Working From Home Megathread

beauf

Bambi wrote: »

The funny thing about Agile, is if you have a Venn diagram of people who use the term and people who understand what the term actually means there would be an area with very little overlap

That's why I say Agile like and not Agile. Most places don't even do waterfall properly. We seemed to have devolved into working of chunks of work in small sprints in small interdisciplinary teams, not by design, but because nothing else worked. The large monolithic projects tend to become unmanageable.

So working remotely tends to lead itself to smaller more frequent group working and a faster turnaround of smaller blocks of work. You can have instant meetings and a more dynamic approach to everything you do.

Though obviously some people can choose to just drop off the radar. Those that want to be road blocks can do that equally well remotely.

JTMan

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1387836872274194460

HairySalmon

JTMan wrote: »

https://twitter.com/MichealLehane/status/1387836872274194460

I think by September and with new variants knocking around the government will just push it out until
January just in case

JTMan

Some large Irish companies have started to announce their post-Covid hybrid-policy ...

The hybrid policy in AIB will allow certain employees work three days a week from home. AIB to exit leases on 3 buildings as a consequence.

JTMan

JTMan wrote: »

Some large Irish companies have started to announce their post-Covid hybrid-policy ...

The hybrid policy in AIB will allow certain employees work three days a week from home. AIB to exit leases on 3 buildings as a consequence.

That last line will be one of the major drivers of WFH as org's see the savings that can be made

Antares35

JTMan wrote: »

Some large Irish companies have started to announce their post-Covid hybrid-policy ...

The hybrid policy in AIB will allow certain employees work three days a week from home. AIB to exit leases on 3 buildings as a consequence.

Great to see and hopefully others will follow suit to allow workers have some flexibility.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

That last line will be one of the major drivers of WFH as org's see the savings that can be made

I'm sure the FSU will be banging the door down to ensure that employees get to share in the benefit of these savings.

Frank Bullitt

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Small issues that could be solved quickly F2F sometimes become major dramas.

Far more difficult to integrate new hires: despite zoom, I don't even begin to trust people I've never met.

For some employees, increased cost: if I had to do it post-covid I would need to rent a bigger house In the meantime I just put up with backache and interruptions because my apartment is just too small for working and living.

Lack of backup equipment: in the office, if someone's PC breaks, they just use one being's to whoever is away that day. At home, there are no spares, so hardware malfunction may mean 1-2 days unable to work.

I think that says more about you over the issue of WFH. If you hire someone (having met them or not) but won't trust them unless you meet or have them in an office, that tells me that you have issues with trusting a new hire to do the job they are hired to do.

monkeybutter

For WFH to be adopted people need to push hard for it across the board


Make it the new normal

I see now a few big companies are pushing back against it, so has my own, mid management fear seem to be playing it's part

Stupid really as our team already has outsourced so most aren't going to be in the office for you to deal with

Mid management tend to be older, more backward looking and can't stand loosing their mini empires, also it's more work for them as they actually have to manage remote workers

I'd say most will just meekly let it slip, maybe they are happier away from their kids all day


Life has been much better since covid in work terms, the commute for those not walking or cycling is just years of wasted time and expense for nothing, zero

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I'm sure the FSU will be banging the door down to ensure that employees get to share in the benefit of these savings.

I'm not in a union myself and don't know much about the FSU admittedly, but I'm not sure they would be so quick to. I'm sure many employees would be only too glad to have the additional benefit of working from home - why would they demand to be compensated for what is viewed by many, myself included, as a privilege? And it goes back to a point I made a few weeks ago here too, when you mentioned something about workers being entitled to increased pay solely on the basis that others are getting a benefit. Remuneration is usually determined by their skillset, expertise, qualifications, role, responsibility etc.

You can't just say, "the company is making more money/ saving money therefore gimme". It doesn't really work like that, and I honestly can't see that argument holding up.

I could be wrong of course and only time will tell, but I just have a sense that people will be only too glad with the new work/ life balance they have been given to start shouting for compensation.

monkeybutter

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

I think that says more about you over the issue of WFH. If you hire someone (having met them or not) but won't trust them unless you meet or have them in an office, that tells me that you have issues with trusting a new hire to do the job they are hired to do.

I'd say it is fairly normal to have a probationary period for new hires for the very reason you have nothing to base trust in your ability to do the job based on a few interviews so hardly a new issue

BrianD3

monkeybutter wrote: »

For WFH to be adopted people need to push hard for it across the board


Make it the new normal

I see now a few big companies are pushing back against it, so has my own, mid management fear seem to be playing it's part

Stupid really as our team already has outsourced so most aren't going to be in the office for you to deal with

Mid management tend to be older, more backward looking and can't stand loosing their mini empires, also it's more work for them as they actually have to manage remote workers

I'd say most will just meekly let it slip, maybe they are happier away from their kids all day


Life has been much better since covid in work terms, the commute for those not walking or cycling is just years of wasted time and expense for nothing, zero

If everyone reading this thread makes a submission to the public consultation on Right To Request Remote Working, they will at least have done something. Push hard and don't assume someone else will. Takes about 10 mins to make a submission.

https://www.gov.ie/en/consultation/1aaac-public-consultation-on-the-introduction-of-a-right-to-request-remote-work/

AndrewJRenko

Antares35 wrote: »

You can't just say, "the company is making more money/ saving money therefore gimme".

Why not?

What you can say is - 'the company is making more money, because I'm providing a facility that the company used to pay a market price for, I'm providing space, I'm providing light, heat, power, I'm providing furniture, I'm providing network bandwidth, and I don't really feel like subsidising my employer's operating costs any more.

monkeybutter

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why not?

What you can say is - 'the company is making more money, because I'm providing a facility that the company used to pay a market price for, I'm providing space, I'm providing light, heat, power, I'm providing furniture, I'm providing network bandwidth, and I don't really feel like subsidising my employer's operating costs any more.

And they tell you to sling your hook

AndrewJRenko

monkeybutter wrote: »

And they tell you to sling your hook

You do know how unions work, right?

Frank Bullitt

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

ALL the evidence?

Some of the articles I've seen lately take a more nuanced view, especially for organisations which want to change how things are done.

And there's a fair body of research around Agile, which mostly says co-location is better than multi-location.

https://about.gitlab.com/remote-work-report/

Here is some evidence for you. Pretty comprehensive survey, here are some snippets from it for you.

TALENT FLOWS WHERE FLEXIBILITY REIGNS
52% of remote workers noted that they would consider leaving their co-located company for a remote role— particularly significant given the global job market volatility. If remote work was suddenly no longer an option, 1 in 3 respondents would leave their job— either by finding a new role, or retiring completely.

TRANSPARENCY = BELONGING
34% of respondents noted that transparency from leadership leads to connectedness at work, while 38% noted that more visibility into the organization improved their sense of connection. There’s an interesting parallel between transparency and belonging. Put simply, it’s easier to feel like part of a team when you can easily see what others are working toward.

This one above speaks more to what you were saying about not trusting teams in different countries etc.

THE COPY-AND-PASTE CONUNDRUM
Only 10% default to a visual collaboration tool,
while 19% rely on project and task management tools. The vast majority are still leaning on tools used for office-centric, largely synchronous workflows.
There is a massive opportunity for tools, technologies, and workflows to move organizations toward more inclusive, asynchronous methods.

THE CONTRAST OF PERCEPTION AND REALITY
There's a disconnect between the ostensibly high levels of satisfaction with remote work and the actual pain people are feeling day-to-day. While 4 in 5 would recommend remote working to a friend and 81%
of people are satisfied with productivity, teamwork across organizations is struggling. Just 37% report that their organization does a good job of aligning work across projects.

So as you can probably gather from these, the main issues are trying to shoehorn office practises to remote, which does not work in the slightest.

WFH can, and does, work for a lot more than it doesn't. If you like to commute and listen to podcasts, you can do that with WFH, you just have to make the time. If you want to interact with your team or manager or other departments, you can, there are ways.

With remote or async, once you have clear directives around what you are doing, what is expected and when it can be expected by, there should be no issues.

For someone to insist on checking in on a team to make sure they are delivering (just because they are remote), that says more about them and the company principles more than those who are working remotely.

Marcusm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Why not?

What you can say is - 'the company is making more money, because I'm providing a facility that the company used to pay a market price for, I'm providing space, I'm providing light, heat, power, I'm providing furniture, I'm providing network bandwidth, and I don't really feel like subsidising my employer's operating costs any more.

Sure you can easily eliminate those costs by insisting on attending at the workplace each day!

Marcusm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You do know how unions work, right?

Covid has reinforced the digital agenda with financial services especially within retail financial services. Automation, workflow management is going to continue to reduce the workforce. Those unions are becoming less effective without them even realising it.

monkeybutter

One think WFH could promote is outsourcing

Probably going to happen anyway either way

Zaney

Antares35 wrote: »

Great to see and hopefully others will follow suit to allow workers have some flexibility.

I personally disagree. My company is switching to hybrid permanently.

We’re looking to move house in the next 5 years. Now going to have to be close enough to have reasonable commute to Dublin 2 or 3 days a week and have enough space for a decent home office. Cost of office space being thrown onto the employee. I’ve had 12 months of working at the kitchen table, I’m not doing it for another 25 years. I want to go back to the office fulltime, but won’t have the option as there won’t be space (we were slightly at capacity and looking to expand office pre-Covid)

Frank Bullitt

monkeybutter wrote: »

I'd say it is fairly normal to have a probationary period for new hires for the very reason you have nothing to base trust in your ability to do the job based on a few interviews so hardly a new issue

Then why hire them in the first place? There can be probation periods but that should be purely based on results.

If you have to hover over someone to make sure they are doing their job, I am sorry, but that is not how you manage or lead. That is how you rule.

monkeybutter

Zaney wrote: »

I personally disagree. My company is switching to hybrid permanently.

We’re looking to move house in the next 5 years. Now going to have to be close enough to have reasonable commute to Dublin 2 or 3 days a week and have enough space for a decent home office. Cost of office space being thrown onto the employee. I’ve had 12 months of working at the kitchen table, I’m not doing it for another 25 years. I want to go back to the office fulltime, but won’t have the option as there won’t be space (we were slightly at capacity and looking to expand office pre-Covid)

It's about flexibility as they said

I mean you can surely see the benefit of you took half the commuters off the road to you

Those who want or have to commute should want others not to

monkeybutter

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

Then why hire them in the first place? There can be probation periods but that should be purely based on results.

If you have to hover over someone to make sure they are doing their job, I am sorry, but that is not how you manage or lead. That is how you rule.

No one said you hover

You just don't assume and keep an eye on them

You have to hire someone, there's no way to be sure of someone from the hiring process

So you build in safeguards

Frank Bullitt

monkeybutter wrote: »

No one said you hover

You just don't assume and keep an eye on them

You have to hire someone, there's no way to be sure of someone from the hiring process

So you build in safeguards

Surely this is a failing then on your process and need to "keep an eye on them".

That flat out wreaks of lack of trust, and if that is the company culture, then potentially employees should be aware of that in the interview process.

Marcusm

Zaney wrote: »

I personally disagree. My company is switching to hybrid permanently.

We’re looking to move house in the next 5 years. Now going to have to be close enough to have reasonable commute to Dublin 2 or 3 days a week and have enough space for a decent home office. Cost of office space being thrown onto the employee. I’ve had 12 months of working at the kitchen table, I’m not doing it for another 25 years. I want to go back to the office fulltime, but won’t have the option as there won’t be space (we were slightly at capacity and looking to expand office pre-Covid)

An enforced hybrid arrangement is a material change; perhaps your employer will be willing to allow you to work from the office fully. It seems odd to enforce a hybrid model where it is not requested nor common. Many want a hybrid model but many want to choose a la cartel office attendance which makes workspace planning impossible.

monkeybutter

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

Surely this is a failing then on your process and need to "keep an eye on them".

That flat out wreaks of lack of trust, and if that is the company culture, then potentially employees should be aware of that in the interview process.

Your hiring process is perfect is it?

You earn trust

You manage, part of this is monitoring, if you aren't doing that, well, not much of a manager methinks

Sure offer them an iron clad 10 year contract off you go

Frank Bullitt

monkeybutter wrote: »

Your hiring process is perfect is it?

You earn trust

You manage, part of this is monitoring, if you aren't doing that, well, not much of a manager methinks

Sure offer them an iron clad 10 year contract off you go

Not perfect at all, but we don't apply a Big Brother tone to it either.

You manage, your main directive should be results, if there is a failing that then you highlight that to your team. If you lead in an approachable manner, there shouldn't be an issue with buy in from your employees. If your team is falling short on that, the buck stops with you.

You are sounding a bit childish with the 10 contract carry on. You hire someone to do that job and trust them to do that. You lay it out in the contract and company handbook of what is expected. You don't rule with an iron fist to make sure they stay in line. Trust them to do the work that is expected, and your job will also be easier.

monkeybutter

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

Not perfect at all, but we don't apply a Big Brother tone to it either.

You manage, your main directive should be results, if there is a failing that then you highlight that to your team. If you lead in an approachable manner, there shouldn't be an issue with buy in from your employees. If your team is falling short on that, the buck stops with you.

You are sounding a bit childish with the 10 contract carry on. You hire someone to do that job and trust them to do that. You lay it out in the contract and company handbook of what is expected. You don't rule with an iron fist to make sure they stay in line. Trust them to do the work that is expected, and your job will also be easier.

You won't be long in the job yourself if you try that

Not once was an iron fist mentioned

Would ya hire a builder to build you a home based on results or would you keep an eye on them

If your team is falling short you want to know about it as soon as possible, that's why you keep an eye on them

Once they have proven they can do the job you need to do less checking

I mean it's common sense

Frank Bullitt

monkeybutter wrote: »

You won't be long in the job yourself if you try that

Not once was an iron fist mentioned

Would ya hire a builder to build you a home based on results or would you keep an eye on them

If your team is falling short you want to know about it as soon as possible, that's why you keep an eye on them

Once they have proven they can do the job you need to do less checking

I mean it's common sense

I work for a fully remote/async company who does just that, and has grown considerably over the last year due to the shift of remote work. So things are going just fine on that one

Your "common sense" sounds factory worker-esque. You seem to think that asses in seats and if you can see people that you are in control of their output, which is false.

How will you know if your team is falling short before results or deliverables are shown? Will you use a crystal ball? Or if you see one not at their desk for 15 minute, will you have to step in and let them know?

Zaney

monkeybutter wrote: »

It's about flexibility as they said

I mean you can surely see the benefit of you took half the commuters off the road to you

Those who want or have to commute should want others not to

Half the commuters will not disappear off any road. They may disappear off overcrowded buses and trains. As I see it, over time people may move further out, away from expensive houses on well served public transport links and instead drive one or two or three days a week.

Most car demand to Dublin is related to the number of parking spaces and I’d see these as probably being shared the same way desks will be.