Working From Home Megathread

HerrKuehn

Shawn Sparse Sunstroke wrote: »

Why are you being so coy about all this? Just say what you want to say.

So, for example, it took the croke park agreement to get rid of the archaic practice of having a half an hour off to cash cheques each week. Even though staff were paid directly into bank accounts. The public sector is very much "I do X in exchange for Y" and X is exactly what is stated in my contract.

On a side note, do you think management would be able to manage performance in the public sector with remote working? Certain people who don't do a lot in the office, would just do nothing at home. So, it would probably be better to have management agree to it for certain people and not others.

kippy

HerrKuehn wrote: »

So, for example, it took the croke park agreement to get rid of the archaic practice of having a half an hour off to cash cheques each week. Even though staff were paid directly into bank accounts. The public sector is very much "I do X in exchange for Y" and X is exactly what is stated in my contract.

On a side note, do you think management would be able to manage performance in the public sector with remote working? Certain people who don't do a lot in the office, would just do nothing at home. So, it would probably be better to have management agree to it for certain people and not others.

You'll find that is not the case for all in the public sector. In most areas of the PS you will find the smart arses who behave as your belief is however there are many more who are not so stuck in their ways.
The half hour for cheque cashing was rarely actually used and in fairness up until a few years ago there were some staff who were paid by cheque. Thankfully there have been a lot of changes to business process around payroll and HR in the last decade that have cut costs and increased efficiencies no end.
As for those who don't perform in the office not performing at home, yeah that would be an issue. Same as in any sector. Once there are some solid KPIs and expectations set by a good manager however there is nothing stopping PIPs and the various mechanisms being applied to improve performance

AdamD

Is 20% not a particularly low target?

Our company has already said 50% from now onwards (and budgeted for in our office move next year)

c68zapdsm5i1ru

HerrKuehn wrote: »

So, for example, it took the croke park agreement to get rid of the archaic practice of having a half an hour off to cash cheques each week. Even though staff were paid directly into bank accounts. The public sector is very much "I do X in exchange for Y" and X is exactly what is stated in my contract.

On a side note, do you think management would be able to manage performance in the public sector with remote working? Certain people who don't do a lot in the office, would just do nothing at home. So, it would probably be better to have management agree to it for certain people and not others.

You seem to be very out of date on how the public sector works. Also why would public servants be more difficult to manage from home than private sector workers. Some serious stereotyping going on here.

JTMan

Remember Trump tweeting about JP Morgan sending traders back to the office last week?

Well, one week later ... someone on a trading floor contracted Covid-19 and the bank had to send some employees home. More here.

arctictree

Just a comment about those stating that workers moving permanently out of Dublin would have their salary adjusted.

I worked for a tech company that opened a big dev/ops centre in a very rural location. They actually had to pay more than Dublin pay for some roles to entice people out of the city! I even interviewed a guy who was looking for a salary top up due to the remote location...

salonfire

Naos wrote: »

But they can do this anyway, regardless of WFH or not?

So can you explain why a company would choose to stay in Ireland, paying high rents & high salaries if they can just open an office in Eastern Europe/India instead and pay low rents & low salaries?

It can be explained in the same way as why companies chose to have expensive buildings with all staff at work instead of having WFH and a smaller building.

Now that they realize they save money with a smaller building (or without - see Google pulling out of a building lease), and have staff WFH.

Now that staff can WFH, the next logical step in the cost cutting train is to have the staff off-shored.

Alf Veedersane

AdamD wrote: »

Is 20% not a particularly low target?

Our company has already said 50% from now onwards (and budgeted for in our office move next year)

You have to take into account the breadth of roles that the public sector encompasses. Not everyone is in an office. Realistically, in some parts of the public sector that are office based, higher than 20% could be facilitated.

Dravokivich

salonfire wrote: »

It can be explained in the same way as why companies chose to have expensive buildings with all staff at work instead of having WFH and a smaller building.

Now that they realize they save money with a smaller building (or without - see Google pulling out of a building lease), and have staff WFH.

Now that staff can WFH, the next logical step in the cost cutting train is to have the staff off-shored.

Off shoring was a big thing over the last 10 years. But the bare truth of it, a multi national that settles here is "off shoring" business into us. Even where I'm working theyre at pains to express any one working from home can't do it abroad.

ExMachina1000

JTMan wrote: »

Remember Trump tweeting about JP Morgan sending traders back to the office last week?

Well, one week later ... someone on a trading floor contracted Covid-19 and the bank had to send some employees home. More here.

That was sales and training managers in Jp Morgan .

Man Vs ManUre

All this wfh is adding to the brain scramble. Not every employee is given a work modern smartphone, yet now we all have to spend half days dialling into stupid calls. Even doing this zoom crap can be unsettling, some of us may want to keep our private lives private. I don’t wanna see your kid or dog. Productivity has gone down as a result of wfh, the only reason things are still getting done is because companies now are having x50 times staff consisting of 3rd party service companies and contractors. What used to be done by 1 person before is now being done by 3 service provider companies, and teams working remotely spread out over 3 continents, combined team is probably 20 people.

Jucifer

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The reality is that there are absolutely going to be winners and losers from this kind of change.

It's not really hyperbole to say that this shift in working patterns is a part of the 4th Industrial revolution.

There will be adjustments , certain jobs and positions will cease to exist or exist in much lower numbers. There's a theory that says that up to 85% of graduate jobs in 2030 don't exist yet. Personally think that is overstating it , but certainly there's a huge degree of change coming in terms of jobs and employment.

The example you give of Taxi-drivers - They are going to be under even more pressure with the advent of Autonomous vehicles etc.

Things change , things move forward - Sometimes slowly and steadily , sometimes is rapid leaps like what may happen now.

Thank you. I have been trying to vocalise this point regarding structural change to people but not doing a good job of it. I’ll borrow your points

Jucifer

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Productivity has gone down as a result of wfh, the only reason things are still getting done is because companies now are having x50 times staff.

Your productivity may have decreased. That is certainly not the case for everyone. I think a lot of people equate talking at meetings with productivity. The rug is pulled from under a lot of people now that managers are having to focus on the output/outcome rather than getting blinded by the spoofing that goes on in most offices day to day.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

You have to take into account the breadth of roles that the public sector encompasses. Not everyone is in an office. Realistically, in some parts of the public sector that are office based, higher than 20% could be facilitated.

Yes it's 20 percent of across the public sector. As teachers, guards, nurses etc etc can't wfh it means many office based staff will probably do a few days at home.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

salonfire wrote: »

It can be explained in the same way as why companies chose to have expensive buildings with all staff at work instead of having WFH and a smaller building.

Now that they realize they save money with a smaller building (or without - see Google pulling out of a building lease), and have staff WFH.

Now that staff can WFH, the next logical step in the cost cutting train is to have the staff off-shored.

Outsourcing has been a thing for years. It's not going to suddenly strike the CEO now. Also as has been said already, many companies have reversed that decision after losing lots of business when clients became frustrated trying to deal with staff who didn't have fluent English or familiarity with Irish culture, turns of expression, non verbal ways we communicate etc

c68zapdsm5i1ru

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

All this wfh is adding to the brain scramble. Not every employee is given a work modern smartphone, yet now we all have to spend half days dialling into stupid calls. Even doing this zoom crap can be unsettling, some of us may want to keep our private lives private. I don’t wanna see your kid or dog. Productivity has gone down as a result of wfh, the only reason things are still getting done is because companies now are having x50 times staff consisting of 3rd party service companies and contractors. What used to be done by 1 person before is now being done by 3 service provider companies, and teams working remotely spread out over 3 continents, combined team is probably 20 people.

None of that has been happening where I work and I haven't experienced it from other companies. I think a lot of people have been confusing presenteeism with productivity for years. We had flexi time in my last job and the canteen was always very busy at 8.30 with people making toast and coffeee. Clocked in of course.

The fact that people were present for 9 or 10 hour days in the office didn't usually mean they were any more productive than the staff arriving later or leaving earlier. A lot of it was just for show or to appear, on paper, as if they'd worked up a flexi day. Wfh should put an end to that kind of pointless nonsense.

Nicetrustedcup

My own Productivity has went up to crazy lvs, because of work from home I now have 2 less hours of travel a day to and from the office, one hour of that is spent in bed and the other hour of that is spent on the treadmill/cooking dinner, even before Covid I used to work the odd day here and there from home just now it’s fully from home

Like I know during this time I am very lucky to have a job and due to work from home I kind of have reinvented my job into something else and made myself more of a key player in the workplace. The only downside for me since the change to work from home is the social contact I miss it however at this time there is Notting I can do about that and just try and speak to people when ever on meetings.

Like myself I don’t even know will I ever be back in the office full time ?, I think it will be one or two days once Covid dies down other then that I have proved that my job works from home and I don’t need to be in a office.

But luck we should be happy we have jobs at this time as there are loads that don’t

BrianD3

Civil and public servants WFH 20% of the time (for staff for whom it is possible) is just political fluff and waffle at this stage. It may be that some of the more forward thinking and well managed parts of the public sector will implement WFH or continue with it post Covid. I'm thinking here of the civil service and Revenue. That still leaves the more shambolic parts of the sector where there are problems with leadership, management, communication, competence.

HSE
Gardai
County Councils
Quangos
Education

Plenty of bad managers about who are so disengaged from their work that they barely know what their own staff do - but they assume they did nothing while WFH - because that's what those managers did/would do themselves.

IMO, working from home won't become widespread in the public sector unless there is a legal basis for it (e.g. tied to climate action legislation) or there is threat of funding being withdrawn. The power to implement WFH needs to be taken away from managers and senior people in various little kingdoms.

JDD

I know what you're saying about the public sector employer not giving away WFH 2/3 days a week for free. There is ALWAYS ongoing issues between employers and the unions, and I imagine our HR will try to use this as a bargaining chip to get the union to make other concessions on areas of outstanding disagreement.

This is a difficult one though. There will be a sizeable minority who would want to work in the office five days a week and have no change to their benefits. It would be very difficult to impose pay cuts/increased hours on them when they want to come in.

There has also been a number of communications from our management thanking us for adjusting to WFH and for productivity staying the same and in some cases, increasing. I think it would be difficult for them to change tack now and say that WFH wasn't actually of benefit to the company.

And then there's the additional cost saving on their part. Now my employer can probably rent out a second building that was used for overflow of staff from the main building. Again, it would be difficult for them to argue that employees should also give financial concessions when the employer is already financially benefiting from the new way of working.

hots

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

All this wfh is adding to the brain scramble. Not every employee is given a work modern smartphone, yet now we all have to spend half days dialling into stupid calls. Even doing this zoom crap can be unsettling, some of us may want to keep our private lives private. I don’t wanna see your kid or dog. Productivity has gone down as a result of wfh, the only reason things are still getting done is because companies now are having x50 times staff consisting of 3rd party service companies and contractors. What used to be done by 1 person before is now being done by 3 service provider companies, and teams working remotely spread out over 3 continents, combined team is probably 20 people.

Manure won last night

ChikiChiki

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

All this wfh is adding to the brain scramble. Not every employee is given a work modern smartphone, yet now we all have to spend half days dialling into stupid calls. Even doing this zoom crap can be unsettling, some of us may want to keep our private lives private. I don’t wanna see your kid or dog. Productivity has gone down as a result of wfh, the only reason things are still getting done is because companies now are having x50 times staff consisting of 3rd party service companies and contractors. What used to be done by 1 person before is now being done by 3 service provider companies, and teams working remotely spread out over 3 continents, combined team is probably 20 people.

Speak for yourself. Productivity is up in my place. Guess that's what happens when capable people are trusted to work by themselves. I think its the micro managing companies where staff have to have their hand held through everything that are probably suffering more.

Also as another pointed out, less meetings. Quick 10 minute calls here and there do the trick.

Man Vs ManUre

Only lazy people think wfh is better than having to go to work. And most of you will even turn morbidly obese like what happened to Homer Simpson when he was doing it. Thankfully none of you lazy fat idiots are managing a nuclear reactor like Homer was.

J Mysterio

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Only lazy people think wfh is better than having to go to work. And most of you will even turn morbidly obese like what happened to Homer Simpson when he was doing it. Thankfully none of you lazy fat idiots are managing a nuclear reactor like Homer was.

Wow, smart guy. How insightful.

antimatterx

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Only lazy people think wfh is better than having to go to work. And most of you will even turn morbidly obese like what happened to Homer Simpson when he was doing it. Thankfully none of you lazy fat idiots are managing a nuclear reactor like Homer was.

I've got fitter since WFH started as I have more time to workout without the commute. I'm also less likely to make excuses if I'm I tired as I do it as soon as I ckoseyny laptop.

loyatemu

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Only lazy people think wfh is better than having to go to work. And most of you will even turn morbidly obese like what happened to Homer Simpson when he was doing it. Thankfully none of you lazy fat idiots are managing a nuclear reactor like Homer was.

problem solved:

HerrKuehn

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what should the government look for in this quid pro quo?

The reason for the 20% WFH in the programme for government is to reduce transport emissions so they're not really offering it out of the kindness of their hearts in the first place.

If they were looking to reduce emissions, they could target it to employees with long commutes, e.g. someone travelling up to Dublin from Gorey

JDD

Mr.S wrote: »

Our company (1000 odd people in Dublin) has just thrown a €500 expense grant to employees to kit out their home office (on-top of a 1K one a couple of months ago) following yesterdays announcement. I would imagine that most people won't be back in the office until next year now.

Our return to office was meant to happen on an optional basis this month and now it's back to strict request only. Pitty. Was looking forward to going back 1-2 days a week, but very glad there's support.

Not quite the same generosity in the public sector :pac:

However they have given everyone the option of having a keyboard, mouse, second screen posted to them, and a work chair for pick up if needed.

There's no way we'll be back before April I'd say. You can go in the odd day but with senior management sign off.

crisco10

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Only lazy people think wfh is better than having to go to work. And most of you will even turn morbidly obese like what happened to Homer Simpson when he was doing it. Thankfully none of you lazy fat idiots are managing a nuclear reactor like Homer was.

Ironically lazy "insight".

Alf Veedersane

HerrKuehn wrote: »

If they were looking to reduce emissions, they could target it to employees with long commutes, e.g. someone travelling up to Dublin from Gorey

And that's who will probably be WFH, I'd imagine.

Sultan of Bling

Man Vs ManUre wrote:

Only lazy people think wfh is better than having to go to work. And most of you will even turn morbidly obese like what happened to Homer Simpson when he was doing it. Thankfully none of you lazy fat idiots are managing a nuclear reactor like Homer was.

Judging by the replies to your post, you nailed it.

I wish I was as good at winding people up.

They fall for it everyone man vs man ure, everytime!!!