Working From Home Megathread

ShyMets

ShyMets wrote: »

I'm genuinely baffled. Why do you need to have the heat on all day. We're not living in Siberia.

We dont tend to get very cold Winter's and when we do get cold snaps they dont last very long.

Up until last year I lived in a three bedroom terrace. In Winter the most we would have the heat on was for 3/4 hours a day and the house was never cold

B-B-But you just don't understand man, his toes are COLD!!!!

Employers should be paying for socks

hmmm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

An interesting perspective from the head of Goldman Sachs: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-ceo-working-from-home-is-an-aberration-11614251629


The short version is "suck it up old people, training the next generation of workers is more important than helping you balance your lifestyles: we need face to face for that training to be effective".

Hasn't gone down well I have to say. Goldman's think they are insulated from this because their brand is so strong that people will always want to work from them, but their brand is struggling with younger people and anyone with personal integrity in general. It used to be that working for Goldman was the pinnacle of a financial career, but now not so much. They could have done what Microsoft have done to reverse an unpleasant perception, but instead they appear to be digging themselves further into a hole.

The problem for them is that this screams "we'll do what is best for the company" at a point in time when people want companies to do what is best for them. I know that this is a bit naive, but this is a major inflection point. Goldman are looking very old-school and appear to be missing the general zeitgeist.

In fairness banks have never been known for being innovative or forward thinking. They don't like change as a matter of principle

hmmm

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness banks have never been known for being innovative or forward thinking. They don't like change as a matter of principle

You'd be surprised. They're squeezed on the income side because of low-rates, so they're interested in anything which will cut costs. Remote working/flexi/hot-desking is very much on their agenda.

A lot of companies have also been surprised (perhaps "shocked") at how productivity has held up. There are layers of middle-managers who manage people who should be worried because they've not been needed. Companies are worried about staff mental health and many staff members are exhausted, but that's primarily a pandemic issue and not necessarily caused by home-working. The big issue for many is how do they get the social aspect going again, but I suspect myself thats not as big a problem as many make out.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

B-B-But you just don't understand man, his toes are COLD!!!!

Employers should be paying for socks

Not so much the socks, but paying for the fairly pricey woolly slippers that I've never needed before WFH, and indeed the electric foot warmer would be appreciated. Why should I be incurring extra costs to accommodate my employer?

ShyMets wrote: »

I'm genuinely baffled. Why do you need to have the heat on all day. We're not living in Siberia.

We dont tend to get very cold Winter's and when we do get cold snaps they dont last very long.

Up until last year I lived in a three bedroom terrace. In Winter the most we would have the heat on was for 3/4 hours a day and the house was never cold

I'm not sure why anyone would be baffled at the idea that some people have different warmth thresholds and some houses would have different levels of insulation.

In the depths of the coldest spells, I certainly had to have the heating on most of the today to be vaguely comfortable, even with several layers.

In other news today, I actually managed to talk to a colleague who is as keen to get back to the office as I am. He's the first person I've encountered since lockdown that feels that way.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Not so much the socks, but paying for the fairly pricey woolly slippers that I've never needed before WFH, and indeed the electric foot warmer would be appreciated. Why should I be incurring extra costs to accommodate my employer?

Damn the man!

He should also pay for increased wear and tear on your flooring because you are walking on them more

And for wd-40 because you are opening and closing the doors in your house more than you would be if you were in the office

Why should you be expected to absorb these costs!

Fr Tod Umptious

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

An interesting perspective from the head of Goldman Sachs: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/goldman-sachs-ceo-working-from-home-is-an-aberration-11614251629


The short version is "suck it up old people, training the next generation of workers is more important than helping you balance your lifestyles: we need face to face for that training to be effective".

I don't think they are advocating a 100% return to the office as you suggest.

The main emphasis on what he and others are saying is that WFH is not good whee it comes to hiring, training and mentoring new graduates.

And I think they are dead right, a lot of what one learns in the early stages in a career is from being around more senior people.

And these large banks have graduate programs that select really good individuals from college and they see as being a long term part of the company.
Doing that is much harder online than in office.

And I'm guessing that the people doing the mentoring are equally invested in that mentoring being successful.

It's OK for the likes of myself who is well established in a career, knows my stuff and knows my colleagues because I have worked with them in-office for multiple years.

But it's very different when someone is fresh out of college, having never meet their boss in person, having never meet their colleagues in person.

I think we will see a situation were junior people will spend more time in the office with a hybrid situation evolving as they gain more experience.

kippy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't think they are advocating a 100% return to the office as you suggest.

The main emphasis on what he and others are saying is that WFH is not good whee it comes to hiring, training and mentoring new graduates.

And I think they are dead right, a lot of what one learns in the early stages in a career is from being around more senior people.

And these large banks have graduate programs that select really good individuals from college and they see as being a long term part of the company.
Doing that is much harder online than in office.

And I'm guessing that the people doing the mentoring are equally invested in that mentoring being successful.

It's OK for the likes of myself who is well established in a career, knows my stuff and knows my colleagues because I have worked with them in-office for multiple years.

But it's very different when someone is fresh out of college, having never meet their boss in person, having never meet their colleagues in person.

I think we will see a situation were junior people will spend more time in the office with a hybrid situation evolving as they gain more experience.

I'd agree.
The report is just stating the obvious, there are challenges with WFH for certain companies with certain cohorts of staff.
That's undeniable.

Quin_Dub

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I don't think they are advocating a 100% return to the office as you suggest.

The main emphasis on what he and others are saying is that WFH is not good whee it comes to hiring, training and mentoring new graduates.

And I think they are dead right, a lot of what one learns in the early stages in a career is from being around more senior people.

And these large banks have graduate programs that select really good individuals from college and they see as being a long term part of the company.
Doing that is much harder online than in office.

And I'm guessing that the people doing the mentoring are equally invested in that mentoring being successful.

It's OK for the likes of myself who is well established in a career, knows my stuff and knows my colleagues because I have worked with them in-office for multiple years.

But it's very different when someone is fresh out of college, having never meet their boss in person, having never meet their colleagues in person.

I think we will see a situation were junior people will spend more time in the office with a hybrid situation evolving as they gain more experience.

Absolutely - My company has always had WFH and one of the criteria for being allowed do it was role suitability and experience.

If you were a graduate or lower level new hire , highly unlikely you'd qualify for WFH under the rules we had.

Doubt that will change in the future a whole lot - Might allow 1 day a week or something , but New hires/Graduates will be in the office 75%+ of the time for sure.

AndrewJRenko

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Absolutely - My company has always had WFH and one of the criteria for being allowed do it was role suitability and experience.

If you were a graduate or lower level new hire , highly unlikely you'd qualify for WFH under the rules we had.

Doubt that will change in the future a whole lot - Might allow 1 day a week or something , but New hires/Graduates will be in the office 75%+ of the time for sure.

Who will be the role models for the new hires and graduates if all the experienced staff are at home 80% of the time?

I'd have thought that any such scheme would need very clear evidence base to justify discrimination based on 'experience'.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Who will be the role models for the new hires and graduates if all the experienced staff are at home 80% of the time?

I'd have thought that any such scheme would need very clear evidence base to justify discrimination based on 'experience'.

There'll be people like yourself who WFH doesn't suit, they'll be in the office to train up the newbies

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

There'll be people like yourself who WFH doesn't suit, they'll be in the office to train up the newbies

In tiny numbers, and only covering a very small number of roles and functions, so not really a viable solution there.

a_squirrelman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

In tiny numbers, and only covering a very small number of roles and functions, so not really a viable solution there.

You are really starting to look like you're just against WFH full stop.
I'm 100% sure businesses and departments will make sure their newcomers are trained up and mentored.
In a previous job I had we did it on a rotation basis, so each week someone would be in the office with the newbie.

kippy

a_squirrelman wrote: »

You are really starting to look like you're just against WFH full stop.
I'm 100% sure businesses and departments will make sure their newcomers are trained up and mentored.
In a previous job I had we did it on a rotation basis, so each week someone would be in the office with the newbie.

He is against WFH full stop despite the odd sound bite saying he isn't.

I don't think Andrew realises there are organisations that pre pandemic were fully remote. Granted, culturally set up that way, but it is possible to run a fully distributed workforce. More difficult with certain organisations but doable.

JTMan

I think the success of hybrid working is naming one mandatory day of the week when everyone in an area will be there.

If the point in being in the office is collaboration, then what is the point in being in the office if the people you're there to collaborate with are at home that day?

But if everyone comes in on the same days, the company needs the same amount of office space ... so naming a day of the week needs to be at a department level with coordination from senior management.

For example, Department A has Monday as a mandatory day, Department B has Tuesday as a mandatory day, Department C has Wednesday as a mandatory day and Thursday is a mandatory day for all management. No mandatory requirements for Friday.

Random days are a disaster. Mandatory days work.

antimatterx

I'm in tech, working from home like so many of us last March. I haven't been back in the office once.

Between my current company, and interviews I've been on, I don't expect anyone back the WFH rules to be lifted until mid-Autumn this year. Maybe by Halloween.

Man Vs ManUre

People who go to the office should get paid more than those who work from home.

a_squirrelman

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

People who go to the office should get paid more than those who work from home.

Why?

Man Vs ManUre

a_squirrelman wrote: »

Why?

Because they are making more of an effort to get to work. And they are the physical face of the company, there in person to put in the hard grind and impress their customers. They are having to spend more on childcare and car expenses. And lunches, not to mention the knock on business who are succeeding as result of people being in offices or other work locations.

antimatterx

That's bull**** hahaha.

You get paid for your ability to solve problems for your employer. Not from where you do it.

Although, in saying that, I'm looking forward to a partial return to the office.

a_squirrelman

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Because they are making more of an effort to get to work. And they are the physical face of the company, there in person to put in the hard grind and impress their customers. They are having to spend more on childcare and car expenses. And lunches, not to mention the knock on business who are succeeding as result of people being in offices or other work locations.

Nah, that's a stupid way to do business, if Mary who loves to be in the office can p!ss away her day talking sh!te and doing the bare minimum let her be in the office.
But I'll stay at home exceeding targets and leaving her numbers in the dust.

doc22

JTMan wrote: »

I think the success of hybrid working is naming one mandatory day of the week when everyone in an area will be there.

If the point in being in the office is collaboration, then what is the point in being in the office if the people you're there to collaborate with are at home that day?

But if everyone comes in on the same days, the company needs the same amount of office space ... so naming a day of the week needs to be at a department level with coordination from senior management.

For example, Department A has Monday as a mandatory day, Department B has Tuesday as a mandatory day, Department C has Wednesday as a mandatory day and Thursday is a mandatory day for all management. No mandatory requirements for Friday.

Random days are a disaster. Mandatory days work.

Is everyone happy to hot desk? I know I like my own desk. Even post vaccine sharing stuff could be messy

a_squirrelman

doc22 wrote: »

Is everyone happy to hot desk? I know I like my own desk. Even post vaccine sharing stuff could be messy

I'm not excited about it to be honest, I liked having my own spot where I can put my stupid bits and bobs. But if it means I can stay at home more then so be it, I'll learn to live with it.

AndrewJRenko

JTMan wrote: »

I think the success of hybrid working is naming one mandatory day of the week when everyone in an area will be there.

If the point in being in the office is collaboration, then what is the point in being in the office if the people you're there to collaborate with are at home that day?

But if everyone comes in on the same days, the company needs the same amount of office space ... so naming a day of the week needs to be at a department level with coordination from senior management.

For example, Department A has Monday as a mandatory day, Department B has Tuesday as a mandatory day, Department C has Wednesday as a mandatory day and Thursday is a mandatory day for all management. No mandatory requirements for Friday.

Random days are a disaster. Mandatory days work.

This only works in a hierarchical organisation, where everyone in Dept A only engages with others in Dept A to do their work. In hybrid organisations, some people in Dept A really need to know what's going on in Dept B and need to know that new person in Dept C. Very few organisations are hierarchical silos these days.

kippy wrote: »

He is against WFH full stop despite the odd sound bite saying he isn't.

He's not, you know. He can see the value of WFH as an option for some people, some of the time. However, it has many downsides, so pretending that it's the best thing since sliced pan for everybody isn't a clever approach. It looks like many people are so relieved to have gotten away from their dreadful commutes that they are desperate to sweep away any suggestion that perhaps it's not a workable solution for everybody.

kippy wrote: »

I don't think Andrew realises there are organisations that pre pandemic were fully remote. Granted, culturally set up that way, but it is possible to run a fully distributed workforce. More difficult with certain organisations but doable.

Can you give some examples please? I knew people who worked remotely, whether from home or from a Dublin office, while working with teams elsewhere in Europe or the world. But these were generally exceptions to the rule, where the main organisations worked at particular locations most of the time.

a_squirrelman wrote: »

You are really starting to look like you're just against WFH full stop.
I'm 100% sure businesses and departments will make sure their newcomers are trained up and mentored.
In a previous job I had we did it on a rotation basis, so each week someone would be in the office with the newbie.

Did the person on rotation in the office not have their own work to do? Did new graduates and trainees get shifted from one supervisor to the next each week?

These don't sound like workable solutions.

Jizique

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Because they are making more of an effort to get to work. And they are the physical face of the company, there in person to put in the hard grind and impress their customers. They are having to spend more on childcare and car expenses. And lunches, not to mention the knock on business who are succeeding as result of people being in offices or other work locations.

My sambo costs the same whether I eat it at home or stick it in a lunchbox, put it into my rucksack, hop on the bike and eat it in the office.

AndrewJRenko

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

People who go to the office should get paid more than those who work from home.

Looks like Pascal is on your side, but Leo disagrees;

https://www.businesspost.ie/ireland/varadkar-and-donohoe-clash-over-new-tax-break-plans-for-remote-workers-f1cd9d54

a_squirrelman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did the person on rotation in the office not have their own work to do? Did new graduates and trainees get shifted from one supervisor to the next each week?

.

Of course they had their own work to do and managed to do it or other colleagues took some of their backlog, big boys and girls working together y'know?


People adapt and do what it takes to get things done.
And yes sometimes they got shifted around or one person decided to stay with them for longer. In an adult setting we acted like adults.



Squirrel: "No don't worry Peter, I want to show Newbie a few more things next week as we're on a roll and he's really picking things up fast from me, so you stay home next week and I'll come in again"
Peter: "You sure?"
Squirrel: "Yeah don't worry, sure buy me a coffee some time"

strandroad

doc22 wrote: »

Is everyone happy to hot desk? I know I like my own desk. Even post vaccine sharing stuff could be messy

I don't particularly like hot desking, no. I do have personal experience from business travel, you hot desk at the destination office.
But if it saves me a 3-4 day commute and gives better focus at home I'll gladly take it!

Man Vs ManUre

Those arguing the side in favor of working from home on this thread seem very selfish. Their posts are all about me, me, me....... Many of them even going on about how great they are at their jobs. Jeez get a life dorks.

a_squirrelman

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Those arguing the side in favor of working from home on this thread seem very selfish. Their posts are all about me, me, me....... Many of them even going on about how great they are at their jobs. Jeez get a life dorks.

Trying to get a life. But my dosser colleagues keep trying to drag me into the office, totally messing up my work/life balance.