Working From Home Megathread

adocholiday

adocholiday wrote: »

I know people are saying that their company is saving loads on costs etc but that's not going to really be a big deal long term. My own feeling is that within a couple of years most of us will be back to the 5 day grind in the office but I hope to be proven wrong!

It's going to vary but before Covid the momentum was all in 1 direction. Maybe things will revert a bit and 5 days a week at home won't be widespread but I'd be surprised if 2-3 days a week isn't very commonplace even where there was close to zero WFH beforehand.
Again, demands of employees will play a part. Bearing in mind we're getting a **** version of WFH (nothing to do in the evenings) I think if people who were 5 days a week in the office commuting 3 hours a day get a chance at WFH and start habits before and after work then their willingness to go back in 5 days a week will be much lowered.

waxmelts2000

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/google-and-amazon-call-staff-back-to-the-office-wjjmbtlxb


Just came across this article

capefear

waxmelts2000 wrote: »

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/google-and-amazon-call-staff-back-to-the-office-wjjmbtlxb


Just came across this article

I think that one is behind a paywall. Here is another one on google.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/04/01/google-wants-workers-to-return-to-the-office-ahead-of-schedule-this-looks-like-a-blow-to-the-remote-work-trend/

Nuts102

Nuts102 wrote: »

My friend who works at a multinational said they are downsizing in America where they rent floors in buildings and they are moving out of two of the floors

Not sure if its easier to downsize in America but that is good news he thinks

Also a survey said 80% want to work full time from home which is a big number

Really hoping my place allows the full time option but hard to know

My MNC is a little different. Globally only about 10% want to never go back to the office. 80% want 2 - 3 days WFH and 10% want to go back full time (presumably those in shared accommodation). We have committed to catering for what individuals want to do, and the new global office footprint is based on 50 - 60% occupancy (depending on the country)

One outcome of this I think will be a big disparity between employees of MNCs and those of domestic Irish companies. I’ve been WFH 2 days a week for years, as have almost all of my colleagues, so it’s completely normal for us

There will be outliers (Amazon, blackrock, Goldman) who want 100% office attendance, but they are offset others (Twitter and many other large tech firms) who want require any attendance at all. The reality is that most will be 2-3 days per week. I feel lucky to be working for an MNC rather than a domestic firm

Longer term you’ll get a range, and people will pick employers based on work practices. I know that within a couple of years all global staff (25k) in my firm will be able to avail of compressed working weeks, and sabbaticals (in addition to WFH). They were in course well before COVID. I do think the likes of Goldman’s and Amazon will be the outliers long term

AndrewJRenko

Bank of Ireland is planning to shut down its office on Mespil Road in the coming months, and is setting up local hubs so staff can work nearer home.

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Bank of Ireland is planning to shut down its office on Mespil Road in the coming months, and is setting up local hubs so staff can work nearer home.

Hubs could indeed be an ideal solution in some cases, where those who are not set up for home working can still have an office space, and it would cut down on thousands of people all rushing to be in the city centre for 9am. Our company already has one hub, and is looking at setting up more.

Patsy167

adocholiday wrote: »

Reading through this thread I can't help feeling that people are being overly optimistic about how this will all play out long term. WFH has been a dream for me for loads of reasons. I have loads more time for myself and spend loads more time with my wife, I'm less stressed, I'm fitter and healthier than I was, I eat and sleep better, overall life is just so much better. I dread the day I get the email with the subject 'return to office', but it is inevitable.

The way I see this playing out is much more pessimistic than most here. I think it'll all start back great, 1 or 2 days per week in the office no big deal. But you'll soon see that some will start working maybe 3 or 4 days in, or a manager asks you to do an extra day for the next few weeks just for this particular project and suddenly the project is over but the expectation of you being there the extra day has stuck. There will be loads of this 'time creep' for what seems like small reasons but collectively they'll lead to more office time. Then it'll start to spread across other companies when they see that their competitors have their staff back in the office more, or they lose out to a competitor in a deal and on the grapevine it was because competitor was seen as more reliable as their staff are always in the office. It will only take 1 big player to do it and many will follow suit and then those saying that they'll just move to a job that does allow it will find less choice in that regard.

I know people are saying that their company is saving loads on costs etc but that's not going to really be a big deal long term. My own feeling is that within a couple of years most of us will be back to the 5 day grind in the office but I hope to be proven wrong!

Very easy to envisage the above scenario where most people are back in the offices 4/5 days a week within the next 2 years, especially for Accounting, banking, Professional services, and law firms. It will be a general creep factor and peer pressure will also drive it.

You get the feeling that most of the firms in these sectors are engaging in the WFH debate as a form of posturing and not to damage their brand but what they are saying and what they are planning are two different things. The pendulum has swung to the extreme WFH situation and in the past year, and employers won't be long about pulling it all the way back.

I can see a major Op Risk event or general uptick in the volume of Op Risk events happening when offices do re-open and WFH will rightly or wrongly be cited as a contributing factor. Like the above poster, I hope I'm wrong. Too many benefits to list for myself.

Fr Tod Umptious

capefear wrote: »

I think that one is behind a paywall. Here is another one on google.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/04/01/google-wants-workers-to-return-to-the-office-ahead-of-schedule-this-looks-like-a-blow-to-the-remote-work-trend/

I think the WFH situation in the US is somewhat different to what we have here.

At the srat of the pandemic people employed in (expensive) silicon valley moved out in their droves.
And they did not just move to the next town over they moved all the way to other states.

Many moved to Texas which already has in recent years seen a big migration from California, others moved to places like Montana where property is cheap and there is lots of space.

All this while continuing to work from home for silicon valley located companies.

The equivalent in Ireland would have been for Dublin based people to strike off for cheaper and/or warmer spots in the EU.

Now that has not happened in Ireland because of various factors that mean moving from Ireland to Spain is not as easy as moving from California to Montana, language being the biggest factor is assume.
Most Dublin based people who worked from home did so from their Dublin bases, the commuter belt or in lesser cases from other parts of the state.

So now Google and I'd assume California are looking for people to get back closer to the office even though they may still end up working most of the time from home.

wes

Google are an outlier for WFH. They want people in the office all the time, so they can squeeze more work out of them. They try and provide everything you would need in the office, so people can stay as long as possible.

loyatemu

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Now that has not happened in Ireland because of various factors that mean moving from Ireland to Spain is not as easy as moving from California to Montana, language being the biggest factor is assume.

I'd say jurisdiction is the biggest factor. I don't know how it works across different US states, but Ireland and Spain are separate countries despite both being in the EU. Tax and employment laws are different and that's a headache most companies don't want to deal with.

JDD

This is going to be a difficult one.

My public sector employer seems to have similar survey numbers to the MNC referred to above. About 15% want the option to work full time from home, and about 10% want to work full time in the office, with the remainder wanting a combo.

The ones who want to work full time in the office tend towards the younger age group, who are in shared accommodation, generally live close to the office and don't have kids yet so don't really need (as opposed to just want) the work life balance. They haven't gained much back in commuting time, and are missing the social aspect to the office as well as the learning opportunities.

The ones who want to work full time from home or mostly from home tend to be in the middle grades, have young families and live farther out from the city.

Our senior management certainly say that they want to give as much as they can on flexibility. And they say that they want it themselves, after all they have families too. But there's a fundamental difference here. They are a bit older than the middle grades so their children are older. They may have a stay at home partner or they would usually have a childminder rather than relying on afterschools or creches where there is a hard and fast pick up time.

I can see the creep happening with the senior management first - after all, they are the ones who have made the life sacrifices already in order to get promoted to senior management, so it's not like they're not used to it. They will be more financially able to go back to a five day week in the office, and they probably think that they'll get more work done there, since most of their day is taken up with meetings rather than "in front of a computer" work. There will be a certain cohort of the junior grades in the office all the time. Those middle grades who only come in one day a week or not at all will just be forgotten about. Or they'll be afraid that they will be forgotten about - especially when they see their management and some colleagues seemingly in the office all the time. And the creep will start.

That's what I feel will happen anyway.

Fr Tod Umptious

loyatemu wrote: »

I'd say jurisdiction is the biggest factor. I don't know how it works across different US states, but Ireland and Spain are separate countries despite both being in the EU. Tax and employment laws are different and that's a headache most companies don't want to deal with.

It's the same with the US.
Employment and tax laws vary from state to state.
Now how easy it is for a individual or company to register or be compliant or whatnot in one state or another compared to how easy it is to do between Ireland and Spain I've no idea.

Fr Tod Umptious

JDD wrote: »

This is going to be a difficult one.

My public sector employer seems to have similar survey numbers to the MNC referred to above. About 15% want the option to work full time from home, and about 10% want to work full time in the office, with the remainder wanting a combo.

The ones who want to work full time in the office tend towards the younger age group, who are in shared accommodation, generally live close to the office and don't have kids yet so don't really need (as opposed to just want) the work life balance. They haven't gained much back in commuting time, and are missing the social aspect to the office as well as the learning opportunities.

The ones who want to work full time from home or mostly from home tend to be in the middle grades, have young families and live farther out from the city.

Our senior management certainly say that they want to give as much as they can on flexibility. And they say that they want it themselves, after all they have families too. But there's a fundamental difference here. They are a bit older than the middle grades so their children are older. They may have a stay at home partner or they would usually have a childminder rather than relying on afterschools or creches where there is a hard and fast pick up time.

I can see the creep happening with the senior management first - after all, they are the ones who have made the life sacrifices already in order to get promoted to senior management, so it's not like they're not used to it. They will be more financially able to go back to a five day week in the office, and they probably think that they'll get more work done there, since most of their day is taken up with meetings rather than "in front of a computer" work. There will be a certain cohort of the junior grades in the office all the time. Those middle grades who only come in one day a week or not at all will just be forgotten about. Or they'll be afraid that they will be forgotten about - especially when they see their management and some colleagues seemingly in the office all the time. And the creep will start.

That's what I feel will happen anyway.

I'd say that's a pretty accurate representation of how it might turn out.

Quin_Dub

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

It's the same with the US.
Employment and tax laws vary from state to state.
Now how easy it is for a individual or company to register or be compliant or whatnot in one state or another compared to how easy it is to do between Ireland and Spain I've no idea.

In Europe moving to another country is potentially a huge deal for a company - Depending on the country and company , an employee moving to a location where the employer does not currently have a legal entity established could lead to major issues all round.

In the US it's also a cost thing - They aren't going to pay you California/New York Salary rates if you are living in Wyoming or whatever.

My company (large MNC) are saying that everybody can work from home as much or as little as they like , but that they cannot "relocate" without explicit permission from their boss and that the expectation is that despite working from home that you are "available to come to the office if required".

I take that to mean that you have to be able to respond to a "Can you be in the office tomorrow for a meeting?" request rather than a "Get here in an hour!" type of thing.

So , for Ireland in theory you could live anywhere in the country and be able to support that kind of request. But obviously in larger countries that isn't the same.

NIMAN

Quin_Dub wrote: »

In Europe moving to another country is potentially a huge deal for a company - Depending on the country and company , an employee moving to a location where the employer does not currently have a legal entity established could lead to major issues all round.

I recently read an email from my company re: cross borders working after the pandemic is over.

At present, Revenue are allowing people who work in NI but live in the Republic to continue to pay tax in the North, simply because of Covid.

But the message said that once Covid is a thing of the past, if any working from home is done in Ireland whilst job is in NI, then tax will be open to collection in the Republic.

Thats a massive complication for cross border workers.

beauf

Some people feel they are not able to communicate and organise unless they can physically talk to people. Don't know if they are working unless they see them working. Etc. Often it's because they don't want to manage or communicate in an organised or structured way. These are the people who want to be in the office. Of course everyone else is at home, being in the office won't help.

Ironically our communications across the company have improved in lockdown. Because having to communicate remotely has forced people, especially those above. To do so in an organised and structured way.

Antares35

beauf wrote: »

Some people feel they are not able to communicate and organise unless they can physically talk to people. Don't know if they are working unless they see them working. Etc. Often it's because they don't want to manage or communicate in an organised or structured way. These are the people who want to be in the office. Of course everyone else is at home, being in the office won't help.

Ironically our communications across the company have improved in lockdown. Because having to communicate remotely has forced people, especially those above. To do so in an organised and structured way.

Yes, and you can spot them a mile away. The one in our office shouting the loudest about getting everyone back in is the one who replies to every email with "can I call you about this instead" to give some convoluted story that usually translates into "I don't have that document/ I didn't do that piece of work/ I don't want to put it on the record that I haven't a clue what I'm doing". Ironically, the conversation will usually be bookended with ten minute monologues about how busy they are

Being away from this person (who often sat talking for hours at a time about her kids achievements and what she did at the weekend) has been one of the greatest contributing factors to my increased productivity WFH. Second only to the removal of a two hour commute.

The simple fact, when it comes to WFH, is those who want it full-time are going to get it full-time. Either their existing employer will provide it or they'll find one who will.

The horse has bolted on that one. Expect this to be something people look for from prospective employers going forward.

As for those wanting a hybrid model, I don't see the point of this. Its of the least benefit to all concerned as employer still needs to maintain a physical office and the employee is still stuck commuting which is a farcical waste of time. The only ones I see pushing for this seem to be middle management types trying to justify their roles.

My guess is when things settle down and hybrid kicks in, and employees start commuting again, they won't be long asking for FT WFH if their role is suited for it.

Ozark707

Deleted User wrote: »

As for those wanting a hybrid model, I don't see the point of this. Its of the least benefit to all concerned as employer still needs to maintain a physical office

I used to work for a company who would try and save every penny they could. About 5 years ago they moved to a new office (different country) and they only had enough desks for 70% of the people. Most people were expected to hot desk when in the office. It allowed them to cut down the amount of office space required. I suspect many others will follow that model now. So in theory a win win...

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The simple fact, when it comes to WFH, is those who want it full-time are going to get it full-time. Either their existing employer will provide it or they'll find one who will.

The horse has bolted on that one. Expect this to be something people look for from prospective employers going forward.

As for those wanting a hybrid model, I don't see the point of this. Its of the least benefit to all concerned as employer still needs to maintain a physical office and the employee is still stuck commuting which is a farcical waste of time. The only ones I see pushing for this seem to be middle management types trying to justify their roles.

My guess is when things settle down and hybrid kicks in, and employees start commuting again, they won't be long asking for FT WFH if their role is suited for it.

Hybrid means you can cut down substantially on office space. It’s our new base case. Lose a floor here and there. Our global office footprint post pandemic is based on 55% occupancy. Base case is 2 days a week in for everyone, with some functions at 3 days and critical ones (some IT support and sensitive areas) 5 days Obviously no one will have their own desk and there’ll be a booking system for your ‘floating’ days.

I was working on that basis with my precious firm in London for 5 years or more, and it works very well.

In summary, I disagree with you and think hybrid will be the new standard model

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Hybrid means you can cut down substantially on office space. It’s our new base case. Lose a floor here and there. Our global office footprint post pandemic is based on 55% occupancy. Base case is 2 days a week in for everyone, with some functions at 3 days and critical ones (some IT support and sensitive areas) 5 days Obviously no one will have their own desk and there’ll be a booking system for your ‘floating’ days.

I was working on that basis with my precious firm in London for 5 years or more, and it works very well.

In summary, I disagree with you and think hybrid will be the new standard model

My company are talking about reconfiguring the office space to remove some desks and replacing them with more meeting rooms or collaboration spaces (AKA - Couches and Ficus plants).

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The simple fact, when it comes to WFH, is those who want it full-time are going to get it full-time. Either their existing employer will provide it or they'll find one who will.

The horse has bolted on that one. Expect this to be something people look for from prospective employers going forward.

As for those wanting a hybrid model, I don't see the point of this. Its of the least benefit to all concerned as employer still needs to maintain a physical office and the employee is still stuck commuting which is a farcical waste of time. The only ones I see pushing for this seem to be middle management types trying to justify their roles.

My guess is when things settle down and hybrid kicks in, and employees start commuting again, they won't be long asking for FT WFH if their role is suited for it.

The majority of our office are looking for hybrid model. I've worked hybrid in the past and thought it worked well. We had only a few hot desks before Covid. But I know companies which are mostly hot desks.

My team can't hot desk as we have workstations and remote into them if not in the office.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

My company are talking about reconfiguring the office space to remove some desks and replacing them with more meeting rooms or collaboration spaces (AKA - Couches and Ficus plants).

Mine too. Ironically, the much nicer office environment will probably mean that more people want to be there.

But they can’t because their desk is now a yucca tree

Mrs OBumble

beauf wrote: »

.

My team can't hot desk as we have workstations and remote into them if not in the office.

You can. The workstations can do into a server room (or into one big server!).

You can use your laptop to remote into them from a hot desk as well as from your home

plodder

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

You can. The workstations can do into a server room (or into one big server!).

You can use your laptop to remote into them from a hot desk as well as from your home

We do that. Used to have a lot of specialised hardware at our desks. Five to ten years ago it was mostly shifted into server rooms at each site. Since then, it's all moved to a smaller number of data centres in the cloud. With good broadband this works just as well from home as the office. So, while before the pandemic we had our own desks, the change to hot-desking will not be hard. I'll be happy to make that switch, particularly if they are prepared to provide better facilities like good office chairs for home use.

wes

Mr.S wrote: »

Will be an interesting one. I can see that also happening if your team of (let's say) 5 people, 4/5 like to to go into the office all the time and then require dial in details etc for that 1 person who prefers to work at home, which potentially will cause a rift.

The only way hybrid works imo, is if every call is done on webex/zoom whatever tool your use for meetings. Now, where I work this would happen regardless, as we have people in several offices, so we can't all meet.

JTMan

Nice perk.

https://twitter.com/RTEbusiness/status/1380060468283326465

RacoonQueen

Antares35 wrote: »

Being away from this person (who often sat talking for hours at a time about her kids achievements and what she did at the weekend) has been one of the greatest contributing factors to my increased productivity WFH. Second only to the removal of a two hour commute.

100% this. Being away from this sh*te has helped my mental health too. Office politics are an awful thing.

Naos

JTMan wrote: »

Nice perk.

https://twitter.com/RTEbusiness/status/1380060468283326465

That's an amazing perk. We have such a high amount of non-Irish in our workforce, being able to go home and spend time with their families for an extended period of time rather than trying to fit everything into a week or two is a class move.

nearzero

Is anyone elses private company completely anti-WFH? While my company has a manufacturing side, there is alot of roles that are office based and have been successfully working from home for the last year but despite Level 5 still being in place are already implementing plans to bring EVERYONE back in, no questions and no discussion on whether you want to or not or entertaining any questions about how we are still in level 5!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know the new WFH legislation will make it a legal right to request WFH but that might not even be before the Dail before May/June so too late...