That's what confused me. I'm wary of armchair-CEOing, given that I have no experience at that level whatsoever. However, it seems like there would be an easier solution to "people who WFH and don't do anything": deal with people who _don't do anything_ (whether at home or in the office). Try as I might, I can't see the benefit to this blunter approach that would justify the cost to recruitment and legitimate remote workers.
Yahoo is a big company. It's not like a startup or even an small enterprise, where everyone knows Johnny is on facebook all day and Terry takes a 3 hour liquid lunch. There's too many places to hide in a big org.
So to identify unproductive people using a top-down approach, you'd need a metric to measure staff productivity and force the managers to implement it.
Which do you think would be less popular, a) curtailing remote work or b) implementing and enforcing an org-wide productivity metric?
