Working From Home Megathread

recyclops

I know alot of people are saying they are willing to leave their jobs should WFH full time not be offered but id love to see peoples opinions on the whole onboarding and integrating themselves into a new role in a new company.

I have seen how difficult it has been for very competent people to engage in a business as a new start and have had them complain regarding the difficulties. Ive also seen attrition increase with new starts who just find it overwhelming as the traditional support structures arent there for them regardless of how good a set up businesses have, again this is role dependent.

Obviously WFH for majority of people has been in a role and a business where they are already established and its made straight into WFH easier.

big syke

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Emploiyees will be facing substantial BIK bills if they try this. Are they really going to subsidise those employees who live furthest away more than those who live close?

Companies "gross up" so we dont have to pay BIK on tax saver tickets.

beauf

Deleted User wrote: »

Quality of life should be a major factor in whether WFH is better for you or not, I know some people are really struggling with WFH on the kitchen table with kids running around or stuck in the bedroom, for those people there is a third option where it should be possible to use a local WFH hub which is a good compromise between long commutes and working local.

How many of the posters here have access to such facilities and what are your opinions?

Our places has suggested one hub but its actually more awkward for me than just going into the old office.

I can see the attraction of a hub for those struggling with a home environment. Especially with the summer holidays approaching.

WhiteMemento9

recyclops wrote: »

I know alot of people are saying they are willing to leave their jobs should WFH full time not be offered but id love to see peoples opinions on the whole onboarding and integrating themselves into a new role in a new company.

I have seen how difficult it has been for very competent people to engage in a business as a new start and have had them complain regarding the difficulties. Ive also seen attrition increase with new starts who just find it overwhelming as the traditional support structures arent there for them regardless of how good a set up businesses have, again this is role dependent.

Obviously WFH for majority of people has been in a role and a business where they are already established and its made straight into WFH easier.

Agreed and have also seen how difficult the process is firsthand too. I guess this is mainly all new ground for many companies and you would expect support structures, processes, and integration will improve with experience over time. There is currently a massive learning curve for both employees and employers in this dynamic.

Lumen

recyclops wrote: »

I know alot of people are saying they are willing to leave their jobs should WFH full time not be offered but id love to see peoples opinions on the whole onboarding and integrating themselves into a new role in a new company.

An idea we've had but haven't yet implemented is for new hires to have access to everyone's diary and listen in on any call they like (other than super sensitive stuff, which should be private in calendars anyway).

average_runner

recyclops wrote: »

I know alot of people are saying they are willing to leave their jobs should WFH full time not be offered but id love to see peoples opinions on the whole onboarding and integrating themselves into a new role in a new company.

I have seen how difficult it has been for very competent people to engage in a business as a new start and have had them complain regarding the difficulties. Ive also seen attrition increase with new starts who just find it overwhelming as the traditional support structures arent there for them regardless of how good a set up businesses have, again this is role dependent.

Obviously WFH for majority of people has been in a role and a business where they are already established and its made straight into WFH easier.

Grads would need to attend the office for awhile. You will also find the younger crowd will be in the office, as they want the social fun etc.


For me, I will drive in once a week, the drive won't bother me as its once a week.

We have recently had some new starters who did part of their onboarding entirely online, but eventually came into the office as their role was one that required an on-site presence, so for the online training they could WFH ,it even meant they did one day onsite early on to collect a company laptop, get some basic end-user training and then sent home.

Onboarding remotely is difficult.

I would expect that in the future when normality returns, new entrants would spend their first few days/weeks in the office and after sufficient training then be allowed to WFH as far as the role allows.

Mrs OBumble

[Deleted User] wrote: »

it should be possible to use a local WFH hub which is a good compromise between long commutes and working local.

How many of the posters here have access to such facilities and what are your opinions?

Who should pay for such facilities?

If it's the company, then how's it different to you simply being transferred to the local branch, or the company taking a hire-local approach?

Some posters here sound like they should have looked for a closer-to-home job years ago.

hmmm

recyclops wrote: »

I know alot of people are saying they are willing to leave their jobs should WFH full time not be offered but id love to see peoples opinions on the whole onboarding and integrating themselves into a new role in a new company.

As was said above, companies are going to have to figure this out. Some MNCs have been doing this for years, taking on employees in multiple geographical regions into the same team.

I don't see this genie going back in the bottle. I can see most workplaces only going in one direction over the next few months & years which is more and more employees drifting to working from home most of the time. People will only work from the office if they have no other choice, and will spend most of their time working remotely from the office i.e. zoom calls etc. If you don't do this as a company you will increasingly find it difficult to hire in-demand skilled employees, and you'll need presence technology to tell who in your company is working and where.

I expect that people will be asked to attend the office for all-hands meetings or team bonding, but not for actual sit-at-your-desk work. Some companies may even take teams offsite entirely at certain times in order to bring them together for team building purposes.

This won't happen overnight for most (for some it will), but will evolve over the next few years.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Who should pay for such facilities?

If it's the company, then how's it different to you simply being transferred to the local branch, or the company taking a hire-local approach?

Some posters here sound like they should have looked for a closer-to-home job years ago.

I was really thinking about the Dublin based companies that only have one site and they've employees all over the country commuting stupid distances to sit at a desk.
It would be far cheaper for many companies to pay for a few hotdesk slots in a local hub than to rent a large office in the city centre, So I would expect the company either to pay directly or as expenses for the employee.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I was really thinking about the Dublin based companies that only have one site and they've employees all over the country commuting stupid distances to sit at a desk.
It would be far cheaper for many companies to pay for a few hotdesk slots in a local hub than to rent a large office in the city centre, So I would expect the company either to pay directly or as expenses for the employee.

I will be allowed to expense my hot desking membership at a local office hub. I think that will be part of the mix, and it there are enough people in a certain place maybe rent a permanent office. I would see shared office spaces popping up around the place.

hmmm

Deleted User wrote: »

I will be allowed to expense my hot desking membership at a local office hub. I think that will be part of the mix, and it there are enough people in a certain place maybe rent a permanent office. I would see shared office spaces popping up around the place.

I'm not getting the hub concept. Why would a company go to the expense of paying for an office for employees if they get all the cost and none of the benefits? If employees want to work in an office they should go to Head Office where they can mix with colleagues. If they don't want to work in Head Office they should work at home. Where is the benefit to a company in dispersing employees all over the country, if anything that makes things more difficult.

a_squirrelman

hmmm wrote: »

I'm not getting the hub concept. Why would a company go to the expense of paying for an office for employees if they get all the cost and none of the benefits? If employees want to work in an office they should go to Head Office where they can mix with colleagues. If they don't want to work in Head Office they should work at home. Where is the benefit to a company in dispersing employees all over the country, if anything that makes things more difficult.

Happy employees. For sure it will only be in certain industries. I'm guessing the higher paid areas. But there are companies who would pay for such stuff to retain or lure staff.

a_squirrelman

a_squirrelman wrote: »

Happy employees. For sure it will only be in certain industries. I'm guessing the higher paid areas. But there are companies who would pay for such stuff to retain or lure staff.

This. My company is just very into wellbeing. One day a month is a wellness day - a day off for everyone because of the longer hours of WFH. No mandatory return to the office for anyone. Historically we’ve had summer Fridays - a half day for all, no questions asked, every Friday from May to September.

But also we are international and so a lot of our work is over MS teams anyway. So it’s an opportunity to change the office footprint - the new model is based on 60% occupancy.

I think that there will be a big divide in treatment of employees between sophisticated MNCs, for which a lot of business is done online even when in the office, and smaller domestic firms

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Some posters here sound like they should have looked for a closer-to-home job years ago.

Absolutely agree! I wish I did it years ago!

When I think of all the time I've spent in traffic ... never again.

I think lots of people are realising this, that you should work to live, not live to work - and certainly not spend 2+ hours a day in traffic.

Probably one of the only good things to come out of the pandemic.

Mrs OBumble

a_squirrelman wrote: »

Happy employees. For sure it will only be in certain industries. I'm guessing the higher paid areas. But there are companies who would pay for such stuff to retain or lure staff.

Will it make for happy customers, though?

Customers are likely to demand that their data is managed securely, and that conversations about them are in private. How does that work in a hub, using what amounts to public WiFi?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely agree! I wish I did it years ago!

When I think of all the time I've spent in traffic ... never again.

I think lots of people are realising this, that you should work to live, not live to work - and certainly not spend 2+ hours a day in traffic.

Probably one of the only good things to come out of the pandemic.

Yes, exactly. It has opening the eyes of a lot of people who were blinded in their routine. I certainly was.

I had always kicked around the idea of a change, but always half heartedly. I always had a reason as to why I couldn't make the lifestyle changes. But COVID basically stripped away all those excuses

a_squirrelman

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Will it make for happy customers, though?

Customers are likely to demand that their data is managed securely, and that conversations about them are in private. How does that work in a hub, using what amounts to public WiFi?

People have been working from home and on the road for years. I've been able to travel home to Ireland and work from there instead of using holiday days to visit family. I've worked from Dublin Airport waiting for a flight and from cafes in Dublin city when I needed to.

It all depends on the nature of the work. Of course a sensitive call with a sensitive client or something should be done in a secure place. Nobody is saying different. It comes down to the work and what is acceptable for the employer.
Of course some roles won't work this way.

BrianD3

hmmm wrote: »

I'm not getting the hub concept. Why would a company go to the expense of paying for an office for employees if they get all the cost and none of the benefits? If employees want to work in an office they should go to Head Office where they can mix with colleagues. If they don't want to work in Head Office they should work at home. Where is the benefit to a company in dispersing employees all over the country, if anything that makes things more difficult.

Anecdotally, I'm hearing numerous reports of big improvements in rural broadband in the last few months. People now have connections that are comfortably fast enough for them to WFH whereas previously it was out of the question due to speeds barely better than 56k modem speeds.

The hub concept seems to be a local council/public sector idea that may become obsolete if there is a work from home revolution. The thinking behind the hubs was probably something like

• Keep people in their local area more, local businesses and councillors would approve
• A source of income for the councils
• Councils have lost many services in recent years, if they become providers of facilities to enable remote working they may seem relevant
• They gain kudos due to the climate action, work life balance etc. benefits of remote working

Mastroianni

guys, seriously do you think that this year will keep working from home seamlessly until the end of this year? If I have to return to the office, which is in Leixlip and I'm living in Dublin, I'd quit the job.

Antares35

BrianD3 wrote: »

Anecdotally, I'm hearing numerous reports of big improvements in rural broadband in the last few months. People now have connections that are comfortably fast enough for them to WFH whereas previously it was out of the question due to speeds barely better than 56k modem speeds.

The hub concept seems to be a local council/public sector idea that may become obsolete if there is a work from home revolution. The thinking behind the hubs was probably something like

• Keep people in their local area more, local businesses and councillors would approve
• A source of income for the councils
• Councils have lost many services in recent years, if they become providers of facilities to enable remote working they may seem relevant
• They gain kudos due to the climate action, work life balance etc. benefits of remote working

One of the areas we are looking at buying in has recently benefitted from government funding to put in a local shop, cafe etc and included in the plan are hubs for remote workers definitely seems to be at least part of a current agenda

Antares35

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Some posters here sound like they should have looked for a closer-to-home job years ago.

Yes we probably should have, but we didn't. However the landscape is different now and the dialogue is at least opened. Should we be precluded from seeking flexible hybrid models now on the basis that we didn't pre-pandemic?

AndrewJRenko

big syke wrote: »

Companies "gross up" so we dont have to pay BIK on tax saver tickets.

So they're paying the BIK as well as the ticket? Dunno much about how that works, but do they not end up having to pay the BIK on the BIK then?

What's in it for the employer? Would they not just include an allowance in salary for all? If you cycle or walk to work, do you get paid less than your peers?

voldejoie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So they're paying the BIK as well as the ticket? Dunno much about how that works, but do they not end up having to pay the BIK on the BIK then?

What's in it for the employer? Would they not just include an allowance in salary for all? If you cycle or walk to work, do you get paid less than your peers?

Lots of my colleagues get paid more than me, some get more annual leave, others can avail of flexible working hours when I can't. Some have their spouses and kids covered by the health insurance policy while mine just covers me. One of our APAC offices has free onsite childcare.

Outside of public jobs with widely available pay scales it's almost impossible to know what any of your peers are earning or what their benefits are. If you walk or cycle to work that presumably is what is most convenient for you, and so your choice if offered for your public transport costs to be covered whether that was an option for you or not.

AndrewJRenko

voldejoie wrote: »

Lots of my colleagues get paid more than me, some get more annual leave, others can avail of flexible working hours when I can't. Some have their spouses and kids covered by the health insurance policy while mine just covers me. One of our APAC offices has free onsite childcare.

Outside of public jobs with widely available pay scales it's almost impossible to know what any of your peers are earning or what their benefits are. If you walk or cycle to work that presumably is what is most convenient for you, and so your choice if offered for your public transport costs to be covered whether that was an option for you or not.

Yes, I understand that people get paid different salaries, but in any organisation of any reasonable size, there will be standard packages available.

So while base salary might vary, there will be standard packages of benefits, possibly with some flexibility built in.

So is the travel saver option in one of these packages, so that if the travel saver doesn't help me, I can choose something different of similar value?

voldejoie

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Yes, I understand that people get paid different salaries, but in any organisation of any reasonable size, there will be standard packages available.

So while base salary might vary, there will be standard packages of benefits, possibly with some flexibility built in.

So is the travel saver option in one of these packages, so that if the travel saver doesn't help me, I can choose something different of similar value?

Doesn't match up with my experience at all, so would be a question better directed at your employer. Also as it's clearly not something you're familiar with it's presumably not an option where you work, so not an issue?

AndrewJRenko

voldejoie wrote: »

Doesn't match up with my experience at all, so would be a question better directed at your employer. Also as it's clearly not something you're familiar with it's presumably not an option where you work, so not an issue?

The issue is whether employers are offering additional benefits to staff who commute, or commute longer distances than other staff.

That's my question.

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The issue is whether employers are offering additional benefits to staff who commute, or commute longer distances than other staff.

That's my question.

What would the benefit be in exchange for? And I'm not being smart at all, just looking at it objectively. What are you saving your employer by going into the office rather than WFH? From their perspective, they are used to rewarding staff in exchange for deriving a benefit for themselves. At its most basic - we work, they pay! I can understand demanding an extra benefit in exchange for value you bring to the employer (like the way any payrise etc is typically negotiated) but I don't see an employer giving you a benefit "in exchange for the fact that someone else is getting a different one".

I could go to my boss tomorrow and say hey my productivity is up 20percent, I've got two approvals over the line, I've been managing xyz etc so I want some extra benefit in return to remunerate me for effort, skill etc. I can't just go to him and say Mary in Accounts is getting travel expenses so therefore I'd like free sandwiches every day.

AndrewJRenko

Antares35 wrote: »

What would the benefit be in exchange for? And I'm not being smart at all, just looking at it objectively. What are you saving your employer by going into the office rather than WFH? From their perspective, they are used to rewarding staff in exchange for deriving a benefit for themselves. At its most basic - we work, they pay! I can understand demanding an extra benefit in exchange for value you bring to the employer (like the way any payrise etc is typically negotiated) but I don't see an employer giving you a benefit "in exchange for the fact that someone else is getting a different one".

I could go to my boss tomorrow and say hey my productivity is up 20percent, I've got two approvals over the line, I've been managing xyz etc so I want some extra benefit in return to remunerate me for effort, skill etc. I can't just go to him and say Mary in Accounts is getting travel expenses so therefore I'd like free sandwiches every day.

It's not my proposal or suggestion. Others suggested it was happening.

Quote: voldejoie
. I've heard some friends who work in some of the big tech companies saying that their employers will be covering the costs of commuting if they return to the office (although most of them will have the option to be fully remote on a permanent basis).

I'm just trying to get at the facts.

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's not my proposal or suggestion. Others suggested it was happening.

Quote: voldejoie
. I've heard some friends who work in some of the big tech companies saying that their employers will be covering the costs of commuting if they return to the office (although most of them will have the option to be fully remote on a permanent basis).

I'm just trying to get at the facts.

Ah ok fair enough. Sorry I misunderstood. I haven't heard of it myself but I suppose it's good that employers are at least looking at options and different models for hybrids etc. I wouldn't mind someone getting travel expenses to go in, I'd still feel very privileged to be allowed WFH and I'd put a high value on it as a benefit.