Working from home flexibility - commonplace?

krazyklown

Hi,
Considering my options with my current employer for a couple of reasons which I won't go into. The main things holding me here is I have a flexible working arrangement whereby I work an extra hour a day and take every second Friday off and also they up to now have been really flexible allowing work from home 2/3 days at your own discretion. This is really important to me as my wife does shift work and it gives us more quality time together.
My previous employer didn't have any such arrangements. Just wondering if there are many companies offering these types of flexibility around Dublin? Any recommendations would be appreciated!
KK

rgodard80a

It's something you have to ask each employer.

I'm fairly senior and able to work 1, and infrequently 2, days a week from home.
In my last job I could work 2 days a week from home, but was there a while and trusted.

It's likely that any change in job will mean you would have to complete your probation period first before being able to work from home.

International companies tend to allow more flexible working hours, as there's more of an intersection of working hours between offices in different timezones.

> I work an extra hour a day and take every second Friday off

Well they're getting an extra 2.5 hours of work out of you there each fortnight.
9 hours of extra work for one 7.5 hour day off.
So that's not too hard a sell there.

14ned

krazyklown wrote: »

Just wondering if there are many companies offering these types of flexibility around Dublin? Any recommendations would be appreciated!

The contract I'm currently working is at Verizon Dublin. All permanent staff mostly work exclusively from home, only the contractors come into the office or those permanent staff who need something from the city or who want to escape their children!

But I gather that this is not common in Dublin. Many have said that they wouldn't consider moving to another employer even for a substantial pay increase precisely because of the unusually liberal work-from-home policy. So all I can say is that there is at least one company in Dublin offering 95% remote working, but everybody says it's unusual in Ireland.

Niall

moycullen14

Certainly becoming more common.

Don't understand why more companies don't offer it. It's a great way to lock employees in. My commute could be up to an hour each way, and I'm happy for the company to have that time. Saves me money and allows me to do all the little things like car servicing, kid drop off, etc.

For me, probably the main reason I wouldn't leave for more money elsewhere.

14ned

moycullen14 wrote: »

Don't understand why more companies don't offer it. It's a great way to lock employees in. My commute could be up to an hour each way, and I'm happy for the company to have that time. Saves me money and allows me to do all the little things like car servicing, kid drop off, etc.

If you're willing to really lock yourself in, remote working like here lets you cut your costs very significantly, which equals a pay rise.

Out of my team here, one moved to Sligo, another to Wexford, and a third to Australia. Yes, Australia, because it's warm and sunny down there

But still working for the Dublin office, just at much reduced living costs and/or increased sunshine. But it does create a terrible dependency though, if you were downsized, you'd be screwed. Well, maybe except for the Australian guy.

Niall

krazyklown

Yeah the WFH is worth a couple of grand extra pay for the improved work/life balance. I find the days I am WFH I don't clock watch and not running out of the office to beat traffic, therefore put in a better days work. Wouldn't do it full time, it's good to go to the office for a change of scene.
It's what has kept me here but other factors are coming into play now and I think on a purely career basis it's time to move on. Would be great to get somewhere that has good flexibility, I appreciate it with a young child.

14ned

krazyklown wrote: »

Yeah the WFH is worth a couple of grand extra pay for the improved work/life balance. I find the days I am WFH I don't clock watch and not running out of the office to beat traffic, therefore put in a better days work. Wouldn't do it full time, it's good to go to the office for a change of scene.

Before this onsite contract which I had to take out of desperation and no other choice, I was a 100% remote only contractor. That's much better again, if your place of work is your own home, a whole raft of expenses can be deducted from pre-tax income. This onsite contract costs me 15k in extra overhead to be living in Dublin during the weekdays, and a good few grand more in expenses I can't claim anymore.

Which TBH is daft, Revenue lets you deduct business incurred expenses when you work from home or on visits to clients, but not if it's the same client every week.

Niall

moycullen14

14ned wrote: »

Before this onsite contract which I had to take out of desperation and no other choice, I was a 100% remote only contractor. That's much better again, if your place of work is your own home, a whole raft of expenses can be deducted from pre-tax income. This onsite contract costs me 15k in extra overhead to be living in Dublin during the weekdays, and a good few grand more in expenses I can't claim anymore.

Which TBH is daft, Revenue lets you deduct business incurred expenses when you work from home or on visits to clients, but not if it's the same client every week.

Niall

There is something distinctly rotten about the way 'contractors' are treated by the revenue. The implication is that we are just disguised employees. If that's the case then the revenue should go after the employers for employment taxes - PRSI, etc.

Another thing that irritates the hell out of me is that those working off-site for large companies can have their expenses reimbursed without tax, whereas an independent contractor cannot.

More and more, I'm seeing companies using the contractor route to reduce employment costs and liabilities. Part of the great race to the bottom.

It seems that large companies are untouchable as far as tax gathering is concerned.

14ned

moycullen14 wrote: »

There is something distinctly rotten about the way 'contractors' are treated by the revenue. The implication is that we are just disguised employees. If that's the case then the revenue should go after the employers for employment taxes - PRSI, etc.

That would mean the end of the contracting market. Some of us prefer contracting with fixed periods to constantly jumping between permanent roles

But otherwise I agree about the arbitrary nature of the judgement in 2013. It seems to me pretty obvious the difference between a temporary worker and a permanent worker, not least that if someone works at the same site for more than a year, they're getting into permanent worker territory. But equally, projects overrun etc. In the Civil Service they use a rule of two years, so all temporary staff are on two year contracts. I see no reason why Revenue can't declare "working at the same location and client for more than two years will be treated as permanent employment". Then we all contract up to the two year limit, and we move on to the next gig. Everybody is happy.

Another thing that irritates the hell out of me is that those working off-site for large companies can have their expenses reimbursed without tax, whereas an independent contractor cannot.

Before 2013 people were taking the mick. They were renting a small office far away so they could claim daily mileage between their Dublin home and their Dublin client. Revenue got sick of it, and banned it entirely. Now those of us who live in Cork must pay out of after tax income to supply Dublin with its desperately needed workers.

I wouldn't mind so much if the government actually did something to encourage jobs to migrate away from Dublin. Like set PRSI at 25% for city jobs, 5% for non-city jobs. But instead they just keeping pumping up the Dublin bubble, putting a break on growth and making it very hard to employ people at a reasonable cost.

What would have made far more sense is that only VATable receipts for temporary accommodation and expenses can be reclaimed, and not from long term rental agreements. So, hotels can be claimed for, but not a flat rental.

More and more, I'm seeing companies using the contractor route to reduce employment costs and liabilities. Part of the great race to the bottom.

It seems that large companies are untouchable as far as tax gathering is concerned.

In Ireland "close companies" have always had discriminatory tax treatment. We see severe punitive additional taxes if you don't empty out the company every year, forcing us into paying hefty taxes in good years will no ability to roll excess from the good years into lean years. That's effectively punishing family run businesses for being family run.

Niall

colm_c

moycullen14 wrote: »

Another thing that irritates the hell out of me is that those working off-site for large companies can have their expenses reimbursed without tax, whereas an independent contractor cannot.

This is not true for employees, I work off-site quite a bit and there are no tax right-offs available.

There are some 'expenses' when working a significant distance from your employers office, and only for very short periods of time. This would apply if you were a contractor/sole trader also.

srsly78

14ned wrote: »

In Ireland "close companies" have always had discriminatory tax treatment. We see severe punitive additional taxes if you don't empty out the company every year, forcing us into paying hefty taxes in good years will no ability to roll excess from the good years into lean years. That's effectively punishing family run businesses for being family run.

Niall

Get a better accountant. Since you only do your accounts for a given year in the year after you can effectively shift income from fat to lean or vice versa. This makes it possible to take 'tax holidays' or to cover a period of unemployment.

It's no big trick, just a question of cashflow.

14ned

srsly78 wrote: »

Get a better accountant. Since you only do your accounts for a given year in the year after you can effectively shift income from fat to lean or vice versa. This makes it possible to take 'tax holidays' or to cover a period of unemployment.

It's no big trick, just a question of cashflow.

That only works +/- one year.

Any other country in the OECD you get +/- three years.

Niall

Ludo

This thread has gone off the rails completely...

Back on topic...my place in Cork allows us to work 10 to 3 Mon to Thursday and 10 to 1 on a Friday as core hours and make up the hours around that. I usually get in at 7 and leave at roughly three thirty 4 days a week and at one on a Friday. Love it. Having worked strictly 9 to 5.30 in Dublin for previous 12 years, the change of moving to these hours in Cork and a commute reduced from 2 hours a day to 30 mins a say has made a phenomenal change to my lifestyle.
10 years now in Cork doing those hours (with some leeway to work from home from time to time if really needed) and wouldn't change to anything else now.

moycullen14

14ned wrote: »

That would mean the end of the contracting market. Some of us prefer contracting with fixed periods to constantly jumping between permanent roles

But otherwise I agree about the arbitrary nature of the judgement in 2013. It seems to me pretty obvious the difference between a temporary worker and a permanent worker, not least that if someone works at the same site for more than a year, they're getting into permanent worker territory. But equally, projects overrun etc. In the Civil Service they use a rule of two years, so all temporary staff are on two year contracts. I see no reason why Revenue can't declare "working at the same location and client for more than two years will be treated as permanent employment". Then we all contract up to the two year limit, and we move on to the next gig. Everybody is happy.



Before 2013 people were taking the mick. They were renting a small office far away so they could claim daily mileage between their Dublin home and their Dublin client. Revenue got sick of it, and banned it entirely. Now those of us who live in Cork must pay out of after tax income to supply Dublin with its desperately needed workers.

I wouldn't mind so much if the government actually did something to encourage jobs to migrate away from Dublin. Like set PRSI at 25% for city jobs, 5% for non-city jobs. But instead they just keeping pumping up the Dublin bubble, putting a break on growth and making it very hard to employ people at a reasonable cost.

What would have made far more sense is that only VATable receipts for temporary accommodation and expenses can be reclaimed, and not from long term rental agreements. So, hotels can be claimed for, but not a flat rental.



In Ireland "close companies" have always had discriminatory tax treatment. We see severe punitive additional taxes if you don't empty out the company every year, forcing us into paying hefty taxes in good years will no ability to roll excess from the good years into lean years. That's effectively punishing family run businesses for being family run.

Niall

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/15/hmrc-wins-tax-case-against-bbc-presenter

14ned

moycullen14 wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/15/hmrc-wins-tax-case-against-bbc-presenter

RTE is as bad incidentally.

Contracting - if you can avoid IR35 - is much more lucrative in the UK in Ireland precisely because of the peculiarities of tax treatment here in Ireland. And the BBC made the stupid mistake of contractually restricting who else the contractor could work for, that's classic employee-employer terms.

And don't get me wrong, the Irish system has the huge advantage of simplicity, both for us and for Revenue. It's just if say a close company could accumulate up to €250k of balance sheet before the surcharge applied, that would go a huge way towards smoothing income across more than one year without opening a big loophole to avoid tax. So, for example, in surplus years you'd pay 12.5% on the income you retain for future years with 25% on the income you take, in lean years you pay out the retained income at 25% and the 12.5% corporation tax paid earlier would be credited back. So lean years cost you 25% in that tax year same as in a fat year, rather than the present 45% tax rate with the close company surcharge on retained income in professional service companies.

Niall

BrokenArrows

14ned wrote: »

If you're willing to really lock yourself in, remote working like here lets you cut your costs very significantly, which equals a pay rise.

Out of my team here, one moved to Sligo, another to Wexford, and a third to Australia. Yes, Australia, because it's warm and sunny down there

But still working for the Dublin office, just at much reduced living costs and/or increased sunshine. But it does create a terrible dependency though, if you were downsized, you'd be screwed. Well, maybe except for the Australian guy.

Niall

How is the guy allowed to stay in Australia if hes not working there? (Im assuming he not actually australian)

srsly78

Because he's a specialist in a certain area. That place is weird... At least the wexford guy used to drive up to Dub on wednesdays. Ned you have my old job

14ned

srsly78 wrote: »

Because he's a specialist in a certain area. That place is weird... At least the wexford guy used to drive up to Dub on wednesdays. Ned you have my old job

Seriously? If so, I wonder if you're the person whose code I keep having to repair ...

If you are serious, then the team here are still ticking along, just preparing a new release right now in fact. You may remember that years elapse between releases, so it's a big thing. Much of my work isn't on this release, but rather for the next one in a few years time when we are finally going to tell customers that no, you can't run this software on a 486 any more. And yes, there will be customers who will get very upset at that. These are customers who get upset at any mention of leaving the Linux 2.6 kernel

Niall

srsly78

It's a legacy code base, I helped with the linux port a few years ago - mostly changing makefiles and stuff. Are the 10000+ unit tests still failing? I was in middle of resurrecting those when all contractors got laid off.

That job is a good example of why I moved away from c++ - all the work is just maintaining legacy stuff. Noone cares if you know c++11 or whatever. Nice office and people there tho.

.......

This post has been deleted.

14ned

srsly78 wrote: »

It's a legacy code base, I helped with the linux port a few years ago - mostly changing makefiles and stuff. Are the 10000+ unit tests still failing? I was in middle of resurrecting those when all contractors got laid off.

I know exactly who you are now . Actually the Linux port is the main one earning revenue, and hence is by far the best maintained. All tests pass on it.

My main purpose this contract is to perform the Win64 upgrade, followed by a VS2017 upgrade as VS2008 will EOL next month. The VS2017 upgrade will turn on C++ 17 on Windows only. Mainly only the developers use the Windows edition. Linux may move to C++ 11, or it may be judged still too soon for that. Depends on our SPECTRE mitigation choice, clang trunk is compiling the code base just fine even with the libstdc++ 4.4 runtime.

That job is a good example of why I moved away from c++ - all the work is just maintaining legacy stuff. Noone cares if you know c++11 or whatever. Nice office and people there tho.

I agree about the nice office and people.

I look at the legacy C++ support thing another way: it's a reliable fallback for when you can't land a remote contract. In that sense, it's safer than say Rust, and it gives you an income stream to build an escape ramp with. As you know, I am working on a plan to get out of commodity C++ contracting, and into much more frothy technologies where there is rapid expansion. I just need another four months, and that ball will be set rolling. Hopefully it pays off in a few years time, then I can go onto a five year 100% remote contract paying at US contracting rates and finally start building up a decent pension.

Niall

counterpointaud

The company I work for embraces the remote model. Full-time employees and contractors are welcome to work from any of the company's offices, or from wherever. No notice necessary for either option except for when meals or office space or other logistics require advance notice when heading into office.