Weeks. The pre-industrial revolution era found people often working six of those 10-hour days each week. The five-day workweek and our concept of the “weekend” didn’t become common until the 20th century. 

• Child labor. Now take all of the above and apply it to children as young as ten years old, who made up as much as 6% of the US workforce before the implementation of laws that forbid child labor, such as the Keating-Owen Act of 1916 (later struck down by the Supreme Court in 1918) and the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938.

• No minimum wages. Minimum wage regulation originated in New Zealand and Australia in the 1890s. However, the first U.S. federal minimum wage -- 25 cents an hour -- came as part of the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938.

If what is best for the organization trumped everything, we’d still be working six, 10-hour days per week alongside children without a minimum wage. 

As I’ve said before, I’m optimistic about the proliferation of remote work because I believe workers will demand it. Companies -- especially those competing for the best talent -- will be forced to give employees location flexibility if they want to win. 

It's not necessarily about what companies want. It’s also about what workers will tolerate.