Working From Home Megathread

I suspect those costs would vary wildly, given that some posters on this thread have described employers who provide them with both breakfast and lunch for free every day, plus snacks and coffee for free, as opposed to others who do not have any of those added perks.

Mrs OBumble

zebastein wrote: »

The question I have for your is: would you trust Irish/European colleagues that would start for your company tomorrow and work fully remote ?

Coming back to this now I'm using a full keybaord:

I don't trust them nearly as much as ones I've met face-to-face and had a chance to observe their formal and informal workplace behaviour and attitudes. I have a particular professional interest in aspects of their competence with IT and systematic thinking / behaviour. It's a lot harder to observe the second part of that, when you don't have regular informal contact, and managers have asked me to put in place a few systems-based checks that they didn't need when we were office based.

This may not affect day to day job operations, but it certainly affects long term team spirit, commitment to the company - and also the company's commitment to getting the best of of its hires. In 12 months, I've already seen 2 people let go at their probation review, and for at least one I think a further chance would have been given (or not issue would have arisen) if we were office based and their manager could have given coaching more easily.

AndrewJRenko

Marcusm wrote: »

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.

It's actually a fairly strategic perspective. The employer could well be facing into very significant reductions in operating expenses, achieved by the employee's willingness to hand over space in their own home for the employer's purpose. If employees don't approach this change strategically to ensure a fair sharing of the cost savings, management and shareholders will be laughing all the way to the bank, nudging each other's elbows with the old 'Never waste a good crisis' mantra. If the employee fails to recognise this, it really doesn't say much for their commercial savvy.

JDD wrote: »

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.

Commuting costs are none of the employer's business. They didn't increase your salary every time petrol prices rose or every time train fares increased. They don't get to take credit for decreases. It's nothing to do with the employer.

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Commuting costs are none of the employer's business.

Really?

salonfire

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

It's actually a fairly strategic perspective. The employer could well be facing into very significant reductions in operating expenses, achieved by the employee's willingness to hand over space in their own home for the employer's purpose. If employees don't approach this change strategically to ensure a fair sharing of the cost savings, management and shareholders will be laughing all the way to the bank, nudging each other's elbows with the old 'Never waste a good crisis' mantra. If the employee fails to recognise this, it really doesn't say much for their commercial savvy.

Good for them!! I hope they do.

I know I certainly want the companies I have ever worked in to be successful, buoyant, working in an sustainable costs environment and returning strong investment growth. Means more returns for those of us who have shares (often actual employees of the company itself) and stronger grounds to win salary increases. Win win!

I am glad you see the positives as well!

AndrewJRenko

Antares35 wrote: »

Really?

Did you employer ever give you an increase to cover increases in fuel prices?

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Did you employer ever give you an increase to cover increases in fuel prices?

Of course not. Although inflation does factor into our salary reviews. They also didn't pay people extra for commuting in to the office instead of WFH I'm just a little confused because a while ago you were talking about the cost of commuting and asking questions about remuneration for those who don't have the "benefit" of home working etc. But now you claim commuting costs are none of the employer's business.

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.

Antares35

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0430/1213126-aib-staff-to-work-3-days-from-home/

AIB moving to a 3 day remote model it seems, where appropriate.

Frank Bullitt

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Coming back to this now I'm using a full keybaord:

I don't trust them nearly as much as ones I've met face-to-face and had a chance to observe their formal and informal workplace behaviour and attitudes. I have a particular professional interest in aspects of their competence with IT and systematic thinking / behaviour. It's a lot harder to observe the second part of that, when you don't have regular informal contact, and managers have asked me to put in place a few systems-based checks that they didn't need when we were office based.

This may not affect day to day job operations, but it certainly affects long term team spirit, commitment to the company - and also the company's commitment to getting the best of of its hires. In 12 months, I've already seen 2 people let go at their probation review, and for at least one I think a further chance would have been given (or not issue would have arisen) if we were office based and their manager could have given coaching more easily.

I am so glad I don't work under you.

Of course you are going to need new processes (you call them "systems checks"?) when you go remote. Clearly what has stifled your view of remote working is sticking to office practices in a remote world, that is a clear fail on your companies part.

And it really strikes me that you are possibly one of those kinds of managers that needs to be seen doing and around over focusing on results. Your comment around "I have a particular professional interest in aspects of their competence with IT and systematic thinking / behaviour." makes me wonder why you would want to hire them at all? Shouldn't you, as a manager, be focused on results? If that is the case, surely making sure your team are happy and trusted would then equal to better output.

According to remote workers, the top 3 remote-work benefits to employers are increased productivity (42%), increased efficiency (38%), and increased employee morale (31%).

This is from the report I posted a few pages back, a 42% increase on productivity is not to be sniffed at, along with the increase in morale.

AndrewJRenko

Antares35 wrote: »

Of course not. Although inflation does factor into our salary reviews. They also didn't pay people extra for commuting in to the office instead of WFH I'm just a little confused because a while ago you were talking about the cost of commuting and asking questions about remuneration for those who don't have the "benefit" of home working etc. But now you claim commuting costs are none of the employer's business.

So if the employer didn't pay for your commuting costs in the past, why are you letting them take credit for reduced commuting costs in the present?

You keep dragging up one question that I asked as if it represents an opinion or position. One poster mentioned about employers paying commuting costs. This seemed unusual to me, so I asked a question to clarify, which didn't get any answer unfortunately. I didn't give any opinion on whether employers should or shouldn't pay commuting costs, so you're scraping the bottom of the barrel here by repeatedly bringing this up as some kind of gotcha.

Zaney

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. Also doesn't take account of shopping around for a better unit rate from your electricity supplier.

But not everyone who will be WFH previously drove. I’ve never driven to work.

The impacts are far more complex than you’ve set out, especially by implying that everyone previously commuted 50km by car and that everyone has a small home office as an alternative. And not including for changes in where people chose to live over the longer term as I have raised previously.

All I’m saying is the issue is complex and there is no certainty at all that WFH will result in significant environmental benefits. Especially if companies opt for hybrid as my company has and AIB has. This puts it better than I can, https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2020/06/remote-working-energy-use-coronavirus/

“Despite mass home-working, some research suggests that overall energy savings are likely to be limited, and in many cases could be non-existent. In fact, we might actually be using more energy, according to a new report published in IOPscience.”

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So if the employer didn't pay for your commuting costs in the past, why are you letting them take credit for reduced commuting costs in the present?

I'm...not?

AndrewJRenko

Antares35 wrote: »

I'm...not?

So what's this all about?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117060610&postcount=2447

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So what's this all about?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117060610&postcount=2447

"All this" - one word

That's me asking you if you're sure that commuting costs are none of your employers business, after you said as much.

How did you take from that that I give my employer credit for reduced transportation costs?

Your mental gymnastics are quite impressive.

Leinsterfan18

Anyone else find out this morning that they are expected back in the office full time on Monday 10th? First time being in the office in 2021.

25 in our office and back full time with no choice and little notice is disappointing.

Antares35

Leinsterfan18 wrote: »

Anyone else find out this morning that they are expected back in the office full time on Monday 10th? First time being in the office in 2021.

25 in our office and back full time with no choice and little notice is disappointing.

Are they not still advising employers to allow WFH where possible? That's very disappointing alright, and such short notice.

average_runner

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So if the employer didn't pay for your commuting costs in the past, why are you letting them take credit for reduced commuting costs in the present?

Most employers have helped in reducing the cost of commuting in the past.


Most companies will do the taxsaver scheme and all the paper work for you, they could of easily let you do it yourself.


The bike to work scheme, most employers are providing this, i know a few who aren't


Alot of companies are providing showers and lockers so we can have more than one way of commute, hence saving you costs on your commute.


Some companies will give you a budget of $,$$$ a year to spend on your well being, that can be from a new bike, new kit, etc

zebastein

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Coming back to this now I'm using a full keybaord:

I don't trust them nearly as much as ones I've met face-to-face and had a chance to observe their formal and informal workplace behaviour and attitudes. I have a particular professional interest in aspects of their competence with IT and systematic thinking / behaviour. It's a lot harder to observe the second part of that, when you don't have regular informal contact, and managers have asked me to put in place a few systems-based checks that they didn't need when we were office based.

This may not affect day to day job operations, but it certainly affects long term team spirit, commitment to the company - and also the company's commitment to getting the best of of its hires. In 12 months, I've already seen 2 people let go at their probation review, and for at least one I think a further chance would have been given (or not issue would have arisen) if we were office based and their manager could have given coaching more easily.

In my team, 3 people have been hired in 2020. We had managers that had the same logic as yours: not trusting people hired during Covid as much as they trusted people that have been in the company for a while. Unconsciously, the new hires were not given the same chances: not being invited to all the meetings because they had to prove more before being involved in decisions, not being given all the information and all the contexts. That created a two-speeds company with a group of people that were long in the company deciding everything and sharing news informally between them, and new hires sitting on their own in the shadow.



Eventually the 3 new hires resigned. they had never felt integrated properly, they had never felt that they fully had the responsibilities they should have, so when other companies knocked on the door, they never felt they owed anything to the company and left.


That is the risk of WFH, it is already hard enough for people to feel part of the company when being remote, but if they are considered as second class employees because they were not there before covid, then the turnover rate will stay really high.

Leinsterfan18

Leinsterfan18 wrote: »

Anyone else find out this morning that they are expected back in the office full time on Monday 10th? First time being in the office in 2021.

25 in our office and back full time with no choice and little notice is disappointing.

Sounds like your manager is a bit of a control freak, was WFH good or bad for productivity?

zebastein

zebastein wrote: »

In my team, 3 people have been hired in 2020. We had managers that had the same logic as yours: not trusting people hired during Covid as much as they trusted people that have been in the company for a while. Unconsciously, the new hires were not given the same chances: not being invited to all the meetings because they had to prove more before being involved in decisions, not being given all the information and all the contexts. That created a two-speeds company with a group of people that were long in the company deciding everything and sharing news informally between them, and new hires sitting on their own in the shadow.



Eventually the 3 new hires resigned. they had never felt integrated properly, they had never felt that they fully had the responsibilities they should have, so when other companies knocked on the door, they never felt they owed anything to the company and left.


That is the risk of WFH, it is already hard enough for people to feel part of the company when being remote, but if they are considered as second class employees because they were not there before covid, then the turnover rate will stay really high.

The company I work for have tried as much as is reasonably practicable to include the new hires, one person is now almost full time in the office as their role is mostly hands on and another is still 100% WHF as their role is mainly remote support, but they're still involved in team meetings and the like.

average_runner

zebastein wrote: »

In my team, 3 people have been hired in 2020. We had managers that had the same logic as yours: not trusting people hired during Covid as much as they trusted people that have been in the company for a while. Unconsciously, the new hires were not given the same chances: not being invited to all the meetings because they had to prove more before being involved in decisions, not being given all the information and all the contexts. That created a two-speeds company with a group of people that were long in the company deciding everything and sharing news informally between them, and new hires sitting on their own in the shadow.



Eventually the 3 new hires resigned. they had never felt integrated properly, they had never felt that they fully had the responsibilities they should have, so when other companies knocked on the door, they never felt they owed anything to the company and left.


That is the risk of WFH, it is already hard enough for people to feel part of the company when being remote, but if they are considered as second class employees because they were not there before covid, then the turnover rate will stay really high.

A good manager/Team Lead would stop this from happening. Also once offices are open, new hires will be able to go in to get up to speed. Not everyone will work from home everyday

Mrs OBumble

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

I am so glad I don't work under you.

Of course you are going to need new processes (you call them "systems checks"?) when you go remote. Clearly what has stifled your view of remote working is sticking to office practices in a remote world, that is a clear fail on your companies part.

And it really strikes me that you are possibly one of those kinds of managers that needs to be seen doing and around over focusing on results. Your comment around "I have a particular professional interest in aspects of their competence with IT and systematic thinking / behaviour." makes me wonder why you would want to hire them at all? Shouldn't you, as a manager, be focused on results? If that is the case, surely making sure your team are happy and trusted would then equal to better output.

Dunno how many times I have to say it: I'm NOT a manager.

I provide tools and services in a supporting area.

The managers hire people with knowledge and skills in the core service we provide. They don't really care if the people are competent with technology or not. Whereas I do, because I have to assess what level of support they need, and how much I can rely on self-reported "hardware problems".

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Dunno how many times I have to say it: I'm NOT a manager.

I provide tools and services in a supporting area.

The managers hire people with knowledge and skills in the core service we provide. They don't really care if the people are competent with technology or not. Whereas I do, because I have to assess what level of support they need, and how much I can rely on self-reported "hardware problems".

If you have issues with the staff hiring processes wrt to the staff hired, then you really should speak to management and try to join or have an input to the hiring process.

baldbear

Working for a multinational and like other companies we were told from September we will be back in our office. That was an update from last year. We were also asked in future would we like to wfm/office mix. I reckon we should hear final details soon

Also, told there would be no redundancies due to covid. But due to business needs not covid there has been redundancies.

average_runner

Deleted User wrote: »

If you have issues with the staff hiring processes wrt to the staff hired, then you really should speak to management and try to join or have an input to the hiring process.

Maybe things aren't that simple. We don't know the full picture so hard to fully understand how it all works.


There is always a solution though, but communication needs to be good for that to happen

Lefty2Guns

Had a call last week and it was mentioned that they hope to have people return to office sometime in the summer.

We also had to complete a survey about continuing to WFH or a mix of both. 93% said mix of WFH and return to office based on a two day WFH and 3 days from home and vice versa.

I'm nearly 15 months WFH and quite happy to continue to do so.

I have also moved companies in between those months.

JDD

We've been told we will not be back before September. Even then it will only be one day a week in the office initially.

The powers that be are in the process of putting a new working arrangement in place. They have told us that it will be based on either 2 or 3 days WFH, but as of yet they have not decided that. They also have to get it past our Board before it can be implemented.

Whether it's 2 or 3 days in the office makes a big difference to a significant chunk of our workforce. Many want to sell up in Dublin and buy something down the country. Two days in the office is financially doable: drive/train it up on a Monday morning, stay overnight at a friend's or a cheap hotel, drive/train it back down on a Tuesday evening. With a reduced mortgage cost, you could absorb the train & overnight cost. But two nights in a hotel is a different story. Apart from the extra cost, if you have a young family the other parent will need to work close by, rather than in Dublin, so that they can do the drop offs/pick ups three days a week. That's a big ask. It would really only work if you had a stay-at-home parent.

Frank Bullitt

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Dunno how many times I have to say it: I'm NOT a manager.

I provide tools and services in a supporting area.

The managers hire people with knowledge and skills in the core service we provide. They don't really care if the people are competent with technology or not. Whereas I do, because I have to assess what level of support they need, and how much I can rely on self-reported "hardware problems".

You really shouldn't. If you aren't a manager or in a leadership position, then it is non of your concern if workers are competent with the tech, their manager is in charge of that and supports their output.

A persons skills goes beyond the tools they use.

JDD

JDD wrote: »

We've been told we will not be back before September. Even then it will only be one day a week in the office initially.

The powers that be are in the process of putting a new working arrangement in place. They have told us that it will be based on either 2 or 3 days WFH, but as of yet they have not decided that. They also have to get it past our Board before it can be implemented.

Whether it's 2 or 3 days in the office makes a big difference to a significant chunk of our workforce. Many want to sell up in Dublin and buy something down the country. Two days in the office is financially doable: drive/train it up on a Monday morning, stay overnight at a friend's or a cheap hotel, drive/train it back down on a Tuesday evening. With a reduced mortgage cost, you could absorb the train & overnight cost. But two nights in a hotel is a different story. Apart from the extra cost, if you have a young family the other parent will need to work close by, rather than in Dublin, so that they can do the drop offs/pick ups three days a week. That's a big ask. It would really only work if you had a stay-at-home parent.

Again I have to ask, what benefit is the hybrid model in this case

Two days in the office is financially doable: drive/train it up on a Monday morning, stay overnight at a friend's or a cheap hotel, drive/train it back down on a Tuesday evening.

Seriously, what kind of quality of life is that

I would be challenging any employer who goes for the hybrid model to strongly justify why I'd be needed onsite when my absence in the last 14 months has not impacted the business negatively

If those justifications contained "team morale, relationship building, cohesion etc" I would be asking for evidence those things suffered during the last 14 months.

If they couldn't back up those justifications I'd be saying "there is no need for me to be onsite and the impact to my personal life is too great". If they don't like it, no problem, there's plenty of other employers using 100% WFH as a big ass carrot

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Again I have to ask, what benefit is the hybrid model in this case



Seriously, what kind of quality of life is that

I would be challenging any employer who goes for the hybrid model to strongly justify why I'd be needed onsite when my absence in the last 14 months has not impacted the business negatively

If those justifications contained "team morale, relationship building, cohesion etc" I would be asking for evidence those things suffered during the last 14 months.

If they couldn't back up those justifications I'd be saying "there is no need for me to be onsite and the impact to my personal life is too great". If they don't like it, no problem, there's plenty of other employers using 100% WFH as a big ass carrot

I think a rigid hybrid model won't really work.

Saying to someone - "You must be in the office every Tuesday and Thursday" or whatever doesn't really work longer term I don't think.

I'm not sure what that actually gets you as an employee or as a company.

For me , Hybrid means "Work from Home full time , but be ready and available to come to the office when needed/requested".

That might mean you are in the office for the whole week this week , but only one other day for the rest of the month or whatever.


WFH has to be about flexibility on both sides - Setting arbitrary rigid attendance rules doesn't really help anyone I don't think.