Working From Home Megathread

limnam

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how some full-time WFH people feel when their companies decide they are really contractors, not employees. Because that is the logical next step if they aren't controlling the exact hours you work.

Another one of your hunches.


Clap trap.

Antares35

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how some full-time WFH people feel when their companies decide they are really contractors, not employees. Because that is the logical next step if they aren't controlling the exact hours you work.

You really have an agenda against people who WFH.

My boss controls my results and productivity, not my hours. I've been told I can work flexible hours so long as the work is done. That's what happens when people are adults and have relationships built on trust and jobs that are focused on delivering results rather than an àrse arbitrarily warming a chair for 8 hours with no actual output.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how some full-time WFH people feel when their companies decide they are really contractors, not employees. Because that is the logical next step if they aren't controlling the exact hours you work.

Scaremongering.

All through this debate there have been those who have argued strenuously about how employers can't just change employees contracts without negotiation and agreement.

If an employer can't change contracts on how or where you work, they can't just decide to rewrite a contract to make an employee a contractor.

Mrs OBumble

ELM327 wrote: »

Companies can decide all they like, revenue are pretty clear on who is PAYE vs who is contractor


https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/becoming-an-employer-and-ongoing-obligations/guide-to-pay-as-you-earn-paye/determining-the-employment-status-of-an-individual.aspx

Did you even read that page you linked to? The test is anything but clearcut.

limnam

Deleted User wrote: »

Scaremongering.

All through this debate there have been those who have argued strenuously about how employers can't just change employees contracts without negotiation and agreement.

If an employer can't change contracts on how or where you work, they can't just decide to rewrite a contract to make an employee a contractor.

The employer can do whatever they choose as long as it suits this bizarre anti WFH agenda.

Infoanon

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Did you even read that page you linked to? The test is anything but clearcut.

Last week it was the 'fixed asset accountant ' , this week its your complete misunderstanding of how PAYE rules are applied.

The rules are very clearcut and in the real world the default is PAYE with a company having to appeal for contractor status if they wish to argue revenues decision.

Please stop inventing non existent reasons against wfh.

jakiah

jakiah wrote: »

You talk some amount of ****e. You must be retiring soon, hopefully that will give us all a break from hearing your 1970's-era outlook on work.

She does!
The "exact hours worked" may be relevant in a manual assembly line type of an environment or shopwork and other similar roles, something that is NOT relevent to WFH as stated by many there already.
PS I think you mean 1870s or earlier.
Clockwatching in offices, is a classic symptom of "rust out" caused by making bored office workers sit a fixed number of hours while doing work that by its very nature is variable hours due to the workload being dependent on external influences.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Very glad to hear that some employers are actually doing this.

Curious though, what would your employer have done if they found that your WFH setup was unsafe, and your accommodation didn't have capacity to provide a safe setup?

I don't know of anyone that failed all assessments/support actions. There may have been some, but I don't know personally.

I know there were several who failed for chairs & desks and had those supplied. Beyond that I couldn't tell you

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Will be interesting to see how some full-time WFH people feel when their companies decide they are really contractors, not employees. Because that is the logical next step if they aren't controlling the exact hours you work.

You tried that chestnut several months ago and it was put to bed then, why are you bringing up a nonsense argument that was already refuted

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The test is anything but clearcut.

Only to you

hots

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Including providing suitable working space. Who would ever imagine that a company might be responsible for doing that!


Will be interesting to see how some full-time WFH people feel when their companies decide they are really contractors, not employees. Because that is the logical next step if they aren't controlling the exact hours you work.

Are you still punching in your card or something for them to be controlling the hours you work?

ELM327

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Did you even read that page you linked to? The test is anything but clearcut.

I'm going to assume you possess basic comprehension and literacy going by the fact that you post on a predominantly english language forum.


Therefore I can logically conclude that you fall into one of the following buckets:

• You're so "far in" entrenched in your position at this point that you feel you can't climb down
• You're deluded (IE the same as the above but without the insight required to realise the fallacy)
• You're trolling.

Absolute Zero

ELM327 wrote: »

I'm going to assume you possess basic comprehension and literacy going by the fact that you post on a predominantly english language forum.


Therefore I can logically conclude that you fall into one of the following buckets:

• You're so "far in" entrenched in your position at this point that you feel you can't climb down
• You're deluded (IE the same as the above but without the insight required to realise the fallacy)
• You're trolling.

She's a troll mate.

Mrs OBumble

hots wrote: »

Are you still punching in your card or something for them to be controlling the hours you work?

Several places I've worked in the last 10 years have introduced time recording (in a computer, not with cards any more!) following a WRC audit.

Time recording is pretty much required by the Organisation of Working Time Act. Some companies choose to get around it having standard hours of work and telling you to only work those - but they're leaving themselves wide open to complaints.

It only takes one disgruntled employee to complain, to ruin an informal arrangement which suits 95% of people.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Several places I've worked in the last 10 years have introduced time recording (in a computer, not with cards any more!) following a WRC audit.

Time recording is pretty much required by the Organisation of Working Time Act. Some companies choose to get around it having standard hours of work and telling you to only work those - but they're leaving themselves wide open to complaints.

It only takes one disgruntled employee to complain, to ruin an informal arrangement which suits 95% of people.

Are you actually being serious?

limnam

Deleted User wrote: »

Are you actually being serious?

Wind up merchant.

Summer2020

https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/google-submits-plan-for-10-storey-city-extension-as-itbets-their-staff-will-return-to-the-office-40489559.html

“Google will today submit a planning application for a major 10-storey extension and redevelopment of the former Treasury building on Grand Canal Street, Dublin.

The decision to push ahead with a major office extension post-pandemic is likely to be seen as a vote of confidence in the future of office based and city centre working.“

So clearly google are planning on staff returning to offices if they’re willing to put this kind of investment in.

ILikeBoats

Google have some very attractive office perks which would make their workers want to be on site I'd imagine.

Christy42

Summer2020 wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/business/irish/google-submits-plan-for-10-storey-city-extension-as-itbets-their-staff-will-return-to-the-office-40489559.html

“Google will today submit a planning application for a major 10-storey extension and redevelopment of the former Treasury building on Grand Canal Street, Dublin.

The decision to push ahead with a major office extension post-pandemic is likely to be seen as a vote of confidence in the future of office based and city centre working.“

So clearly google are planning on staff returning to offices if they’re willing to put this kind of investment in.

Google very much seems to have the culture of you are here forever which wfh would break since many would get lives outside of Google.

limnam

ILikeBoats wrote: »

Google have some very attractive office perks which would make their workers want to be on site I'd imagine.

I could be tempted to go to the office for free beer and pizza too

limnam

Christy42 wrote: »

Google very much seems to have the culture of you are here forever which wfh would break since many would get lives outside of Google.

Hard to maintain a cult when no one shows up for the meeting

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Several places I've worked in the last 10 years have introduced time recording (in a computer, not with cards any more!) following a WRC audit.

...

It only takes one disgruntled employee to complain, to ruin an informal arrangement which suits 95% of people.

Hmmm....

Christy42 wrote: »

Google very much seems to have the culture of you are here forever which wfh would break since many would get lives outside of Google.

Within 2 weeks of starting to work out of college I was saying about how cool it is that places have games consoles, table tennis, etc., and a workmate said to be very suspicious of somewhere that seems to want you to stay around as much as possible. :pac:

namloc1980

Why are the anti-WFH crowd obsessed with getting everyone back into the office? Obsessed with getting everyone back into the daily drudge of the commute and sitting together in an office with the faux office chats etc.? I think it's likely the micro-managers who are suffering badly on two fronts: firstly, they have nobody to be physically keeping an eye on all day and micro-managing them and secondly, productivity has been largely unaffected meaning the micro-managers are no longer relevant.

ELM327

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why are the anti-WFH crowd obsessed with getting everyone back into the office? Obsessed with getting everyone back into the daily drudge of the commute and sitting together in an office with the faux office chats etc.? I think it's likely the micro-managers who are suffering badly on two fronts: firstly, they have nobody to be physically keeping an eye on all day and micro-managing them and secondly, productivity has been largely unaffected meaning the micro-managers are no longer relevant.

Agreed.


I have no issue with someone wanting to not wfh for themselves and have the option of full return to the office with no wfh - but the surveys show that less than 5% of people want this, where the 5% (or at least the 5% that post here) seem to want everyone to return and no one have any wfh

Brian CivilEng

I don't know whether if it is just you notice the opinions contrary to your own more often, or if it is just my circle, but as someone for whom wfh does not suit, I get shouted down every time I mention looking forward going back to the office. I constantly read opinions that the office is not coming back, that wfh is here to stay and office work as we knew it is changed forever. The only time I hear people talk about anti-wfh opinions is from people who want to wfh saying that they don't expect to be allowed to.

Most people on here seem to enjoy wfh and are worried that it won't continue. I don't, and am worried that it will continue.

krissovo

Brian CivilEng wrote: »

Most people on here seem to enjoy wfh and are worried that it won't continue. I don't, and am worried that it will continue.

There will be a mix going forward so either camp should not be worried, the biggest issue will be some re-balancing of the workforce while they find a workplace that suits their lifestyle.

My biggest fear is a ridged hybrid model that does not really suit anyone will take hold.

Backstreet Moyes

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Several places I've worked in the last 10 years have introduced time recording (in a computer, not with cards any more!) following a WRC audit.

Time recording is pretty much required by the Organisation of Working Time Act. Some companies choose to get around it having standard hours of work and telling you to only work those - but they're leaving themselves wide open to complaints.

It only takes one disgruntled employee to complain, to ruin an informal arrangement which suits 95% of people.

How is that you have had so many jobs yet you seem to have never worked in a place that is similar to the majority of people here.

Also what is the reason for you having so many jobs?

What was it 7 or 8 in the last few years?

namloc1980

Brian CivilEng wrote: »

I don't know whether if it is just you notice the opinions contrary to your own more often, or if it is just my circle, but as someone for whom wfh does not suit, I get shouted down every time I mention looking forward going back to the office. I constantly read opinions that the office is not coming back, that wfh is here to stay and office work as we knew it is changed forever. The only time I hear people talk about anti-wfh opinions is from people who want to wfh saying that they don't expect to be allowed to.

Most people on here seem to enjoy wfh and are worried that it won't continue. I don't, and am worried that it will continue.

The difference being that people who want to stay WFH don't really care whether you or other people go back to the office. Whatever works for you, works for you.

Whereas the "let's all get back to the office" crowd, by and large, want everyone back in the office and don't want to have anyone allowed to WFH. One group has a live and let live attitude, the other wants everyone in lockstep marching to the same tune back to the dreary open-plan office, regardless of what might work for them.

Psychedelic Hedgehog

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Time recording is pretty much required by the Organisation of Working Time Act.

Yes, but only from the context of recording actual hours worked, not the exact times. And the primary focus is to make sure the average working week does not exceed 48 hours, and other measures to make sure that employees do not work to excess.

Try again

limnam

Nuts102 wrote: »

How is that you have had so many jobs yet you seem to have never worked in a place that is similar to the majority of people here.

Also what is the reason for you having so many jobs?

What was it 7 or 8 in the last few years?

I'm trying to figure out if there's enough prisons in Ireland for her to have worked in them all over 10 years. :pac:

Cluedo Monopoly

A recruiter in IT told me yesterday that if employers do not offer any WFH, they can forget about hiring any decent talent. The new roles need to be hybrid at the very minimum. He said the market is bouyant with lots of people on the move.

limnam

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why are the anti-WFH crowd obsessed with getting everyone back into the office? Obsessed with getting everyone back into the daily drudge of the commute and sitting together in an office with the faux office chats etc.? I think it's likely the micro-managers who are suffering badly on two fronts: firstly, they have nobody to be physically keeping an eye on all day and micro-managing them and secondly, productivity has been largely unaffected meaning the micro-managers are no longer relevant.

Incompetent,lonely attention seekers. The "odd" ones. Throw in an element of people who want to work in the office and don't particularly care that others want to WFH. The "normal" ones.



That seems to be make up of most of the ones I encounter.