Working From Home Megathread

BrianD3

BrianD3 wrote: »

Probably posted before but no harm to link to it again

National Remote Working Strategy
https://enterprise.gov.ie/en/Publications/Publication-files/Making-Remote-Work.pdf


Depending on how this this is interpreted, it could be very beneficial for some and mean they could WFH much more than 20% of the time - as there will be many others who can't WFH (teachers, frontline health workers etc. who make up a large proportion of the PS)

It will be interesting to see the reaction from public sector employers who have been ignoring public health advice on WFH during the pandemic and ordering staff (who by any objective assessment could do their jobs at home) back to offices. Employers like the HSE :rolleyes: I could see a situation where WFH is used to favour some people while bullying others with this being excused using the catch all of "decisions are at the discretion of management"

The WRC may end up busy.

Thanks for linking to that Brian

Some interesting points within it, summarized below

• Massive support for the WFH model among employees surveyed
• A lot have a preference of a hybrid model
• No impact to productivity noted across multiples surveys of employers with many reporting increased productivity
• In August 2019, the Work-Life Balance Directive came into force in EU Member States. This includes the right to request flexible working arrangements for carers and working parents of children up to eight years old. Member States have three years to comply with the Directive.
• Health and Safety Authority (HSA) s clear that responsibility for health and safety rests with the employer whether or not work is being done remotely. Primarily covering ergonomics, other things may fall under this too e.g. fire safety, multiple exits, etc
• WFH costs are a pain point with employees. The current tax allowance is insufficient. Dept of Finance Tax Strategy Group will review the current tax arrangements for remote working in respect of (i) employees and (ii) employers and assess the merits of further enhancements for consideration in the context of Budget 2022
• The sudden onset of remote working has led to a broader acceptance by employers of remote/home working as a viable longer-term possibility, with many companies likely to retain working from home as an option even when it is not required for public health reasons.
• WFH is particularly advantageous for those with disabilities & for women.
• Employers must include measures to avoid WFH impacting career progression in particular for those with disabilities who are WFH
• Hubs are an important option. The Western Development Commission (WDC) set the template and its being rolled out nationally. To that end, an IT system will be developed for the network to allow individual hubs to have a hub website platform, an online automated booking engine and a hub management system. These tools will be used to help promote the hubs, ease the burden of hub management and facilitate the creation of the hub network community and ongoing participation in it.
• Speed up the rollout of broadband
• The 2019 report on remote work highlighted the fact that the govt basically had zero data about how much of it was going on, what roles were suited to it, how it affected people (good/bad) etc etc. They had little to no info about it. All data they are working off now has come from 3 surveys done in May 2020 (7,000 responses) and the second in Oct 2020 (5,000 responses) by NUIG’s Whitaker Institute and the WDC with the 3rd being done by Forsa (4,300 responses) which was primarily public sector employees. The CSO also conducted a survey of their own, with one particular question asking about the working location of the respondent - This highlighted that at one point, 57%+ staff were working remotely.
• The CSO survey also found that over 40% of office based enterprises planned to make remote working a permanent fixture in some capacity post covid.
  

Pretty much everything in the document is committed to being finished and implemented in some form by Q4 this year

Funnily enough, the PfG contained a series of commitments on remote working, including Mandate public sector employers, colleges, and other
public bodies to move to 20% home and remote working in 2021. It seems like covid has allowed them to hit that one early

norwegianwood

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

What age are you? Lots of people get hit with long-sightedness in their mid-40s. Presobia (sp) I think?

I'm 27, god hope I'm not aging that rapidly!:(

Batattackrat

I'm currently in the mindset of two days in the office and three days from home but once restrictions are lifted I think my attitude will change to five days from home.

kippy

norwegianwood wrote: »

I'm 27, god hope I'm not aging that rapidly!:(

https://www.nvisioncenters.com/education/screen-time-and-your-eyes/
I think increased screen time is leading to these effects earlier in life unfortunately.

mairtmairt

I think many people say hey have a preference for a hybrid model ie 2 days a week in office 3 at home etc but I know as soon as that happens the novelty will wear off in the office after a couple of weeks most will say wish it was 5 days a week from home due to commuting etc.

wes

What happened in my office, is that people would slowly start only coming in one day a week, as no one was in the same day, so it was easy enough to get away with. Also, people had the choice if office they would go to, so some people chose offices closer to them, but those offices didn't have their manager, so they would just stop going in, as no one would notice or care, and eventually people would rarely go into the office overtime. Only teams where the management were bothered to enforce the rule would be in the office, and even that fell of after a while.

moycullen14

Interesting that the initial view of life post-lockdown points to a 'hybrid' model but the more you think about it, the less sense that makes.

Unless everyone is in on the same day, what's the point?
If everyone/majority are in then no saving on office space.
What's the point of having a 200 seater office that's full 2 days a week and empty for the other 3?
Commuting has been shown to be an utter pox. Expensive, unpleasant, time-consuming and worthless. Once you stop it's very hard to justify starting again.
With the hybrid model you lose the ability to work remotely. Getting into Dublin (say) 3 days a week from Galway is not going to work. Never mind Lanzarote https://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/smile.png

Interesting times ahead.

plodder

moycullen14 wrote: »

Interesting that the initial view of life post-lockdown points to a 'hybrid' model but the more you think about it, the less sense that makes.

Unless everyone is in on the same day, what's the point?
If everyone/majority are in then no saving on office space.
What's the point of having a 200 seater office that's full 2 days a week and empty for the other 3?
Commuting has been shown to be an utter pox. Expensive, unpleasant, time-consuming and worthless. Once you stop it's very hard to justify starting again.
With the hybrid model you lose the ability to work remotely. Getting into Dublin (say) 3 days a week from Galway is not going to work. Never mind Lanzarote https://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/smile.png

Interesting times ahead.

I think hybrid will work where there are multiple independent teams sharing desks/meeting space etc. It's really about people who were commuting five days a week previously, and might have the opportunity to reduce that to one or two. That's not to say that people should be prevented from full-time WFH from Galway or Lanzarote. But, that's a separate issue I think.

wes

moycullen14 wrote: »

Interesting that the initial view of life post-lockdown points to a 'hybrid' model but the more you think about it, the less sense that makes.

Unless everyone is in on the same day, what's the point?
If everyone/majority are in then no saving on office space.
What's the point of having a 200 seater office that's full 2 days a week and empty for the other 3?
Commuting has been shown to be an utter pox. Expensive, unpleasant, time-consuming and worthless. Once you stop it's very hard to justify starting again.
With the hybrid model you lose the ability to work remotely. Getting into Dublin (say) 3 days a week from Galway is not going to work. Never mind Lanzarote https://b-static.net/vbulletin/images/smilies/smile.png

Interesting times ahead.

IMO, the only way a hybrid model works is if you give people the choice of coming into a small office if they need, and they can book hot desks etc as needed, and for those who can't work from home they can have a permanent desk.

Basically, the office turned into a wework type of thing, only used as needed, with people working how they want, with no expected number of days in the office.

What happens is that everyone is permanently using the WFH tooling, even if you are in the office, as everyone is never in the office the same time.

Quin_Dub

wes wrote: »

IMO, the only way a hybrid model works is if you give people the choice of coming into a small office if they need, and they can book hot desks etc as needed, and for those who can't work from home they can have a permanent desk.

Basically, the office turned into a wework type of thing, only used as needed, with people working how they want, with no expected number of days in the office.

What happens is that everyone is permanently using the WFH tooling, even if you are in the office, as everyone is never in the office the same time.

This is definitely going to be the model for larger companies.

The office nearest me for my company would currently have a capacity for about 800 people onsite with permanent desks and another 150/200 working remote and coming in from time to time.

I expect that that will shift to something more like 400 or so permanent desks and then them converting a bunch of existing desk space into more meeting rooms and shared work areas - couches , chars etc. for people to heave impromptu meetings and the like.

The WFH people will come in to the office for team meetings , work shops, training sessions etc.

It won't be a rigid 2 days in the office each week or whatever.

It will be 1 day this week for a key face to face meeting. A whole week next month for a workshop or training course etc.

It'll likely balance out at ~20% of the time in an office overall , but a rigid schedule won't work for anyone.

As some have mentioned, I don't see the hybrid model taking hold except for a few folks. I think some folks are suggesting it as they way forward as a way to bring in WFH gradually but after covid that bird has flown. Also, I don't understand the benefit of it for any party involved.

Still need to keep the car, still need to commute x times a week, still need to leave the house early, come home late......for what?

For the employee, I fail to see any benefit.

For the employer, they still need office space which is not being fully utilised, so again, whats the benefit? I'm not seeing it

The only thing I can see some pointing to is for collaboration/meetings, but these have worked fine using zoom/Teams during covid, so I don't see this as a reason to justify hybrid.

Some have suggested the socializing aspect of work is important for them, is that it? Personally that doesn't factor into my decision as I always moved from project to project, team to team and didn't spend a whole lot of time socialising anyway but I have been accused of being a dry s***e when it came to nights out etc

Maybe there is a good reason and I just cant see the wood from the trees. Anyone got another perspective on this that I'm not seeing?

Dyr

Most of the companies I know are biting the bullet on WFH because they realise a hybrid model is not going to bring the benefits, its a cautious half measure. I think Hybrid might be for companies with a high level of sales types and others who arent happy unless they're networking or overseeing people.

The only thing in my role that would necessitate a trip to the office is hardware maintenance, and thats going the way of the dodo, if any company thinks I'm going show up onsite just so the soft skills types can still ply their trade, they are sorely mistaken.

sekond

norwegianwood wrote: »

Anyone else's eyesight starting to suffer with WFH? I don't know if it's because I'm in a small room all day and I was working off a laptop until after Christmas, but I'm gone blind as a bat, even with glasses and two big screens I'm still struggling :pac:

Could be just not enough breaks from screens. I went to the optician last week with a similar problem (and I'm approaching the age where my eyesight could be worsening - or rather worsening in a different way from how bad it already is!). Optician said that WFH you don't get as many natural breaks (in person meetings, someone calling into the office to ask something etc) and that my eyes were really dry as a result. Moistening eye drops since last week and trying to get a short break from the screen every hour and the difference is amazing. I'm still blind as a bat, but only in the way I always have been...

Whilst it looks like most companies are looking at a hybrid or even full time model of working from home (which has to be a good thing), I am a bit surprised at how many seem to be saying if I don’t get my own way and have to go to the office ever again, I will leave.

Is there going to be limitless jobs where you can just pick and choose? Will competition for these roles not be through the roof? Will you get the same perks you have at your current role? (pension, bonus etc). Are you going to leave a job you really like for one that potentially could be awful just because your company wants you to come in once a week?

I’m not knocking anyone, each to their own but I don’t seeing it be as simple as “let me do what I want or I’m leaving”. I’m not really sure many companies would care unless you’re in the top 1%, they will find a replacement fairly quickly.
To clarify I’m talking about companies offering hybrids here.

whatever76

Deleted User wrote: »

As some have mentioned, I don't see the hybrid model taking hold except for a few folks. I think some folks are suggesting it as they way forward as a way to bring in WFH gradually but after covid that bird has flown. Also, I don't understand the benefit of it for any party involved.

Still need to keep the car, still need to commute x times a week, still need to leave the house early, come home late......for what?

For the employee, I fail to see any benefit.

For the employer, they still need office space which is not being fully utilised, so again, whats the benefit? I'm not seeing it

The only thing I can see some pointing to is for collaboration/meetings, but these have worked fine using zoom/Teams during covid, so I don't see this as a reason to justify hybrid.

Some have suggested the socializing aspect of work is important for them, is that it? Personally that doesn't factor into my decision as I always moved from project to project, team to team and didn't spend a whole lot of time socialising anyway but I have been accused of being a dry s***e when it came to nights out etc

Maybe there is a good reason and I just cant see the wood from the trees. Anyone got another perspective on this that I'm not seeing?

I was thinking about this - one perspective I think is people starting out on their Careers in mid - late 20's. I am mid 40's now and work in an MNC - WFH for me works perfect as I am well settled in job , know people well and have done the nights out/social aspect of it all and look back at many a good night out in Dublin with work people. I think though starting out WFH is not that great those starting out - Must be v isolating trying to navigate about the workplace and getting to know people, stuck on computer . Not everyone will have own home and may still live at home so getting out and having work routine is important . I dont know starting out the Social aspect of work , travelling with work and getting to know people is important ( and good experience for personal development as well) . Its hard to know though the way we live and work over the last year has changed so dramatically its going to be interesting to see what the new norm will be. I think you'll be surprised at amount of people wanting to get back into Office. There is a large % that like the Office/Home divide

beauf

sekond wrote: »

Could be just not enough breaks from screens. I went to the optician last week with a similar problem (and I'm approaching the age where my eyesight could be worsening - or rather worsening in a different way from how bad it already is!). Optician said that WFH you don't get as many natural breaks (in person meetings, someone calling into the office to ask something etc) and that my eyes were really dry as a result. Moistening eye drops since last week and trying to get a short break from the screen every hour and the difference is amazing. I'm still blind as a bat, but only in the way I always have been...

Should be taking eye breaks every 20 mins or so. Focus on something out the window for a few minutes. Go outside for 5 mins. Can't remember the exact details I'm sure it's online somewhere.

Then when you do have a break don't use your phone or the TV. Actually go do something thats not looking at a screen of any kind.

Batattackrat

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whilst it looks like most companies are looking at a hybrid or even full time model of working from home (which has to be a good thing), I am a bit surprised at how many seem to be saying if I don’t get my own way and have to go to the office ever again, I will leave.

Is there going to be limitless jobs where you can just pick and choose? Will competition for these roles not be through the roof? Will you get the same perks you have at your current role? (pension, bonus etc). Are you going to leave a job you really like for one that potentially could be awful just because your company wants you to come in once a week?

I’m not knocking anyone, each to their own but I don’t seeing it be as simple as “let me do what I want or I’m leaving”. I’m not really sure many companies would care unless you’re in the top 1%, they will find a replacement fairly quickly.
To clarify I’m talking about companies offering hybrids here.

In some sectors yes, you can nearly pick and choose who you want to work for.

Think of a person with a 90 minute commute to the office or stuck on a luas for an hour every morning and evening.

I wouldn't say been in an office one day a week would really cause anyone to start looking for a new job, it's the jobs where they require you in five days a week and not been flexible at all.

There is a balance as well. Some people will hate working from home in a house share etc, others might be only a 10 minute drive to work, others work means everything to them and need to be in an office.

It will balance itself out.

Some people will leave their jobs as well if they have to work from home and need to be in an office.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Whilst it looks like most companies are looking at a hybrid or even full time model of working from home (which has to be a good thing), I am a bit surprised at how many seem to be saying if I don’t get my own way and have to go to the office ever again, I will leave.

Is there going to be limitless jobs where you can just pick and choose? Will competition for these roles not be through the roof? Will you get the same perks you have at your current role? (pension, bonus etc). Are you going to leave a job you really like for one that potentially could be awful just because your company wants you to come in once a week?

I’m not knocking anyone, each to their own but I don’t seeing it be as simple as “let me do what I want or I’m leaving”. I’m not really sure many companies would care unless you’re in the top 1%, they will find a replacement fairly quickly.
To clarify I’m talking about companies offering hybrids here.

Its like this, people, myself included, have been exposed to the massive personal benefits of WFH and for a lot of folks, there's no upside to going into the office if their role can be done from home.

As with anything job related, if my current employer isn't offering X, someone else will.

As for perks, benefits, those are all laid out during the interview/selection process, if they don't offer what you want, don't take the role. Thats the way its always been, I don't see that changing.

whatever76 wrote: »

I was thinking about this - one perspective I think is people starting out on their Careers in mid - late 20's. I am mid 40's now and work in an MNC - WFH for me works perfect as I am well settled in job , know people well and have done the nights out/social aspect of it all and look back at many a good night out in Dublin with work people. I think though starting out WFH is not that great those starting out - Must be v isolating trying to navigate about the workplace and getting to know people, stuck on computer . Not everyone will have own home and may still live at home so getting out and having work routine is important . I dont know starting out the Social aspect of work , travelling with work and getting to know people is important ( and good experience for personal development as well) . Its hard to know though the way we live and work over the last year has changed so dramatically its going to be interesting to see what the new norm will be. I think you'll be surprised at amount of people wanting to get back into Office. There is a large % that like the Office/Home divide

There is that side of it, thats true, especially where someone may not have an ideal setup for WFH (tiny apt/house, kids, etc)

plodder

We had an informal straw poll and almost everyone on our team said they wanted hybrid with one day everyone is in together plus one or more optional days in office. There could be any number of individual reasons for wanting it. In my case, I was cycling once or twice a week. It's too far to cycle every day, but I could get rid of my car potentially.

I'm also not that surprised by people saying they would leave if their employer forced them back to the office full time. A view like that is probably based on the sector they work in and the opportunities that are available (tech probably). Don't think anyone is saying it must be the case for everyone. I wouldn't choose to work anywhere that demanded I be in the office 5 days a week (or even 4).

AndrewJRenko

Interesting findings from the CS survey, looks like about 25% of staff are not happy to WFH, particularly POs and COs. I'm guessing that the COs may well be down to difficulties with space and facilities at home or in rented accomodation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-D1kNFm9eE

AdamD

wes wrote: »

IMO, the only way a hybrid model works is if you give people the choice of coming into a small office if they need, and they can book hot desks etc as needed, and for those who can't work from home they can have a permanent desk.

Basically, the office turned into a wework type of thing, only used as needed, with people working how they want, with no expected number of days in the office.

What happens is that everyone is permanently using the WFH tooling, even if you are in the office, as everyone is never in the office the same time.

This slightly ignores that there are going to be times where certain teams need to be in the office for specific projects, which a hybrid model would enable.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting findings from the CS survey, looks like about 25% of staff are not happy to WFH, particularly POs and COs. I'm guessing that the COs may well be down to difficulties with space and facilities at home or in rented accomodation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-D1kNFm9eE

Cheers for that. The report itself is here

AdamD wrote: »

This slightly ignores that there are going to be times where certain teams need to be in the office for specific projects, which a hybrid model would enable.

What type of projects do you imagine would need people onsite and would not work remotely?

c68zapdsm5i1ru

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Interesting findings from the CS survey, looks like about 25% of staff are not happy to WFH, particularly POs and COs. I'm guessing that the COs may well be down to difficulties with space and facilities at home or in rented accomodation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-D1kNFm9eE

Are you sure? I read that 92 percent of civil servants wanted either a hybrid, or to work full time from home.

kippy

Shawn Sparse Sunstroke wrote: »

Are you sure? I read that 92 percent of civil servants wanted either a hybrid, or to work full time from home.

Either way, impossible to keep everyone happy.

ExMachina1000

Many employers surely wont be too keen to continue to pay rent for an office just to have staff in 1 or 2 days per week.

Im talking about SMEs..

Seems like a huge expense

beauf

Shawn Sparse Sunstroke wrote: »

Are you sure? I read that 92 percent of civil servants wanted either a hybrid, or to work full time from home.

That might depend if schools are back or not. Many are struggling to work and look after the kids at the same time.

AndrewJRenko

Shawn Sparse Sunstroke wrote: »

Are you sure? I read that 92 percent of civil servants wanted either a hybrid, or to work full time from home.

Here's what I picked up

Patsy167

I'm hoping that the success of the WFH model over the past year will accelerate the move to an overall more flexible work model. Interesting study from Microsoft in Japan - https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/04/tech/microsoft-japan-workweek-productivity

c68zapdsm5i1ru

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Here's what I picked up

Fair enough . I must have picked it up wrong. It was quite a detailed report. If three quarters of civil servants want to continue with some form of remote working I imagine there will be significant changes going forward. Interesting that it's mainly POs who are very senior, and the most junior levels that are most inclined to favour a return to the office. I suppose junior levels are more likely to be young, living in shared accommodation and enjoying the social side of work. Can't work out why numbers are so high amongst Principal Officers though.

AdamD

Deleted User wrote: »

Cheers for that. The report itself is here



What type of projects do you imagine would need people onsite and would not work remotely?

We had a significant debt restructure project requiring co-ordination between 3 or 4 departments that would have been smoother last year had 10-12 people been able to go to the office a few days a week for about a month.

So again not requiring full office space or full time office work, but a hybrid model.