Working From Home Megathread

Cluedo Monopoly

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

Urban TDs are rightly worried about what will happen to city jobs and the city businesses/economy as WFH becomes more popular.
Many IT companies for example have already told people they can WFH until end of 2021.

HairySalmon

antimatterx wrote: »

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.

I’d think by that stage they’d all just push it out till after January to be safe.

Why risk coming back into flu season if WFH is a viable option?

AndrewJRenko

HairySalmon wrote: »

I’d think by that stage they’d all just push it out till after January to be safe.

Why risk coming back into flu season if WFH is a viable option?

We have good flu vaccines.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

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.

I think it's the other way around. Most people are arguing for some flexibility Re working from home with some office space retained for those who need or want to go into the office.
But some people are mulishly insisting that everyone should be dragged back into long commutes and office attendance because they personally don't enjoy wfh. or miss the banter or whatever.

Sam Hain

a_squirrelman wrote: »

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.

because you'll be exceeding targets and putting all hot deskers numbers in the dust.

martingriff

a_squirrelman wrote: »

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

The more I read the post (and I could be wrong) is the poster is saying they should be doing more life things then going I am so great work harder and get more done. I never be 100% WFH which I have been doing for a year on the 13th but 2 or 3 days i might do

HairySalmon

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

We have good flu vaccines.

I just think that if new variants are in circulation what’s the harm in prolonging WFH until then. It’ll stop unnecessary commuting yet we’ll be able to keep things open.

Bars and restaurants won’t be back to pre-pandemic states this year, so why should we all be back in the office if it can be done from home?

hmmm

HairySalmon wrote: »

I’d think by that stage they’d all just push it out till after January to be safe.

Why risk coming back into flu season if WFH is a viable option?

That's a good point. Even if the vaccinations go very well (late Summer finish), it's likely there will be some restrictions over Winter & the government will probably be encouraging people to WfH. Some of this may be enforced. Added to that you will probably see a lot of people take several weeks holidays in the second half of the year this year, and so you could find some companies asking staff to come back for a few weeks but with many of them on holidays. What's the point if things are working reasonably well remotely?

Something to think about.

AndrewJRenko

Shawn Sparse Sunstroke wrote: »

But some people are mulishly insisting that everyone should be dragged back into long commutes and office attendance because they personally don't enjoy wfh. or miss the banter or whatever.

Can you point to any specific posts that suggested this please?

a_squirrelman

Sam Hain wrote: »

because you'll be exceeding targets and putting all hot deskers numbers in the dust.

Yeah exactly.

Antares35

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.

Jaysis don't let Andrew hear you saying that Should people who live further away get more? Or those who have higher volumes of traffic? The upside is there'd be a load more jobs because companies would literally have to employ someone to ensure the application and administration of such a scheme was fair and rational.

I never met a customer face to face when I was office based.

I have long thought however that companies should do more to help with childcare so I'm with you on that point to an extent.

Deleted User

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

Indeed!

Just on this point, we have had 4 changeovers of staff the last year in my section alone due to promotions and/or transfers and all training and changeovers were done online, without issue. 1 of those was a completely new recruit to the CS, and was fully trained online over zoom, phone and email. All it takes is a little iniative.

Like I said before, where there is a will there is a way. But no matter what, there will always be those who will constantly look for excuses why WFH couldn't possibly work, when the last year has proven that it absolutely can.

AT this point, I just believe there are those people who constantly like to look for problems, and those people who get on with it and solve them.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

AT this point, I just believe there are those people who constantly like to look for problems, and those people who get on with it and solve them.

At this point, I just believe there are those people who look out for all of their colleagues, and those who only look out for themselves.

a_squirrelman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

At this point, I just believe there are those people who look out for all of their colleagues, and those who only look out for themselves.

But you're the one finding fault with everything.
Finding issues with training newcomers being your latest argument, when it's easily solved.

Cluedo Monopoly

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

At this point, I just believe there are those people who look out for all of their colleagues, and those who only look out for themselves.

You are without doubt a controlling micro manager in the public sector. Am I right?

Mrs OBumble

a_squirrelman wrote: »

But you're the one finding fault with everything.
Finding issues with training newcomers being your latest argument, when it's easily solved.

One company I work with has had seven new hires in the last 12 months. Of those, three have left within six months. And this is a company that usually has very little turnover.

I wonder how others have faired.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

At this point, I just believe there are those people who look out for all of their colleagues, and those who only look out for themselves.

That, I will agree with you on, Andrew.

We'll just agree to differ on which you are.

martingriff

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

One company I work with has had seven new hires in the last 12 months. Of those, three have left within six months. And this is a company that usually has very little turnover.

I wonder how others have faired.

Is the down to WFH or how you are dealing with it. A good organisation will look at it from both sides and look for solution and not just the easy way out of sod this. How was the training conducted. How could it be approved on. Maybe the 3 left for different reasons.

AndrewJRenko

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

You are without doubt a controlling micro manager in the public sector. Am I right?

You are wrong.

a_squirrelman wrote: »

But you're the one finding fault with everything.
Finding issues with training newcomers being your latest argument, when it's easily solved.

The problems are there. I'm not finding them. I'm just shining a bit of a light on them. Sweeping them under the carpet isn't really going to help.

Deleted User wrote: »

That, I will agree with you on, Andrew.

We'll just agree to differ on which you are.

The evidence is indisputable. You've thrown your colleagues for whom WFH doesn't work under the bus.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The evidence is indisputable. You've thrown your colleagues for whom WFH doesn't work under the bus.

LOL, who WFH or not is not under my control.

In saying that, I've yet to encounter anyone who is as eager to get back into an office as you are, Andrew, and none who want to go back 5 days a week.

Everyone I've spoken to is fully accepting that the current measures are necessary while we are still racking up new cases of covid19 in triple figures every day.

You know, Covid19? The reason why we are all wfh in the first place that you avoid every time its mentioned like its not a factor?

All you have done on this an other threads is look for ways to undermine WFH. You have yet to find a problem that is insurmountable, but I'm sure you will keep trying!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

In saying that, I've yet to encounter anyone who is as eager to get back into an office as you are, Andrew, and none who want to go back 5 days a week.
!

The thought of going back 5 days a week is depressing, i used to get a dose of the fear on a Sunday night when i was was working full time in the office, now i never get it. I am more productive at home and my boss is happy with the work I'm doing. But ultimately she wants everyone back because some haven't been working well from home and she wouldn't want the hassle of deciding who gets to work from home and who doesn't.

I hope at least we can get a day or 2 at home per week.

Varadkar seems to be very supportive of working from home but Paschal is wavering a bit as he fears for the city centre businesses.

AndrewJRenko

[Deleted User] wrote: »

LOL, who WFH or not is not under my control.

Your lack of control is irrelevant.

You've made it clear that you don't give a toss for anyone having difficulties with WFH, because you're misguidedly worried about any possible opening of the door for a return to the workplace.

HairySalmon

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Your lack of control is irrelevant.

You've made it clear that you don't give a toss for anyone having difficulties with WFH, because you're misguidedly worried about any possible opening of the door for a return to the workplace.

But this is the thing, we won’t all be forced to work from home forever. I’d imagine companies would be happy to accommodate anyone wanting to be there full time. Most will be blended and a few will be fully remote.

Options are great, let people decide what’s good for them.

AlmightyCushion

Deleted User wrote: »

Varadkar seems to be very supportive of working from home but Paschal is wavering a bit as he fears for the city centre businesses.

I actually thing WFH will be great for commuter towns. People who usually spend Monday to Friday driving from their commuter town to work will now be spending some of those days in their commuter town. They might go out for a coffee or lunch there instead of the city centre. They will have more time in the evenings so will be more likely to do things in their area after work.

hmmm

Mr.S wrote: »

We've hired upwards of 50+ people across all seniorities over the last 12 months, effectively all required remote onboarding, nobody has quit. Turnover rate remains largely the same, with most people switching jobs for external promotions / salary jumps - nothing to do with needing to work from home.

Same here, new hires seem to be settling in well, although hopefully we will get to meet socially at some time this year. It helps that most in our company have eagerly embraced remote working and the new types of communication styles required, and don't see this as a brief interruption before we get back to "real" work.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Your lack of control is irrelevant.

You've made it clear that you don't give a toss for anyone having difficulties with WFH, because you're misguidedly worried about any possible opening of the door for a return to the workplace.

You've tried to accuse me of that before Andrew, but as I've told you before, I was already WFH regularly before Covid19 happened, and I will continue to do so when the restrictions are lifted. Re-opening of offices will have minimal impact on my work pattern and I will be quite happy to go into the office as and when required, no problem, when the restrictions allow for it. So nothing for me to worry about.

There is a vast difference between someone having a genuine difficulty with WFH and someone who in reality just doesn't want to WFH and so looks for problems and reasons to complain about it.

I would "give a toss" about the former, but less so about the latter. I have no tolerance or patience for that kind of behaviour in normal conditions, and even less so in the middle of a public health crisis.

Mrs OBumble

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But ultimately she wants everyone back because some haven't been working well from home and she wouldn't want the hassle of deciding who gets to work from home and who doesn't.

Congratulations, you are the first person I have seen admit that SOME employees haven't been working well from home. Some will have been the same ones who weren't working so well in the office either but with WFH the issues are harder to spot and to fix.

Mrs OBumble

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is a vast difference between someone having a genuine difficulty with WFH and someone who in reality just doesn't want to WFH and so looks for problems and reasons to complain about it.

I would "give a toss" about the former, but less so about the latter. I have no tolerance or patience for that kind of behaviour in normal conditions, and even less so in the middle of a public health crisis.

What would you consider to be a genuine difficulty?

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

What would you consider to be a genuine difficulty?

Nothing Andrew has posted.

Kiith

I doubt i'll ever be back in the office more then 1 day a week, and even that is pushing it. Obviously, doesn't work for everyone, but i am far more productive over 6 hours at home then i would be 8 hours (with an additional 2+ hours commuting) in the office.

Our office will be fully WFH till 2022, with a small possibility of having 25% of staff in from October onwards.

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Another great lie in for the lads!! This thread should be renamed to ‘Dossing from home’.

Christ, we get it, you don't like people WFH. Take it down a notch already.