Working From Home Megathread

AdamD

AdamD wrote: »

That legislation will do absolutely nothing, its not difficult for a Company to make an argument that you need to be in the office. It won't even need to be a good argument to bypass the legislation

The employer will have to have a good argument. Some guff about teamwork or water cooler chats won’t cut it.

But only if the employee takes it further, and is prepared to face down their employer. Problem is that most won’t, for fear of being seen as a troublemaker. So employers will likely be able to decline flexible working requests with impunity

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Looking from the other side of the fence, the RTE news yesterday had a talking head from "Retail excellence" who was hoping for a full return to the offices as much of the passing trade is from office workers in their lunch breaks. So there are real vested interests involved in getting the offices full again.

Surely it just moves the spending around a bit. There’d be the same, if not more spending, just in different locations. Its certainly no reason in itself for anyone to encourage a return to office working

Antares35

AdamD wrote: »

That legislation will do absolutely nothing, its not difficult for a Company to make an argument that you need to be in the office. It won't even need to be a good argument to bypass the legislation

Well they wont be able to say we have to go in to keep the local shops in business.

Marcusm

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely it just moves the spending around a bit. There’d be the same, if not more spending, just in different locations. Its certainly no reason in itself for anyone to encourage a return to office working

The UK is a much better example of this than we are, prtly because there are more commuters and partly because there are more chains (i.e. more vocal than independent retailers). Sandwich shops, coffee shops, even clothes retailers adjacent to working areas (as opposed to residential or shopping areas)have been disproportionately impacted. Coffees made at home, lunches made at home do not compensate (in turnover, VAT or employability) to consumption on the way/to or from or at the workplace.

Marcusm

Antares35 wrote: »

Well they wont be able to say we have to go in to keep the local shops in business.

Acgually, that's precisely one of the reasons why they are trying to accelerate a return to the workplace in the UK. THe casual eating, drinking and shopping aspects related tot he workplace are a significant economic driver.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

The UK is a much better example of this than we are, prtly because there are more commuters and partly because there are more chains (i.e. more vocal than independent retailers). Sandwich shops, coffee shops, even clothes retailers adjacent to working areas (as opposed to residential or shopping areas)have been disproportionately impacted. Coffees made at home, lunches made at home do not compensate (in turnover, VAT or employability) to consumption on the way/to or from or at the workplace.

Yeh, and that just sounds absolutely ****. I think that there will be many who are forced to return to the office who will reject that overpriced bland lunchtime day-after-day offering.

I hope so because having experienced the alternative, a return to the status quo just sounds awful to me. Luckily I won’t have to, but it seems like there are many that will

Quin_Dub

Marcusm wrote: »

The UK is a much better example of this than we are, prtly because there are more commuters and partly because there are more chains (i.e. more vocal than independent retailers). Sandwich shops, coffee shops, even clothes retailers adjacent to working areas (as opposed to residential or shopping areas)have been disproportionately impacted. Coffees made at home, lunches made at home do not compensate (in turnover, VAT or employability) to consumption on the way/to or from or at the workplace.

Yes and no - That money gets spent somewhere eventually though..

Making your own coffee vs. dropping €3+ a few times a day at/near the office - That money will get spent on a Friday night out or on a multitude of other things.

It's not like it's going to disappear from the economy completely.

No doubt there will be winners and losers as these changes bed in , but a new equilibrium will be achieved over time and the same money will get spent in different ways.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yes and no - That money gets spent somewhere eventually though..

Making your own coffee vs. dropping €3+ a few times a day at/near the office - That money will get spent on a Friday night out or on a multitude of other things.

It's not like it's going to disappear from the economy completely.

No doubt there will be winners and losers as these changes bed in , but a new equilibrium will be achieved over time and the same money will get spent in different ways.

I agree. And it will be spent in a way that is better than the way that, in hindsight, was pretty rubbish

Antares35

Marcusm wrote: »

Acgually, that's precisely one of the reasons why they are trying to accelerate a return to the workplace in the UK. THe casual eating, drinking and shopping aspects related tot he workplace are a significant economic driver.

No I get it from an economic perspective, and why that would drive an agenda. But what I mean is if, under the legislation, an employer has to give a valid reason for refusing to allow WFH, will they really be able to turn around and say no you can't because Joe up the road with his takeaway coffees needs the business.

BrianD3

People should be furious if "coffee and sandwich" and other vested interests are allowed to stop other workers from working remotely. I don't think they'd have any influence on other private sector employers though - no private sector employer is going to drag its staff back into a city centre office unnecessarily so that its staff will support Joe's coffee shop at lunchtime.

However, this could happen in the public sector with politicians getting involved and lobbying by business groups.

if we're making economic arguments, maybe we should remove parental leave entitlements and any other work/life balance stuff that see workers at home rather than spending money in certain businesses.

Personally, if i got wind that a business or business representative groups like ISME/SFA were at this lobbying I would, as is my right, boycott those businesses if I could identify them.

Maybe it is time for a lobby group for workers to fight for remote working. My experience of unions is that they were useless in relation to WFH during the pandemic. I'm still trying to figure out their stance on WFH. Maybe they are anti because they think that fewer people in office buildings = a less visible and relevant union. If so, f*ck them.

Mrs OBumble

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

You bring up a good point.

The business park as a concept is probably heading towards its end, in a way. I could see a reimagining of it though to potentially make use of the space. Someone, somewhere, is probably thinking of this already.

Business parks exist to facilitate manufacturing: you aren't going to have a clean-room in your WFH location.

Skippette

Hi, I found this on the Revenue website:

https://www.revenue.ie/en/jobs-and-pensions/eworking/relief-given-through-your-employer.aspx

You could give the Employer's Helpdesk a call, they maybe able to help with your queries, open 9-5 @ 01 738 3638

AdamD

Antares35 wrote: »

Well they wont be able to say we have to go in to keep the local shops in business.

Of course they won't. Why would they? It doesn't benefit your employer.

But if they don't want you to WFH, they will not struggle to make an argument for it and win the case. But then again, who wants to even be in that working relationship at that point?

The leglisation is pointless

Naos

AdamD wrote: »

That legislation will do absolutely nothing, its not difficult for a Company to make an argument that you need to be in the office. It won't even need to be a good argument to bypass the legislation

Out of curiosity, what would the argument from an employer be?

Considering we have a lot of data at the moment in terms of how various businesses have performed during the pandemic + WFH.

Esse85

The irony of being back in the office.

People in offices and common shared workspaces still having zoom meetings with each other.

The many companies demanding their staff being back on site since Monday have zero regard for their employees well being. When your role can be done with a laptop and a phone, what is the point of demanding your in the office suited and booted, you've commuted x amount of miles to get there, stuck in traffic on the way, avoided some dangerous road acts by other drivers, cost of fuel, parking, to drive in to a city centre the same time as other poor misfortunes and get caught up in the rat race.

2 male toilet cubicles here for about 20 men.
Messing about with masks every time you leave your desk, no where to go sit down and eat lunch, people walking into your office to interrupt you whenever they feel like it. People putting on the fakes smiles and shouting how great it is to be back in the office in full view of shareholders etc

Some companies are still stuck in the 70s timewarp, I'm already looking online to move to an employer who respects the work life balance and has some empathy for their employees.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Surely it just moves the spending around a bit. There’d be the same, if not more spending, just in different locations. Its certainly no reason in itself for anyone to encourage a return to office working

Yes, it does mean spending in a shop locally instead of the one near the offices, but as you can imagine, the city centre traders will lose out and these are the people that are represented by the various trade groups.


I see it as redistribution of wealth to the regions.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Business parks exist to facilitate manufacturing: you aren't going to have a clean-room in your WFH location.

Oh Please, don't try the old "they can't WFH" guff again, we all know that there are a huge number of jobs that are not possible to do outside of theire respective workplaces.



This is not relevant anymore in this discussion.

BrianD3

Esse85 wrote: »

The irony of being back in the office.

People in offices and common shared workspaces still having zoom meetings with each other.

The many companies demanding their staff being back on site since Monday have zero regard for their employees well being. When your role can be done with a laptop and a phone, what is the point of demanding your in the office suited and booted, you've commuted x amount of miles to get there, stuck in traffic on the way, avoided some dangerous road acts by other drivers, cost of fuel, parking, to drive in to a city centre the same time as other poor misfortunes and get caught up in the rat race.

2 male toilet cubicles here for about 20 men.
Messing about with masks every time you leave your desk, no where to go sit down and eat lunch, people walking into your office to interrupt you whenever they feel like it. People putting on the fakes smiles and shouting how great it is to be back in the office in full view of shareholders etc

It is absurd. I well remember last summer when I was ordered back to the office against public health guidelines to do the exact same work as I had been doing at home. Well not the exact same - I also had to spend time doing unproductive "work" consisting of sanitising my hands before and after I touched anything as per H&S rules.

Anyhow, one afternoon I was unnecessarily sitting in my office doing work I could have been doing at home. I had a zoom call which ran past hometime. The other people on the call didn't care as they were all WFH, I was the only one who had a commute (and a big one at that) ahead of me.

I remember thinking that if that ever happened again, I would immediately leave the call on the dot of hometime no matter what was happening in the meeting at the time. Public sector - so best of luck to anyone trying to get at me over doing that.

The attitude to WFH from some employers during the pandemic has caused a tremendous amount of bad feeling. This won't be forgotten and IMO increases the chance of employees being demotivated, awkward and inflexible. Good will and trust has been lost. If the right to request remote working legalisation has any teeth, the WRC may well be swamped - which would have been less likely had goodwill been maintained during the pandemic

SusanC10

Esse85 wrote: »

The irony of being back in the office.

People in offices and common shared workspaces still having zoom meetings with each other.

The many companies demanding their staff being back on site since Monday have zero regard for their employees well being. When your role can be done with a laptop and a phone, what is the point of demanding your in the office suited and booted, you've commuted x amount of miles to get there, stuck in traffic on the way, avoided some dangerous road acts by other drivers, cost of fuel, parking, to drive in to a city centre the same time as other poor misfortunes and get caught up in the rat race.

2 male toilet cubicles here for about 20 men.
Messing about with masks every time you leave your desk, no where to go sit down and eat lunch, people walking into your office to interrupt you whenever they feel like it. People putting on the fakes smiles and shouting how great it is to be back in the office in full view of shareholders etc

Some companies are still stuck in the 70s timewarp, I'm already looking online to move to an employer who respects the work life balance and has some empathy for their employees.

I only dip in and out of this thread.
Isn't the current advice from Government to still WFH where possible?

SusanC10

SusanC10 wrote: »

I only dip in and out of this thread.
Isn't the current advice from Government to still WFH where possible?

Yes it is, WFH is still being advised where possible.

JDD

BrianD3 wrote: »

It is absurd. I well remember last summer when I was ordered back to the office against public health guidelines to do the exact same work as I had been doing at home. Well not the exact same - I also had to spend time doing unproductive "work" consisting of sanitising my hands before and after I touched anything as per H&S rules.

Anyhow, one afternoon I was unnecessarily sitting in my office doing work I could have been doing at home. I had a zoom call which ran past hometime. The other people on the call didn't care as they were all WFH, I was the only one who had a commute (and a big one at that) ahead of me.

I remember thinking that if that ever happened again, I would immediately leave the call on the dot of hometime no matter what was happening in the meeting at the time. Public sector - so best of luck to anyone trying to get at me over doing that.

The attitude to WFH from some employers during the pandemic has caused a tremendous amount of bad feeling. This won't be forgotten and IMO increases the chance of employees being demotivated, awkward and inflexible. Good will and trust has been lost. If the right to request remote working legalisation has any teeth, the WRC may well be swamped

Jaysus, I'm public sector and you practically have to get a letter from God to get permission to get into the office. It just shows you the difference between different public sector organisations.

They've told us that they are going to roll out a pilot programme for some staff in September, with them returning to the office two days a week. The rest of staff only have to come back one day a week.

It's flabbergasting that a public sector office would be forcing you all to come back in!! I'd be calling the Independent.

Absolute Zero

Esse85 wrote: »

The irony of being back in the office.

People in offices and common shared workspaces still having zoom meetings with each other.

The many companies demanding their staff being back on site since Monday have zero regard for their employees well being. When your role can be done with a laptop and a phone, what is the point of demanding your in the office suited and booted, you've commuted x amount of miles to get there, stuck in traffic on the way, avoided some dangerous road acts by other drivers, cost of fuel, parking, to drive in to a city centre the same time as other poor misfortunes and get caught up in the rat race.

2 male toilet cubicles here for about 20 men.
Messing about with masks every time you leave your desk, no where to go sit down and eat lunch, people walking into your office to interrupt you whenever they feel like it. People putting on the fakes smiles and shouting how great it is to be back in the office in full view of shareholders etc

Some companies are still stuck in the 70s timewarp, I'm already looking online to move to an employer who respects the work life balance and has some empathy for their employees.

This makes my blood boil reading this. The absolute state of some of these companies.

namloc1980

Esse85 wrote: »

The irony of being back in the office.

People in offices and common shared workspaces still having zoom meetings with each other.

The many companies demanding their staff being back on site since Monday have zero regard for their employees well being. When your role can be done with a laptop and a phone, what is the point of demanding your in the office suited and booted, you've commuted x amount of miles to get there, stuck in traffic on the way, avoided some dangerous road acts by other drivers, cost of fuel, parking, to drive in to a city centre the same time as other poor misfortunes and get caught up in the rat race.

2 male toilet cubicles here for about 20 men.
Messing about with masks every time you leave your desk, no where to go sit down and eat lunch, people walking into your office to interrupt you whenever they feel like it. People putting on the fakes smiles and shouting how great it is to be back in the office in full view of shareholders etc

Some companies are still stuck in the 70s timewarp, I'm already looking online to move to an employer who respects the work life balance and has some empathy for their employees.

Awful. Reading that I'm glad where I work nobody is expected to be in the office at the moment and long term we're going for a 2 days in the office / 3 days at home model, and even then flexibility will be the order of the day.

_Kaiser_

Reading Esse's mails above makes me remember just how much annoyances there are in the average office - the point about nowhere to go at lunch strikes a chord too as my last place was in a business park with a single, small sandwich shop, no hot food, and nothing to do unless you drove into the town itself.

I'd be one of those who can work from pretty much anywhere on the planet if I have a phone and a laptop, but thankfully my new employer has apparently always embraced flexible working where possible so that's a good sign. As I mentioned previously I'll be looking to be in the office at most 3 days a week (preferably 2) when things do get back to normal. There's just no reason beyond the occasional face to face/relationship building meeting and checking in with the team (I'm not one for micromanagement or standing over people) for me to be there every day.

Antares35

AdamD wrote: »

Of course they won't. Why would they? It doesn't benefit your employer.

I was responding to a post saying it could be a reason.

Antares35

Naos wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what would the argument from an employer be?

Considering we have a lot of data at the moment in terms of how various businesses have performed during the pandemic + WFH.

Interesting question..I've wondered the same myself. An ex colleague moved to a competitor company who is offering a three day remote option. I'm already thinking it's a good thing that there's another business of similar size and location within the same industry who has embraced this. Not necessarily as somewhere to move to, but it will certainly make it more difficult for my own place to conjure up reasons why we cannot do the same. And I think that's where employees need to be smart and do their research about what other similar places are offering - it can only strengthen your hand when it comes to negotiation.

wes

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking from the other side of the fence, the RTE news yesterday had a talking head from "Retail excellence" who was hoping for a full return to the offices as much of the passing trade is from office workers in their lunch breaks. So there are real vested interests involved in getting the offices full again.

Yeah, the thing is "retail excellence", maybe able to lobby government, but once business figure out the rent savings, they will go WFH in a big way. Only reason where I work went WFH was due to the huge savings (we are talking million or 2 in Ireland alone, and worldwide many millions). WFH is a long term trend, and it will be accelerate due to the pandemic. Some companies will be left behind and other will reap the benefits.

BrianD3

JDD wrote: »

Jaysus, I'm public sector and you practically have to get a letter from God to get permission to get into the office. It just shows you the difference between different public sector organisations.

They've told us that they are going to roll out a pilot programme for some staff in September, with them returning to the office two days a week. The rest of staff only have to come back one day a week.

It's flabbergasting that a public sector office would be forcing you all to come back in!! I'd be calling the Independent.

One thing that might surprise some people is how useless the union was. I went to the union about being ordered back to the office, the response was "well senior management want people back in the office and a lot of people are back already so...."

BTW this was last summer, not now.

I think the whole thing has shone a light on problems that already existed in workplaces and shows how nuts and lacking empathy many people are. There are undoubtedly people who went back to offices (and expected others to do the same) because they were too tight to buy a box of teabags. Attitude will have been that it's work's job to provide tea and if you only live 5 minutes from the office and drink multiple cups per day while doing f*ck all work - shur why not head in, nevermind public health guidelines :rolleyes:

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, it does mean spending in a shop locally instead of the one near the offices, but as you can imagine, the city centre traders will lose out and these are the people that are represented by the various trade groups.


I see it as redistribution of wealth to the regions.

You'd imagine some rural TDs would latch onto the potential for regeneration but the two big parties are firmly in the pocket of the property barons

moycullen14

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Reading Esse's mails above makes me remember just how much annoyances there are in the average office - the point about nowhere to go at lunch strikes a chord too as my last place was in a business park with a single, small sandwich shop, no hot food, and nothing to do unless you drove into the town itself.

I'd be one of those who can work from pretty much anywhere on the planet if I have a phone and a laptop, but thankfully my new employer has apparently always embraced flexible working where possible so that's a good sign. As I mentioned previously I'll be looking to be in the office at most 3 days a week (preferably 2) when things do get back to normal. There's just no reason beyond the occasional face to face/relationship building meeting and checking in with the team (I'm not one for micromanagement or standing over people) for me to be there every day.

I think Esse and me must be workmates! Or else these annoyances exist in most workplaces. We seem to put up with an awful lot of crap.