Working From Home Megathread

Underground

doc22 wrote: »

By the end of August we'll be on to children

Hopefully! Barring any supply chain hiccups.

I just think end of August sounds optimistic for large occupiers. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

is_that_so

doc22 wrote: »

By the end of August we'll be on to children

Doubtful. They'll do it in schools when they go back, it's easier process to manage that way.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's not my argument: it's a labour inspectors.

Your employer is legally responsible for ensuring that you don't average more than 48 hours/week, and that you get legal minimum breaks during shifts and rest time between work days.

Your employer will get away with neither knowing nor caring - until some employee complaints, or the government wants to prove something against them. But they will face penalties if WRC inspection happens. And after that grey are likely to care, whether you want them to or not.

Fantasy land

As if labour inspectors are going to chase all MNCs out of the country by doing that. As with all my colleagues, I do my work and when I do the hours are an irrelevance to my employer (as long as I’m there when I need to be of course).

And I’d do just the same if I was in the office....coming in late, leaving early (or the opposite of those), going out to meet someone for a long lunch, going for a run out to Poolbeg on a quiet afternoon etc. But then busting my ass if I need to. WFH if no different

AlmightyCushion

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's not my argument: it's a labour inspectors.

Your employer is legally responsible for ensuring that you don't average more than 48 hours/week, and that you get legal minimum breaks during shifts and rest time between work days.

Your employer will get away with neither knowing nor caring - until some employee complaints, or the government wants to prove something against them. But they will face penalties if WRC inspection happens. And after that grey are likely to care, whether you want them to or not.

What does any of this have to do with working from home. I could work 50+ hours in the office without my employer noticing and land them in trouble. We've also had plenty of people in the office nipping out during work hours to do things. The very things you say are dangers of WFH happen whilst people are in the office.

irelandrover

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

What does any of this have to do with working from home. I could work 50+ hours in the office without my employer noticing and land them in trouble. We've also had plenty of people in the office nipping out during work hours to do things. The very things you say are dangers of WFH happen whilst people are in the office.

I'd say 99% of what Mrs o bumble says is wrong.

However it's very easy to prove when you are in the building if you have to swipe in and out in general. You swipe to enter at 9 and swipe to leave at 17:30. You couldn't have worked more than 8,5 hours. This isn't possible with WFH.

However it would also be very easy to show when you are logged onto the servers.

This is in no way an argument against wfh.

irelandrover

irelandrover wrote: »

I'd say 99% of what Mrs o bumble says is wrong.

However it's very easy to prove when you are in the building if you have to swipe in and out in general. You swipe to enter at 9 and swipe to leave at 17:30. You couldn't have worked more than 8,5 hours. This isn't possible with WFH.

However it would also be very easy to show when you are logged onto the servers.

This is in no way an argument against wfh.

There are no limits to the imagination of an anti-WFH middle manager

AlmightyCushion

irelandrover wrote: »

I'd say 99% of what Mrs o bumble says is wrong.

However it's very easy to prove when you are in the building if you have to swipe in and out in general. You swipe to enter at 9 and swipe to leave at 17:30. You couldn't have worked more than 8,5 hours. This isn't possible with WFH.

However it would also be very easy to show when you are logged onto the servers.

This is in no way an argument against wfh.

Our company uses keycards for access but our company sublets the office space from another company and I don't think we have any way to monitor the logs. Even if we did, they would still be inaccurate as not every one would swipe in or out all the time. You would see some one swiping in/out and holding the doors for others or some one forgetting their card and someone else letting them in or out. You have people who don't leave the office for breaks so you can't use them to track breaks either.

Thelonious Monk

I would imagine the Gov will be keen to get as many people back in city centres ASAP for economic reasons. There must be 10s of 1000s of public/civil servants WFH at the moment who would usually be spending money in cafes and shops, and pubs, I wonder if publicans will be pushing for WFH to end, they do seem to have a lot of sway in this country!

Private companies can make their own decisions on this but I wonder if there'll be policy to get the public sector back in offices as soon as it can happen.

Sunny Disposition

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would imagine the Gov will be keen to get as many people back in city centres ASAP for economic reasons. There must be 10s of 1000s of public/civil servants WFH at the moment who would usually be spending money in cafes and shops, and pubs, I wonder if publicans will be pushing for WFH to end, they do seem to have a lot of sway in this country!

Private companies can make their own decisions on this but I wonder if there'll be policy to get the public sector back in offices as soon as it can happen.

The economic disruption is huge for the cities, no question, and the Government probably won't want it to happen suddenly but gradually. Having said that they are also under pressure from rural TDs where villages have been declining for more than a decade, before WFH gave them a lifeline. Varadkar seems to have made some positive noises about WFH too.

Thelonious Monk

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

The economic disruption is huge for the cities, no question, and the Government probably won't want it to happen suddenly but gradually. Having said that they are also under pressure from rural TDs where villages have been declining for more than a decade, before WFH gave them a lifeline. Varadkar seems to have made some positive noises about WFH too.

Yes I've read anecdotes about new cafes opening in villages that wouldn't have got footfall before WFH, and that kind of thing.
I hope it leads to some kind of change and a bit more flexibility, going back to how it was seems silly when WFH has improved so many people's lives.

Never underestimate the power that the few who benefit from the old ways of forcing all to be funnelled into city centre offices have over the political classes. Unless there is a major and equally powerful backlash, they'll have us all back to the deskbound 9-5 as soon as possible.

AdamD

Deleted User wrote: »

Never underestimate the power that the few who benefit from the old ways of forcing all to be funnelled into city centre offices have over the political classes. Unless there is a major and equally powerful backlash, they'll have us all back to the deskbound 9-5 as soon as possible.

I mean they simply won't. Most Companies have already planned to not do that. People are massively overreacting to a comment Leo made about people being allowed to return to the office, purely in relation to restrictions (which currently advise against doing so).

AdamD

AdamD wrote: »

I mean they simply won't. Most Companies have already planned to not do that. People are massively overreacting to a comment Leo made about people being allowed to return to the office, purely in relation to restrictions (which currently advise against doing so).

Yes, but the problem is that some vested interests are really trying to influance some major employers to revert back to the office environment pre-covid. The last thing they want to see is empty offices and shops in business parks around the edge of towns. They will see the lifting of restrictions as a "call back to the cubes" and will push for it, unless pushed back.

Antares35

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I would imagine the Gov will be keen to get as many people back in city centres ASAP for economic reasons. There must be 10s of 1000s of public/civil servants WFH at the moment who would usually be spending money in cafes and shops, and pubs, I wonder if publicans will be pushing for WFH to end, they do seem to have a lot of sway in this country!

Private companies can make their own decisions on this but I wonder if there'll be policy to get the public sector back in offices as soon as it can happen.

Surely for all the business being lost in the cities, it's being re-directed to start-ups in more rural areas? I don't think this is a bad thing. Businesses in the cities have had their day to fleece people to be honest, and at some point you have to adapt or die. Look at how airlines have suffered. It's just a fact of life that things change and you change with it or get left behind. I certainly won't be going back to the office because my boss thinks the cafe next door needs my business.

Also, many people have learned saving habits during lockdown, and might not be as quick to return to their old ways of dropping a fiver for an iced coffee or nine euro for a sandwich with a few "posh" crisps on the side.

Chris_5339762

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Our company uses keycards for access but our company sublets the office space from another company and I don't think we have any way to monitor the logs. Even if we did, they would still be inaccurate as not every one would swipe in or out all the time. You would see some one swiping in/out and holding the doors for others or some one forgetting their card and someone else letting them in or out. You have people who don't leave the office for breaks so you can't use them to track breaks either.

Where I used to work as a student (a well known retailer) they had keycards for access which they could monitor. People were doing just that - holding doors for everyone. Since every shift left at the same time, one person swiped and everyone piled out.


Until management wanted everyone to swipe out individually. Cue a massive queue for the one swiping machineon day 1. The swipe also wouldn't work until the door has closed itself, and it couldn't be pushed closed. Person 1 swipes, opens the door, the door closes, and only then would Person 2 swipe.


The queue was a disaster so everyone continued as before. Management went bananas, threatening to cut the pay of people who "didn't swipe in". Cue a massive queue again. People were late onto the shop floor because of the cue. Got pay docked because they were "late".



Management went even madder, saying that people had to be on the shop floor on time. When the queue was mentioned, they were told they had to be there earlier to ensure they could swipe in on time and be on the shop floor on time. People were lepping, but management said it was "corporate" who insisted. And, management couldn't give a monkeys about people leaving late due to the queue.


Management won. The unions complained but nothing changed. People just had to suffer.


This was years ago, but just proves the point that management will win this battle, regardless of what the large group want or what the unions say. Management pay wages, they make the rules. People, in general, will fold if pay gets threatened. Unions are toothless apart from the firey option of a strike, which most won't do for something small.

Christy42

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

Where I used to work as a student (a well known retailer) they had keycards for access which they could monitor. People were doing just that - holding doors for everyone. Since every shift left at the same time, one person swiped and everyone piled out.


Until management wanted everyone to swipe out individually. Cue a massive queue for the one swiping machineon day 1. The swipe also wouldn't work until the door has closed itself, and it couldn't be pushed closed. Person 1 swipes, opens the door, the door closes, and only then would Person 2 swipe.


The queue was a disaster so everyone continued as before. Management went bananas, threatening to cut the pay of people who "didn't swipe in". Cue a massive queue again. People were late onto the shop floor because of the cue. Got pay docked because they were "late".



Management went even madder, saying that people had to be on the shop floor on time. When the queue was mentioned, they were told they had to be there earlier to ensure they could swipe in on time and be on the shop floor on time. People were lepping, but management said it was "corporate" who insisted. And, management couldn't give a monkeys about people leaving late due to the queue.


Management won. The unions complained but nothing changed. People just had to suffer.


This was years ago, but just proves the point that management will win this battle, regardless of what the large group want or what the unions say. Management pay wages, they make the rules. People, in general, will fold if pay gets threatened. Unions are toothless apart from the firey option of a strike, which most won't do for something small.

There is a world of difference between that and most office jobs. People will frequently fill out CVs. Many jobs for students are designed for high turnover (indeed I knew of a few were it was desired since people were more motivated at the start). If a job isn't designed for high turnover then the management has issues as soon as CVs go out.

Thelonious Monk

Antares35 wrote: »

Surely for all the business being lost in the cities, it's being re-directed to start-ups in more rural areas? I don't think this is a bad thing. Businesses in the cities have had their day to fleece people to be honest, and at some point you have to adapt or die. Look at how airlines have suffered. It's just a fact of life that things change and you change with it or get left behind. I certainly won't be going back to the office because my boss thinks the cafe next door needs my business.

Also, many people have learned saving habits during lockdown, and might not be as quick to return to their old ways of dropping a fiver for an iced coffee or nine euro for a sandwich with a few "posh" crisps on the side.

Yeah or people would just eat food at home at a fraction of the price, which is what I imagine most of us are doing. There are far too many Spars selling chicken fillet rolls and Insomnias in city centres with horrible signage here anyway!

Ideally if things stayed how they are, they might actually make the city centre a better more affordable place to live, so businesses could be propped up by residents. I'd love to live in town but for what I have in the suburbs would cost me 3 or 4 times as much in a more central area, and I'll never even come close to ever being able to afford that.

doc22

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Michael McGrath has said the Government would like to see people return to the workplace as soon as possible, but for now it is about holding on to the gains already made....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0608/1227024-renters-cabinet-protection/

hmmm

I don't know about other industries, but in the tech field we are already seeing that companies which do not allow WFH (or at least, substantial flexibility) are beginning to struggle to attract employees. I think that will take time to filter out to the wider world, but inevitably the WFH offering will be part and parcel of a job offer, just as the wage is now. The managers who are pushing back against WFH are fighting a tide which I think actually puts them in the firing line for future redundancies, as they don't have the skills necessary to adapt to what has become a changed world.

We're not going to see every company offer 100% WFH, but it's pretty clear that in-demand employees will feel emboldened to look for WFH/Hybrid in much the same way as they will ask for higher salaries.

Sunny Disposition

doc22 wrote: »

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform Michael McGrath has said the Government would like to see people return to the workplace as soon as possible, but for now it is about holding on to the gains already made....

https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0608/1227024-renters-cabinet-protection/

To be fair he said he'd like them to have the opportunity to go back.

Sunny Disposition

There are companies who would benefit from remote working finishing, for example the shop near where our offices were has lost a huge amount of business. But unfortunately it's inevitable. Government policy will probably want remote working to happen gradually, that's really how government and the State like to do things, but there will be disruption over the next decade as office work declines.
But it's mostly a good thing in Ireland, where our cities are choked and our villages are empty.

Sunny Disposition

hmmm wrote: »

I don't know about other industries, but in the tech field we are already seeing that companies which do not allow WFH (or at least, substantial flexibility) are beginning to struggle to attract employees. I think that will take time to filter out to the wider world, but inevitably the WFH offering will be part and parcel of a job offer, just as the wage is now. The managers who are pushing back against WFH are fighting a tide which I think actually puts them in the firing line for future redundancies, as they don't have the skills necessary to adapt to what has become a changed world.

We're not going to see every company offer 100% WFH, but it's pretty clear that in-demand employees will feel emboldened to look for WFH/Hybrid in much the same way as they will ask for higher salaries.

Any time costs need to be cut office space is going to be the first thing on the table in the future. Even if there are some benefits to getting people together, few companies are going justify paying for offices for those benefits.

smeal

hmmm wrote: »

I don't know about other industries, but in the tech field we are already seeing that companies which do not allow WFH (or at least, substantial flexibility) are beginning to struggle to attract employees. I think that will take time to filter out to the wider world, but inevitably the WFH offering will be part and parcel of a job offer, just as the wage is now. The managers who are pushing back against WFH are fighting a tide which I think actually puts them in the firing line for future redundancies, as they don't have the skills necessary to adapt to what has become a changed world.

We're not going to see every company offer 100% WFH, but it's pretty clear that in-demand employees will feel emboldened to look for WFH/Hybrid in much the same way as they will ask for higher salaries.

We are seeing this in our firm. One recent job vacancy for our firm set out in the ad that flexibility is on offer. A Partner described the applications as the highest standard he has ever seen with applications coming from the same firms and applicants emailing in advance of interview to ascertain what flexibility is on offer.

Goes to show exactly that companies will lose good employees to other companies that offer flexibility going forward.

hmmm

hmmm wrote: »

I don't know about other industries, but in the tech field we are already seeing that companies which do not allow WFH (or at least, substantial flexibility) are beginning to struggle to attract employees. I think that will take time to filter out to the wider world, but inevitably the WFH offering will be part and parcel of a job offer, just as the wage is now. The managers who are pushing back against WFH are fighting a tide which I think actually puts them in the firing line for future redundancies, as they don't have the skills necessary to adapt to what has become a changed world.

We're not going to see every company offer 100% WFH, but it's pretty clear that in-demand employees will feel emboldened to look for WFH/Hybrid in much the same way as they will ask for higher salaries.

Just seen on the RTÉ news that a company is expanding into Northern Ireland with an entirely WFH model.


https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0609/1227110-northern-ireland-jobs/

More than 500 remote working jobs are to be created across Northern Ireland.
Hinduja Global Solutions UK, which is a new inward investor into Northern Ireland, made the announcement with Invest NI in Belfast today.

The only offices not offering flexible / hybrid working or, potentially in some cases, full WFH, will be offices managed by people like David Brent.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

The only offices not offering flexible / hybrid working or, potentially in some cases, full WFH, will be offices managed by people like David Brent.

There is at least one poster here that fits that category.

BrentMused

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The only offices not offering flexible / hybrid working or, potentially in some cases, full WFH, will be offices managed by people like David Brent.

A friend first, a boss second. Probably an entertainer third.

doc22

Deleted User wrote: »

Just seen on the RTÉ news that a company is expanding into Northern Ireland with an entirely WFH model.


https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0609/1227110-northern-ireland-jobs/

Customer service jobs with an average salary of 17700 pounds from a company too cheap to provide a base. I'll take an office over that any day....

PauloMN

hmmm wrote: »

I don't know about other industries, but in the tech field we are already seeing that companies which do not allow WFH (or at least, substantial flexibility) are beginning to struggle to attract employees. I think that will take time to filter out to the wider world, but inevitably the WFH offering will be part and parcel of a job offer, just as the wage is now. The managers who are pushing back against WFH are fighting a tide which I think actually puts them in the firing line for future redundancies, as they don't have the skills necessary to adapt to what has become a changed world.

We're not going to see every company offer 100% WFH, but it's pretty clear that in-demand employees will feel emboldened to look for WFH/Hybrid in much the same way as they will ask for higher salaries.

100%. Especially when people would probably choose WFH or hybrid over more money. It's very possible to be better off on less money if you only have to go to the office once or twice a week, you can buy a commuter belt house with space rather than an apartment in some block in town.

The other thing where WFH really works is when you are dealing with different time zones. If you're in contact with Asia or the US as part of your working day, WFH is a no-brainer. Flexibility to be at home and do whatever needs to be done, and then take calls very early or late in the day. Offices were built for mainly 9 to 5 type work. That type of work is becoming less common in the private sector, especially in IT related companies.

Technology has really evolved so quickly recently. It's easier for me to train someone remotely than in the office to be honest. Screenshare, jump on a Hangout, much nicer than having someone looking over your shoulder while you crouch to make room for them. Esp now with Covid still about!

Thelonious Monk

BrentMused wrote: »

A friend first, a boss second. Probably an entertainer third.

haha your username, that's when Sophie from Peep Show comes to interview him.