It’s partly because of cases like this https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/man-goes-viral-working... This is Parekh, the guy who was working for some 3-7 well funded valley companies simultaneously last year.

There's more to being an employee than just being able to "complete every aspect of my job remotely".

If the company just wanted to have some job done, be it on site, or especially remotely, they'd use a vendor or contractor. That's what they do for moving the furniture, painting, watering the plants, payroll, advertising, legal, auditing, etc.

An employee is someone who, as well as just doing their job, sporadically does other things like maintaining relationships, product ideas, interviewing candidates, training new hires, and whatever other ad-hoc stuff is required to keep a company operational. If you want to be hired as an employee, and potentially get promoted, etc, then doing your actual job is just a bare minimum to not get fired (and maybe not even that, with layoffs being so popular), and an ability to contribute to all the other stuff is what will get you hired and keep you employed.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with being a contractor, or just doing your job / the bare minimum, but companies need employees who can do more to keep existing, and its up to you if you want to be one or not.

I think part of it is also that most companies never built good ways to measure output in the first place.

In an office, “being there” becomes a proxy for productivity, even if it’s not accurate.

Once you remove that, the gap becomes very visible, and instead of fixing measurement, a lot of companies just revert back to what they’re used to.

So it ends up looking like a remote work problem, but it’s really a management/measurement problem.

As a counterpoint, I've worked remotely since like 2000 ... It gets easier and more 'normal' every year. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.

It's about control. If a middle manager (or higher) can't see you, they don't believe that you're working. No matter how much work you actually get done.

> I just passed on a job for a quality company in the Bay area because they wouldn't budge on remote work

You're assuming they don't trust remote employees? They may just not want remote employees.

It's a perfectly valid stance for a company to say, "You know what, remote work just isn't for us." They don't need to justify it any more than you need to justify your preference for remote work.

It's not right or wrong, it's just a preference.

For one thing there is the nightmare scenario that the guy who shows up for the job interview is the front man for a North Korean team. Also the Bay Area is like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave... but much worse and they’d hate more than anything if you “think different”

As someone who works from home, and has for a long time, and would do it no differently -- and also as someone who has been up in the chain a bit and had an opportunity to look closely at things like productivity and other working patterns -- I can tell you that I've seen the most deeply unethical things, things that could never ever happen in an office. The whole "Quiet Quitting" movement, and just taking advantage in all kinds of ways. I've seen it again and again, particularly with younger employees.

If you are a remote work company and hire someone who is not passionate about what they do, they will, for certain, take advantage. And why wouldn't they? So it is easier to just lean on the side of caution, especially if the management chain isn't entirely on top of things (which is common, because everyone is busy).

Probably because anytime I work from home I watch TV all day and just respond to Slacks on my phone.