> Not really. You negotiate with a boss who has to consider how your deal will affect other's deals. The deal environment changed so the deals they need to make are going to change.
I'm in a team that has multiple "remote" people since before pandemic. We all can't suddenly show up to single office because we are on three different continents, so, obviously, there is not much risk of our deal changing to something more strict.
> Everyone voting on the same deal that is compatible with all roles in a group and strikes everyone as fair to them is just a less ideal negotiation that will make arbitrary decisions when the group changes. (I.e. the manager wants everyone in office so they hire a lot of interns and juniors who vote that way for the local help they need.)
I assume that company with such malicious management wouldn't conduct the vote in the first place.
> I'm in a team that has multiple "remote" people since before pandemic.
When I was in a similar position, I regularly worked in groups who gave me every indication the majority would vote to relocate all positions to in-office in California. I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be hopping groups after each vote while the team was telling me how wonderful the west coast is. It was better that my role was negotiated and a group could deal with it or suffer consequences of looking for an all California team.
It seems to me like you are trying to fix a problem that doesn't affect either you or me, and I am saying I don't like the consequences to me of your fix.
But it does affect me! Last time when I was looking for a new job I had a requirement that it must be either remote-friendly or have the office in walking distance to my home, which significantly reduced the choices for me. I really hope that pandemic will result at least some empowerment of teams to chose their preferred way to work.
According to the article you can now apply to 75% of jobs. I don't know why you want teams empowered to vote on what you are allowed to do, that is like looking for a new source of irrational barriers. If you would rather have holocracy, etc as a form of organization than sure, maybe it will reach more efficient decisions. But little artificial groupings of people with no other structure vote for things that are illegal in a republic sense or in this case an employment sense.
I'm in a team that has multiple "remote" people since before pandemic. We all can't suddenly show up to single office because we are on three different continents, so, obviously, there is not much risk of our deal changing to something more strict.
> Everyone voting on the same deal that is compatible with all roles in a group and strikes everyone as fair to them is just a less ideal negotiation that will make arbitrary decisions when the group changes. (I.e. the manager wants everyone in office so they hire a lot of interns and juniors who vote that way for the local help they need.)
I assume that company with such malicious management wouldn't conduct the vote in the first place.