Working From Home Megathread

AndrewJRenko

Marcusm wrote: »

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

Sure, and the employer will be taking on loads more cost as a result. Smart business move?

Marcusm wrote: »

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.

That's true. Though someone has to do the automation, someone has to run the workflow systems - certainly less clerical work, but more knowledge work, which means more valuable employees, even if less of them.

Zaney

Zaney wrote: »

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.

Genuinely curious, whats a reasonable commute?

Antares35

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.

Oh ok sorry, well I should have been more specific. You CAN say it (you can say whatever you want I suppose), I just don't think it holds any weight. But, time will tell.

So your view is that people working from home should be remunerated because they are saving the company money in facilities etc, but you've also said at one point that those to whom WFH doesn't apply should also be remunerated more because those working from home are getting a benefit that office workers are not. Everyone WFH is enjoying a "benefit" but they should be paid to endure that benefit because they are also saving the company? So, who should be getting more?? Is it that everyone should get more, but those who are office based should get more more?

Antares35

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)

I favour a model where people are free to go in if they want, WFH if they want, subject to requirements. Any hybrid proposal I have seen has stipulated a minimum number of days on site, not a maximum. Though I appreciate yours might be setting a max if I read it correctly? I'm not pushing for a scenario where you are stuck at your kitchen table for 25 years, but one where we all have the freedom to choose for ourselves. For every person who doesn't want to be stuck at home for 25 years, there's probably another who doesn't want to be commuting on the Luas red line for that amount of time, or buying a 3 bed semi in Dublin that won't be paid off til they're 65.

I think it should all be about choice really.

monkeybutter

monkeybutter wrote: »

One think WFH could promote is outsourcing

Probably going to happen anyway either way

Most companies that outsourced, were not considering the simple replacement of staff with cheaper external subcontractors, their main aim was to reduce the payroll and only have salaried staff for the critical roles within the business.


WFH doesn't really change that train of thought all that much, even though some employees fear that it is a real risk, as their job could easily be outsourced, in reality if they have such a role, it was probably already in the cross-hairs for outsourcing before covid.


Having done a year of WFH, the company may decide that there is less benefit in outsourcing than they originally thought. My main fear is that some companies may try to claw back some of the benefits they provide to office based staff from homeworkers, things like gym membership or similar.

Zaney

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)

Have they considered allowing you to work at a "office hub" (or whatever they're called) in the locality to provide the remote office option.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

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.

I know for certain that my place of work has redesigned most of the office space to be "covid friendly" and as such my workspace has gone, I am now a nomad on site the odd times I need to go in. I usually find a space in a computer room or empty conference room for an hour or so.

This is not really an issue as I usually go on site do some on hands and then go back home. I do see it being an issue if with hybrid working people all choose to go in the same day. There will be times when office meetings will not suit all, then hopefully the VC meetings will continue with teams split between a conference room and some WFH.

My place (only started a few months ago) have brought in work from anywhere policies. Basically if they've already got a presence in a country it's a a pretty simple process. Otherwise it's probably not gonna be doable for the most part unless someone switches to contracting. So I'd be pretty sure me being within an hour and a half of the office will be fine. :pac: If I'm given the option of going in 3 days a week or moving to Europe where I can't get to the office then away I'll go. :pac:

Mrs OBumble

Antares35 wrote: »

I favour a model where people are free to go in if they want, WFH if they want, subject to requirements. Any hybrid proposal I have seen has stipulated a minimum number of days on site, not a maximum. Though I appreciate yours might be setting a max if I read it correctly? I'm not pushing for a scenario where you are stuck at your kitchen table for 25 years, but one where we all have the freedom to choose for ourselves. For every person who doesn't want to be stuck at home for 25 years, there's probably another who doesn't want to be commuting on the Luas red line for that amount of time, or buying a 3 bed semi in Dublin that won't be paid off til they're 65.

I think it should all be about choice really.

Nice in theory.

But when you look at the limited amount of office space that *some* companies are likely to provide, individual choice is likely to be constrained by property. If everyone chooses to work in the office on the same day, there will not be enough space.

In principle, an employee should not be using their own materials to do a job: that means pens, paper, laptop, cellphone, deskspace, floorspace. When you violate that principle, it's a step towards an unhealthy work-life balance. In the last year, it's often felt like I'm living at work, not working from home.

JTMan

Interesting NY Times article here on how Google will build a hybrid workplace.

Interesting image on how Google will build some meeting rooms with some people in the office and some at home, giving everyone equal status ...

branie2

Brilliant idea!

Antares35

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

In principle, an employee should not be using their own materials to do a job: that means pens, paper, laptop, cellphone, deskspace, floorspace. When you violate that principle, it's a step towards an unhealthy work-life balance. In the last year, it's often felt like I'm living at work, not working from home.

I've felt completely different, which is why I've made the point that we should have a choice. What's good for one etc. Obviously no system will just have everyone rocking up to the office on a given day. It would be mayhem.

As for use of my own pens and paper being a "violation", I'll take it on the chin in exchange for not sitting in traffic for the equivalent of 1.5 working days per week

This isn't targeted at anyone (well, maybe some employers :P ) but it really boggles my mind the scabbiness of so many companies.
My sister was commuting an hour and a half each way. Was allowed work from home a couple of days in her first year if she had an excuse. Covid hit, suddenly she could WFH, they sent out about €2.5k in equipment. They let them get dinner on Friday night, paper, stationery, all that stuff is couriered out as needed.
Before I'd worked a day my company had sent me out a desk that's about €600 new, a chair worth 3-400, Macbook, 2 high-end monitors and a few others gubbins and goodies. We can request virtual cards for any other bits of stationery or small equipment we need.
I just find it baffling when a company is paying €40k+ on wages/PRSI on an individual employee that they can't free up €200 a year for incidentals. Not paying the €3.20 a day is also pretty mean-spirited. I can understand it as an oversight but larger companies doing it are taking the piss a bit.

AndrewJRenko

Antares35 wrote: »

Oh ok sorry, well I should have been more specific. You CAN say it (you can say whatever you want I suppose), I just don't think it holds any weight. But, time will tell.

So your view is that people working from home should be remunerated because they are saving the company money in facilities etc, but you've also said at one point that those to whom WFH doesn't apply should also be remunerated more because those working from home are getting a benefit that office workers are not. Everyone WFH is enjoying a "benefit" but they should be paid to endure that benefit because they are also saving the company? So, who should be getting more?? Is it that everyone should get more, but those who are office based should get more more?

You'd be a poor negotiator and really shouldn't be trusted in any commercial environment if you hand over space in your house to your employer free of of charge.

I didn't say that " those to whom WFH doesn't apply should also be remunerated more because those working from home are getting a benefit that office workers are not". I asked a question as to whether employers are actually paying commuting costs for staff, and I didn't get any clear answer.

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

...really shouldn't be trusted in any commercial environment if you hand over space in your house to your employer free of of charge.

I will allow my employer to be the judge of how far they should trust me, thanks

sterz

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't targeted at anyone (well, maybe some employers :P ) but it really boggles my mind the scabbiness of so many companies.
My sister was commuting an hour and a half each way. Was allowed work from home a couple of days in her first year if she had an excuse. Covid hit, suddenly she could WFH, they sent out about €2.5k in equipment. They let them get dinner on Friday night, paper, stationery, all that stuff is couriered out as needed.
Before I'd worked a day my company had sent me out a desk that's about €600 new, a chair worth 3-400, Macbook, 2 high-end monitors and a few others gubbins and goodies. We can request virtual cards for any other bits of stationery or small equipment we need.
I just find it baffling when a company is paying €40k+ on wages/PRSI on an individual employee that they can't free up €200 a year for incidentals. Not paying the €3.20 a day is also pretty mean-spirited. I can understand it as an oversight but larger companies doing it are taking the piss a bit.

My place didn't offer the €3.20 per day so I ended up getting a refund of around €40. They were also incredibly scabby from the outset and gave us just €120 to spend on whatever we needed to WFH. Don't get me wrong - grateful to be able to WFH and know a lot who weren't able to, but some of these companies really took the piss. Ain't a small company either.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

If everyone chooses to work in the office on the same day, there will not be enough space.

If only there was some kind of thing where you reserved a desk ahead of time before arriving on site to avoid this problem

If only

beauf

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Nice in theory.

But when you look at the limited amount of office space that *some* companies are likely to provide, individual choice is likely to be constrained by property. If everyone chooses to work in the office on the same day, there will not be enough space.

In principle, an employee should not be using their own materials to do a job: that means pens, paper, laptop, cellphone, deskspace, floorspace. When you violate that principle, it's a step towards an unhealthy work-life balance. In the last year, it's often felt like I'm living at work, not working from home.

If they all fit in the office before Covid nothing will have changed. There are simple ways around this anyway.

Some jobs supply everything some jobs don't. That's not new either.

History Does Not Repeat Itself, But It Rhymes.
A famous quote but with the current trend towards WFH is true.
Back before mass transit in the form of commuter trains, trams etc, the vast majority of people "lived over the shop" sometimes literally in the case of shopkeepers, or in the big house if they were servants or farm cottages, railway station houses and so on.
All others lived within walking distance, even if this meant an hour's walk each way or more.

With Mass Transit and excessive costs of living in key towns, commuting became common and then long distance commuting became accepted as road conditions improved.
Now with covid, we have been forced to reevaluate the necessity to work physically in one place and live elsewhere with several hours commute a week between the two.

Such a move is also great for the environment with the reduction in vehicle pollution as well as congestion, in the long term it could mean fewer vehicles registered.

Zaney

beauf wrote: »

If they all fit in the office before Covid nothing will have changed. There are simple ways around this anyway.

Some jobs supply everything some jobs don't. That's not new either.

Wait until the next lease renewals kick in and the moves to smaller offices.

In my case, we were running out of space pre-Covid and discussions had started to get another floor in our building - not going to happen now. So no, there won’t be space for all of us.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Such a move is also great for the environment with the reduction in vehicle pollution as well as congestion, in the long term it could mean fewer vehicles registered.

You could find a lot of two-car families becoming one-car families, maybe with bikes or eBikes or cargo bikes or car sharing schemes taking up some of the slack. That can mean a huge cost saving for a family.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You could find a lot of two-car families becoming one-car families, maybe with bikes or eBikes or cargo bikes or car sharing schemes taking up some of the slack. That can mean a huge cost saving for a family.

Exactly, a small cheap runabout for the local day to day travel and a quality hire car for the long family holiday journeys.

Zaney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Such a move is also great for the environment with the reduction in vehicle pollution as well as congestion, in the long term it could mean fewer vehicles registered.

Not necessarily. Heating individual homes in winter is highly inefficient (until we retrofit everything which will take many years).

We are yet to see what impact WFH will have on where people choose to live - in more car dependent areas perhaps.

I think the most likely scenario is public transport demand will fall but car demand will remain largely unchanged or even increase nationally due to people leaving Dublin.

But I don’t think anyone knows.

beauf

Zaney wrote: »

Wait until the next lease renewals kick in and the moves to smaller offices.

In my case, we were running out of space pre-Covid and discussions had started to get another floor in our building - not going to happen now. So no, there won’t be space for all of us.

Sounds like there wasn't pre Covid either.

Our place had downsized a few years ago to save money and it made no sense. They picked a unsuitable building with an awkward layout, and have spent the last few years getting square peg in a round hole. We'd run out of space a while ago. I expect lockdown will give them a years breathing space.

I could see us moving into a different office one that's set up better for hot desks and more meeting spaces that are reconfigurable. In our current office we have one space that can be opened in one big space or divided into multiple offices for smaller meetings. Things likes that. I could see lower numbers making our canteen unviable though.

BrianD3

Zaney wrote: »

Not necessarily. Heating individual homes in winter is highly inefficient (until we retrofit everything which will take many years).

You don't heat the house, you heat a small home office. A 1 kW carbon heater like this one would be sufficient, no matter how badly a house is insulated. 1 kW x 8 hours per day for say, 150 days per year = 1200 kWh. Assume 300g CO2 per kWh = 0.36 tonnes of CO2. Cost to the homeowner in terms of increased electricity bills, about 265 euros.

Compare that with doing a 100 km round trip commute for 230 working days per year using an internal combustion engine and you're talking about 2-3 tonnes of CO2 and about 1200 euros spent on fuel.

And the above doesn't take account of the CO2 saved from not having people in offices, some of which would be new/well insulated but plenty would not be. Also doesn't take account of savings on car maintenance. Also doesn't take account of shopping around for a better unit rate from your electricity supplier.

AlmightyCushion

BrianD3 wrote: »

You don't heat the house, you heat a small home office. A 1 Kw carbon heater like this one would be sufficient, no matter how badly a house is insulated. 1 Kw x 8 hours per day for say, 150 days per year = 1200 kWh. Assume 300g CO2 per kWh = 0.36 tonnes of CO2. Cost to the homeowner in terms of increased electricity bills, about 265 euros.

Compare that with doing a 100 km round trip commute for 230 working days per year using an internal combustion engine and you're talking about 2-3 tonnes of CO2 and about 1200 euros spent on fuel.

And the above doesn't take account of the CO2 saved from not having people in offices, some of which would be new/well insulated but plenty would not be. Also doesn't take account of savings on car maintenance.

Our office is an ice box every morning in winter until the air con has run long enough to heat it up.

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You could find a lot of two-car families becoming one-car families, maybe with bikes or eBikes or cargo bikes or car sharing schemes taking up some of the slack. That can mean a huge cost saving for a family.

This I can actually agree with you on.

We had planned on becoming a two car family this year by adding a small car for my adult daughter. The last year has shown a second car would be superfluous to our needs as long as I am WFH. Sharing one car works perfectly well for us, with my current working arrangements. I barely use the car during the week, if at all.

If I do go back to office based work it will be max 2 days a week and will be much closer to home, so I can either walk or she can drop me off / pick me up in bad weather. If needed, we can revisit the issue of a second car if it becomes an issue then.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

I know for certain that my place of work has redesigned most of the office space to be "covid friendly" and as such my workspace has gone, I am now a nomad on site the odd times I need to go in. I usually find a space in a computer room or empty conference room for an hour or so.

This is not really an issue as I usually go on site do some on hands and then go back home. I do see it being an issue if with hybrid working people all choose to go in the same day. There will be times when office meetings will not suit all, then hopefully the VC meetings will continue with teams split between a conference room and some WFH.

Absolutely, any hybrid oiffice space needs to be replanned to enable collaboration etc rather than simple desk working. Office attendance will have to be scheduled to make sure that it is not over occupied. People flow management as an add on to workflow management.

Marcusm

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You'd be a poor negotiator and really shouldn't be trusted in any commercial environment if you hand over space in your house to your employer free of of charge.

I didn't say that " those to whom WFH doesn't apply should also be remunerated more because those working from home are getting a benefit that office workers are not". I asked a question as to whether employers are actually paying commuting costs for staff, and I didn't get any clear answer.

This is such a narrow perspective except for circumstances where an employer imposed working from home. Absent such an impositon, it should be up to the employee to decide whether the trade off is worth it. Few reputable employers would seek to impose mandatory WFH such that the concept of compensation should not arise.

JDD

Surely there is some peer reviewed research out there on the average cost saving vs the average extra cost to a worker WFH?

Savings: Commuting costs, lunches out, casual drinks on a Friday

vs

Cost: Extra light, heat, initial cost of furniture if not provided by the company.


If I was an employer, and the union came to me and said "tell me how much you are saving from not using that second office block, and pass that saving to our members, because it's costing them more to be at home", I would say "Any member who feels like they are spending more at home should feel absolutely welcome to come back to the office full time".

And we'd see how many would actually choose to do that. Not many, I'd expect.