Working From Home Megathread

Antares35

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.

It's funny, OH and I had this exact conversation. His company have proposed a 3 day in 2 day out model and there is a lot of unhappiness about it. I'd be the same. He's already looking elsewhere and has had offers but can't take then until we draw down. For some reason that extra day just makes all the difference... I'd happily commute two days, but I won't commute three. I suppose it just makes it "the majority" of the week? And if it comes to it, I'll (regrettably) change jobs. That is how much we simply do not want to be part of the Dublin rat race/ commute/ housing market/ traffic mania anymore.

Antares35

Antares35 wrote: »

It's funny, OH and I had this exact conversation. His company have proposed a 3 day in 2 day out model and there is a lot of unhappiness about it. I'd be the same. He's already looking elsewhere and has had offers but can't take then until we draw down. For some reason that extra day just makes all the difference... I'd happily commute two days, but I won't commute three. I suppose it just makes it "the majority" of the week? And if it comes to it, I'll (regrettably) change jobs. That is how much we simply do not want to be part of the Dublin rat race/ commute/ housing market/ traffic mania anymore.

WFH is meant to be about flexibility. For me that will be every other week, maybe 4 days, so that I can be away from Dublin for longer periods without constantly being in and out. For others in my office it will mean 100% in the office, or 100% at home, or something in-between

Seems like a lot of companies just don't understand that this is about flexibility, and have made it into a rigid framework. That's absolutely not the point and I agree with many posters in there is little value to this approach

Antares35

[Deleted User] wrote: »

WFH is meant to be about flexibility. For me that will be every other week, maybe 4 days, so that I can be away from Dublin for longer periods without constantly being in and out. For others in my office it will mean 100% in the office, or 100% at home, or something in-between

Seems like a lot of companies just don't understand that this is about flexibility, and have made it into a rigid framework. That's absolutely not the point and I agree with many posters in there is little value to this approach

OHs company have not made it into a rigid framework, sorry I should have specified. It's a 60:40 but averaged over a quarter. So presumably one works out their onsite requirements in advance to ensure they can be there for team meets/ collaboration etc. They no longer have capacity for a full complement of staff at any given time so can't run the risk of everyone turning up on the same day.

I definitely know what you mean about quality of life in the context of a 2 or 3 day model, and perhaps this rigidity should be challenged. But there's also a part of me that would be so delighted with it that I might not challenge it (3 days remote that is) for fear of being told to just come in five days then. I would consider two days commuting and three days at home to a good "trade off" especially if it allows us to have the peaceful home life we seek, rather than an "easier" commute in five days and having to buy in Dublin. There's such mania in the housing market now especially in Dublin and along commuter belts. I really don't want to be a part of that.

JDD

The benefit of the hybrid 3 days in, 2 days at home I suppose for most people is better than nothing. Certainly for those living in Dublin and intending to stay here 2 days at home means you can pick up the kids at 5.15 instead of pegging it to the childminder/after school to make it by 6.30. Same with dropping them off in the morning - no more breakfast club drop off at 8am.

Of course, it would be much better if it was 2 days in, 3 days at home, certainly for those who might want to buy further outside of Dublin.

Yes, our company is going for a rigid model. To be honest they were always rigid - none of this WFH whenever you felt like it Grand Canal IT company style. So agreeing to 3 days at home is a MASSIVE sea change for them. And we've already been told that for busy periods - ends of projects etc we will have to be in the office more than 2/3 days a week. Everyone accepts that - there are certain things that we do that are much MUCH more difficult to do remotely.

Will people leave if they don't get offered five days a week at home? Maybe. But you'd be going from a public sector job to a private sector one. In my area, going back to the private sector means going from working 45ish hours a week to working 60/70 hours a week. I wouldn't care much for that, even if it was all at home. I think my colleagues would be the same.

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.

3 hires resigning as they felt excluded and were made to feel like second class employees?

I would honestly see this as a huge failing on the part of those managers who were tasked with integrating and managing them, not on the new hires, or on WFH.

If these managers were excluding new hires from meetings, not giving them chances etc, then in my view, their managers next up the chain needs to look again at these managers and reconsider their positions, if they want to recruit, and retain, quality staff.

average_runner

JDD wrote: »

The benefit of the hybrid 3 days in, 2 days at home I suppose for most people is better than nothing. Certainly for those living in Dublin and intending to stay here 2 days at home means you can pick up the kids at 5.15 instead of pegging it to the childminder/after school to make it by 6.30. Same with dropping them off in the morning - no more breakfast club drop off at 8am.

Of course, it would be much better if it was 2 days in, 3 days at home, certainly for those who might want to buy further outside of Dublin.

Yes, our company is going for a rigid model. To be honest they were always rigid - none of this WFH whenever you felt like it Grand Canal IT company style. So agreeing to 3 days at home is a MASSIVE sea change for them. And we've already been told that for busy periods - ends of projects etc we will have to be in the office more than 2/3 days a week. Everyone accepts that - there are certain things that we do that are much MUCH more difficult to do remotely.

Will people leave if they don't get offered five days a week at home? Maybe. But you'd be going from a public sector job to a private sector one. In my area, going back to the private sector means going from working 45ish hours a week to working 60/70 hours a week. I wouldn't care much for that, even if it was all at home. I think my colleagues would be the same.

It all comes down to the quality of life you want. For you the current role offers the best quality.

JDD

average_runner wrote: »

It all comes down to the quality of life you want. For you the current role offers the best quality.

That's completely true. I guess if you could walk into another role, similar to the one that you are doing, similarly paid, with similar working hours, and that job offered five days from home, you might consider it.

But there's a certain stickiness to people in jobs, especially when you get beyond your twenties and swapping jobs every two or three years. If you've been in a company for 4/5 years you'll find that it's difficult to move. Either you've had jobs you've actively hated in the past, and you don't want to take the risk of moving to a place you'll hate. Or you've been promoted in quite a niche area, and don't want to take a hit in pay to start again on a sort-of similar job elsewhere.

There is definitely a couple of people in my department (of 140) who want full time WFH. They could walk into another job, for more money, full time WFH, but more hours. Or they could basically change careers and start again at a junior level. I can't see either of those people doing that, they are on good money now.

The only people I can really see doing that are the colleagues in their 20's on junior levels. They're not specialised, they're not on great pay, they could move wherever they wanted. But it's the colleagues in their 20's that actually want to come into the office (some of them full time) because they either live in cramped flats or they miss the social aspect of work or they miss the learning opportunities that come with being face to face. So I can't see them leaving for full time WFH either.

hots

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I'd expect you'll find that fairly easily in most engagement surveys taken over the WFH period. Our only negatives were exactly what you said above, but they are there nonetheless. You're totally entitled to want fully WFH but some committment from staff to make themselves available to be in the office at X% of the time is a fair middle ground imo. But of course there's going to be loads of 100% WFH gigs coming up, people who want it should be able to find it.

Quin_Dub

hots wrote: »

I'd expect you'll find that fairly easily in most engagement surveys taken over the WFH period. Our only negatives were exactly what you said above, but they are there nonetheless. You're totally entitled to want fully WFH but some committment from staff to make themselves available to be in the office at X% of the time is a fair middle ground imo. But of course there's going to be loads of 100% WFH gigs coming up, people who want it should be able to find it.

I don't disagree necessarily , but I do think that fixing specific rules on that isn't helpful for anyone.

Saying "we'd like employees to target 20% in-person attendance" or whatever is absolutely fine and it allows the employee the flexibility to choose when to come to the office.

They should also be prepared to come to the office if requested at relatively short notice (so no working from Marbella or whatever). Making sure you are onsite for the big staff meeting or when the big boss is in town etc. shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

But locking staff into a specific repetitive pattern will be counterproductive in the longer term in my view.

average_runner

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I don't disagree necessarily , but I do think that fixing specific rules on that isn't helpful for anyone.

Saying "we'd like employees to target 20% in-person attendance" or whatever is absolutely fine and it allows the employee the flexibility to choose when to come to the office.

They should also be prepared to come to the office if requested at relatively short notice (so no working from Marbella or whatever). Making sure you are onsite for the big staff meeting or when the big boss is in town etc. shouldn't be a problem for anyone.

But locking staff into a specific repetitive pattern will be counterproductive in the longer term in my view.

Going forward, offices won't be able to hold the full work force. We down sized our offices

Quin_Dub

average_runner wrote: »

Going forward, offices won't be able to hold the full work force. We down sized our offices

No doubt , lots of leases will be getting changed as they come up for review/renewal.

My employer is not big on WFH. They seem to think lockdown is completely over, and are now 'inviting' us to come back to the office. I'm sure it will be an order soon.

Isn't the government advice still to work from home? I haven't heard of any other office opening up like this unless it's essential.

Antares35

Flying Fox wrote: »

My employer is not big on WFH. They seem to think lockdown is completely over, and are now 'inviting' us to come back to the office. I'm sure it will be an order soon.

Isn't the government advice still to work from home? I haven't heard of any other office opening up like this unless it's essential.

I know one person whose boss insisted they all come in during lockdown or there would be "consequences" for them. Then again, they were àssholes to work with even before covid hit.

hmmm

Flying Fox wrote: »

My employer is not big on WFH. They seem to think lockdown is completely over, and are now 'inviting' us to come back to the office. I'm sure it will be an order soon.

Isn't the government advice still to work from home? I haven't heard of any other office opening up like this unless it's essential.

Yep, that's really not good and we have a public health problem if employers start doing this.

I see that Goldman Sacks has decided to walk against the tide and force all staff back into the office in June, will be interesting to see how strong the pushback is?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56993886

Goldman Sachs has told its UK bankers they need to be ready to return to the office in June.

That is the date on which the government hopes to lift legal limits on social contact in England.

While for many working from home has become normal, Goldman boss David Solomon previously described it as "an aberration".

But rival investment bank JP Morgan is planning for "significantly" less office space, it said in April.

Goldman bankers have in large part already returned to the office in parts of the Asia-Pacific region.

Esse85

Flying Fox wrote: »

My employer is not big on WFH. They seem to think lockdown is completely over, and are now 'inviting' us to come back to the office. I'm sure it will be an order soon.

Isn't the government advice still to work from home? I haven't heard of any other office opening up like this unless it's essential.

Same here, we're back Monday, we weren't even asked, just told we're back in the office full time having been WFH all this year. Pure old school mentality.

JTMan

20% of Google staff to permanently work from home ...

https://twitter.com/conorsen/status/1389995399918886920

Esse85

Esse85 wrote: »

Same here, we're back Monday, we weren't even asked, just told we're back in the office full time having been WFH all this year. Pure old school mentality.

The government will be passing flexible working legislation soon. Employers will have to justify why an employee has to be in the office if they are to say no to a flexible working request

JTMan

Another big organisation has announced their post Covid hybrid-policy ... KPMG staff will work from the office 2 days a week.

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1390021191541395466

_Kaiser_

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.

I've changed roles in the last few weeks and for me it was simply a matter of unplugging one laptop and connecting a new one as I already have the proper desk, big monitors, dock etc

As regards onboarding, like my last place they use teams but unlike my last role, seem pretty keen on video calls. I join on video for some (usually smaller/one-to-one meetings), but leave it as audio for most

I'm not having any issues so far but my new team are very good and I had a guy to do a handover to me so that's made a big difference. I've decided I'll take a run to the office next week to meet with a few of them and my boss and get a tour of the 2 sites - more so to have a better picture of stuff I'll be dealing with.

I won't ever be going back to full-time in office though. I figure 2/3 days will be enough. The rest I will do remotely, plus as it's another management role there are some things/calls/meetings that you can't really do when sitting among a team (stupid open plan culture - I miss the days of having my own office) so that's another reason.

Fr Tod Umptious

Deleted User wrote: »

I see that Goldman Sacks has decided to walk against the tide and force all staff back into the office in June, will be interesting to see how strong the pushback is?

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56993886

I heard a guy on the radio talking about JPMorgan (I think) and the reasoning behind their return to the office.
The CEO or whomever said if our competitors are going to go back to meeting clients face to face then so will we.
In that game face to face interactions with clients are essential.
They are handling over large chunks of money so they need to build a relationship, and that's something that cannot be done over zoom.
And the up and coming people in those firms have to shadow the experienced people to learn the trade, again something that cannot be done remotely.

Things like IT could be managed remotely, but the bread and butter of these businesses rely on building and maintaining relationships so it's no surprise they want them all back.

Dyr

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

In that game face to face interactions with clients are essential.
They are handling over large chunks of money so they need to build a relationship

So do con artists, car salesmen and similar professions

Mrs OBumble

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.

You're suggesting I should advocate that new hires need to be competent social workers, insolvency practitioners, quality analysts, economists, accountants, lawyers, whatever else, but that they also need to be very tech-savvy?

That would get a big "yeah, right" if someone was dumb enough to say it. It's hard enough to get people with the right professional background, without tacking on secondary stuff which isn't actually necessary to do the core job.

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

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.

Another "yeah right". I'm hired specifically to support managers by having certain detailed tools and processes in place. Managers delegate showing the specific details of these with their staff. For example, the manager doesn't need to know how to allocate a payment across multiple cost centres, they just need to know that it can happen, and that their staff know how to do it.

To put it another way - if a staff member says "no one can hear me on calls" a manager would likely to send them a new headset. Whereas I find out if the issue is the headset, or that they've pressed the mute-key on the laptop, messed with the device settings, misunderstood the headset-controller mute, not plugged it in properly etc. A manager won't have the time or mindset to do that. [A made-up example, but the tech we use has similar options.]

Doing this well requires me to watch how the staff understand / interact with the tech components, and vary instructions and diagnostics depending on what the staff member understands. A lot harder to do with off-site working.

JDD

We had a seminar yesterday on a pilot scheme our company is going to roll out later in the year.

One of the steps they proposed was where there was a new joiner at a junior-ish level both the new joiner and the manager would be in the office full time for an "initial period" which they expect to be 2-4 weeks. After that they are proposing that the manager and joiner open a teams call for when they are both at their home desks and just leave it open (camera's optional) for as much as they can during the day. That way the junior can ask questions whenever they feel like it, rather than having to email or call especially. They're not sure if this second step will work - obviously you'll need to mute yourself if you're on another meeting, they don't know if it will cause issues with other video calls, and you'll need to mute yourself for boiling the kettle or chatting to your spouse, but they are going to try it.

I have my reservations about the day-long zoom call, I can see people forgetting that it's open and all sorts being said by mistake. But I appreciate the fact that they are at least trying to be innovative and trying to get around some of the drawbacks of home-working.

hmmm

JDD wrote: »

I have my reservations about the day-long zoom call, I can see people forgetting that it's open and all sorts being said by mistake. But I appreciate the fact that they are at least trying to be innovative and trying to get around some of the drawbacks of home-working.

That doesn't sound great to me, if I was a junior I'd feel a bit embarrassed I was putting my manager out and being the focus - but like you say it will take experimentation for this new world of work. It's good to see companies trying stuff and being honest enough to admit that it might not work.

The issue I have with the manager being in the office is that it is almost an acknowledgement that working in the office is more effective. I think the more forward-looking companies have made the mental leap in their heads that remote working can be the more productive, and going into the office is actually a retrograde step. I think we'll look back in 10 years and ask why we thought that having people arriving tired into a noisy warehouse full of people was a good working environment for knowledge-workers.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

You're suggesting I should advocate that new hires need to be competent social workers, insolvency practitioners, quality analysts, economists, accountants, lawyers, whatever else, but that they also need to be very tech-savvy?

That would get a big "yeah, right" if someone was dumb enough to say it. It's hard enough to get people with the right professional background, without tacking on secondary stuff which isn't actually necessary to do the core job.





Another "yeah right". I'm hired specifically to support managers by having certain detailed tools and processes in place. Managers delegate showing the specific details of these with their staff. For example, the manager doesn't need to know how to allocate a payment across multiple cost centres, they just need to know that it can happen, and that their staff know how to do it.

To put it another way - if a staff member says "no one can hear me on calls" a manager would likely to send them a new headset. Whereas I find out if the issue is the headset, or that they've pressed the mute-key on the laptop, messed with the device settings, misunderstood the headset-controller mute, not plugged it in properly etc. A manager won't have the time or mindset to do that. [A made-up example, but the tech we use has similar options.]

Doing this well requires me to watch how the staff understand / interact with the tech components, and vary instructions and diagnostics depending on what the staff member understands. A lot harder to do with off-site working.

Sounds like your company needs to arrange onsite training sessions for the remote staff to learn tow to do their jobs successfully while remote. Blaming their problems on WFH instead of addressing their issues is not the best way to do things.

AdamD

hmmm wrote: »

That doesn't sound great to me, if I was a junior I'd feel a bit embarrassed I was putting my manager out and being the focus - but like you say it will take experimentation for this new world of work. It's good to see companies trying stuff and being honest enough to admit that it might not work.

The issue I have with the manager being in the office is that it is almost an acknowledgement that working in the office is more effective. I think the more forward-looking companies have made the mental leap in their heads that remote working can be the more productive, and going into the office is actually a retrograde step. I think we'll look back in 10 years and ask why we thought that having people arriving tired into a noisy warehouse full of people was a good working environment for knowledge-workers.

I think you're going quite a bit too far here. Training of new grads etc. is undoubtedly better in person, for many companies and roles that's quite an important thing. Removing offices altogether is massive barrier to the development of junior staff

hmmm

AdamD wrote: »

I think you're going quite a bit too far here. Training of new grads etc. is undoubtedly better in person, for many companies and roles that's quite an important thing. Removing offices altogether is massive barrier to the development of junior staff

I can see that where you have a large group, but it sounds kind of uncomfortable for a new joiner to be sitting in a largely empty office with their manager sitting beside them for a couple of weeks.

I'm not entirely convinced that the junior staff need to be trained in-person argument holds up either. It's assuming again I think that the office is more productive, in which case why allow anyone to WFH? (I think that's the position Goldmans have taken, and some other companies would like to take). I know in the short-term we can't make some sort of huge leap, and nothing will happen overnight.

I absolutely agree that staff do have to meet up in-person, but I personally think those interactions should be built around socialising and not "work".

BrianD3

Chairman of the Prince's Trust charity on sky news a few mins ago, very anti WFH, people need to be the office. So it's not just the likes of Goldman Sachs.

Also, anecdotally, I'm hearing that the "back to the office" hinting has started in the Irish public service already, how long will it take for the hints to become instructions. Like last summer all over again.

Reminder - the public consultation on the statutory right to request remote working closes tomorrow the 7th May.

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

Depending on how much detail you want to include, it takes about 10-15 minute to complete the public consultation form and send it in.

For this statutory right to be effective the onus needs to be on employers to show that it is not possible for employees to WFH. It should be quite obvious who can and can't in many cases.

A statutory right to request with WRC backup should help in situations where staff are doing the exact same work in the office as they would have done from home but are forced to attend the office because of neurotic management and antiquated thinking. With "for business reasons" and "at the discretion of management" used to justify this.

zebastein

Deleted User wrote: »

The government will be passing flexible working legislation soon. Employers will have to justify why an employee has to be in the office if they are to say no to a flexible working request

Unfortunately, an employer that does not want to let people WFH will find any reason.
If you have an old landline phone plugged in in the office, they can say that employees need to be on site to answer the phone. Obviously the company could invest in VoIP phone numbers + software, but an employer who wants to force people to stay on site will keep outdated physical equipment as an excuse.


An employer that does not promote WFH will have a crappy VPN with restricted accesses to some tools, so that you can't perform all your tasks correctly from home, and again that is a justification why the employer will be able to reject WFH.


Even if you are allowed to WFH in an environment that does not promote it, people will be requested to bring back to the office the monitors/keyboards/office chairs that the company provided for them during covid. So most of the people won't invest hundred of euros and will show up to the office every day.