Working From Home Megathread

ED E

shtpEdthePlum wrote: »

I was hired during the pandemic so literally nobody has seen me doing my job, only the work outputted. I'd imagine there are thousands upon thousands of people the same.

We've hired hundreds. You can tell as their photos are selfies not badging photos taken in a booth, internationally and in Ireland.


OBumble you're normally fairly sensible but your posts scream of "give me back the office of 1992". Do you daydream of paper clock-in cards?

namloc1980

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The idea of using your own hardware is an absolute joke: a total nightmare from a GDPR and also company intellectual property point of view.

This is not at all valid or correct in any way. Through the use of platforms like Citrix and RSA tokens employees can log in using their own laptop though a virtual desktop. In fact my remote login is more secure than my login in the office as I can't login remotely without a validated RSA token.

AndrewJRenko

Looks like some employers will be taking a eh, different approach to sharing the cost savings of work from home.

https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/05/pacificorp-tells-portland-employees-to-return-to-the-office-in-less-than-2-weeks-or-take-pay-cut.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

Sunny Disposition

I think it’s fairly clear that WFH does work, surely everyone accepts that now, and it was being done in less than optimum circumstances.
But it seems to me a lot of people want a bit more interaction than they have been getting. That probably means a role for blended working, or maybe remote working hubs might spring up in smaller population centres. Very hard pre 2020 scenario coming back, with tens of thousands of people starting work in city centres at the same time every day, with resulting huge traffic jams seem as inevitable.

J Mysterio

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not at all.

It has major workload implications for managers. And requires a lot of effort from colleagues to keep the off-site workers up to date

This is just total bollocks. I spent too much time in an office environment where the managers only communicated through Skype and email, even though we were in the same room. They were horrified when approached to actually talk about something. Did we need to be in the office? No.

Lumen

Nermal wrote: »

Next time we have one of those meetings: do we all sit at our desks, so we're all on Teams, as 'equals' regardless of whether we're in the office or not?

Is the meeting room dead?

In which case... why bother coming in at all?

It is quite difficult to get conference calls to work when you have some of the participants collocated, both in technical terms and in terms of balance and flow.

Also, when you have mixed office and WFH within a single team the balance goes because WFH people get left out of casual chats.

We solved those problems by closing the Irish office in 2019.

We still have a couple of small offices in the UK but they're mostly used by younger employees in sales and marketing roles who want a high degree of social contact. When they go on a call they generally go into one of the other rooms, alone.

One of the offices is a house, so having loads of rooms is handy.

It's funny that we've ended up buying a house for people to work in. Almost like houses are the optimal spaces for people to spend large amounts of time sharing. :pac:

Happydays2020

The reality is that we will end up with some kind of hybrid model, and making that work will need creativity. There are no hard and fast rules. A lot will depend on the sector and the type of work.

I will (by choice) work mainly from the office but will not be insisting on this with team members unless necessary.

Naos

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Not at all.

It has major workload implications for managers. And requires a lot of effort from colleagues to keep the off-site workers up to date

Prior to the pandemic, I can understand why some managers would take up this stance (athough WFH has been in practise for years). It was a case of 'fear of the unknown'.
That being said, it's been just over a year now and the wheels are still turning in businesses where staff have been able to WFH.

So what exactly are the major workload implications?

shtpEdthePlum

ELM327 wrote: »

We've literally hired hundreds of people in the pandemic, across all functions, I'd guess there's perhaps 15% of our total workforce at this stage that hasnt been in the office.

We have scheduled office access and don't go when others are there, just to do filing etc

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Looks like some employers will be taking a eh, different approach to sharing the cost savings of work from home.
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2021/05/pacificorp-tells-portland-employees-to-return-to-the-office-in-less-than-2-weeks-or-take-pay-cut.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

I would say that even with that pay cut, many would be better off staying at home.

“You can’t just get childcare on a whim, it takes time,” she said. “I’m hearing from people who are just going to take the pay cut because they don’t know what else to do.”

Childcare and commuting must be more than 10% of income, the persion making that quote seems to be saying their mostly continuing to WFH.

Having set such a precedence, they may find it harder to entice workers into the offices in future for meetings and the like as they've cut their "office allowances" to 0, "You don't pay me to go to the office so therefore I will not go to the office!"
Alternatively, you could end up with a flat rate for all staff with an "office weighting" of 10% (a bit like the London weighting for UK civil servants)

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say that even with that pay cut, many would be better off staying at home.

Childcare and commuting must be more than 10% of income, the persion making that quote seems to be saying their mostly continuing to WFH.

Having set such a precedence, they may find it harder to entice workers into the offices in future for meetings and the like as they've cut their "office allowances" to 0, "You don't pay me to go to the office so therefore I will not go to the office!"
Alternatively, you could end up with a flat rate for all staff with an "office weighting" of 10% (a bit like the London weighting for UK civil servants)

I didn't think WFH enabled avoidance of childcare costs. But regardless, I'm not sure that many people would be happy to take a 10% cut for the privilege of handing over a few square metres of space to their employer for best part of each day?

If only people had thought about doing a better negotiation up front....

Antares35

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't think WFH enabled avoidance of childcare costs. But regardless, I'm not sure that many people would be happy to take a 10% cut for the privilege of handing over a few square metres of space to their employer for best part of each day?

If only people had thought about doing a better negotiation up front....

It does for many. If you consider the difference between placing two babies into a creche where the time you spend commuting is also time you need them minded, in some cases (as was my experience pre-covid) the equivalent of 1.5 working days per week. If I have a childminder coming in, he/ she need only be there for core hours. It also means if I take a lunch break I can actually spend time with them. I would also be willing to take a 10 percent cut in exchange for an enhanced work/ life balance, though it will depend on starting salary and individual situations.

You are right though that you can't just not have childcare because you are WFH. Most flexible working policies will specifically state this. Covid was an exception because childcare and schools shut down.

Even still, can you put a price on not having to feed, change and pack up two babies at 6am every morning to leave them at crèche, do a day's work in between, then pick up two tired and cranky babies at 6pm and sit in traffic for 90 minutes while they whinge in the back?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I didn't think WFH enabled avoidance of childcare costs. But regardless, I'm not sure that many people would be happy to take a 10% cut for the privilege of handing over a few square metres of space to their employer for best part of each day?

If only people had thought about doing a better negotiation up front....

It seems to me that this was a unilateral decision made by the company without any attempt of negotiation.
Malicious compliance springs to mind, staff may start to bill the company for a share of the electric, internet and other household costs, they may also reduce their flexibility.

doc22

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems to me that this was a unilateral decision made by the company without any attempt of negotiation.
Malicious compliance springs to mind, staff may start to bill the company for a share of the electric, internet and other household costs, they may also reduce their flexibility.

What negotiation is required, Employer pays staff to be in office and staff refusing to go suffer pay cut, I don't know how they could start to bill the company for utilities.

Christy42

doc22 wrote: »

What negotiation is required, Employer pays staff to be in office and staff refusing to go suffer pay cut, I don't know how they could start to bill the company for utilities.

Employer later looks for handouts bemoaning the fact that they can no longer attract talented workers...

doc22

doc22 wrote: »

What negotiation is required, Employer pays staff to be in office and staff refusing to go suffer pay cut, I don't know how they could start to bill the company for utilities.

You'll note this article is referring to an employer in the US, not exactly a bastion of worker rights.

Here in Ireland not employer can't summarily reduce your salary without renegotiation of the employment contract.

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Here in Ireland not employer can summarily reduce your salary without renegotiation of the employment contract.

Except for the entire public service, still living under the PRD/ASC?

AndrewJRenko

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except for the entire public service, still living under the PRD/ASC?

Negotiated under the Public Sector Stability Agreement etc, my point stands

AndrewJRenko

Deleted User wrote: »

Negotiated under the Public Sector Stability Agreement etc, my point stands

Nope, imposed unilaterally.

The Croke Park Agreement negotiated no further cuts, after the PRD had already been imposed.

https://www.gov.ie/pdf/?file=https://assets.gov.ie/6622/243d1eeba2634e08845131ffc96df7f0.pdf#page=1

1.2 The Government acknowledges that public servants have made a very significant contribution towards the recovery of the economy over the last 2 years with over €3 billion saved from the potential Public Service pay and pensions bill:
•The general round pay increases under the terms of the Review and Transitional Agreement due in 2009 were not paid;
•A general moratorium on recruitment and promotion was applied to most of the Public Service, and incentivised early retirement and career break schemes introduced;
•A pension related deduction of an average of nearly 7% was applied to all the earnings of all public servants; and most recently -
•A reduction in rates of pay and allowances took effect on 1 January, 2010.

Public Service Pay Policy
1.15 There will be no further reductions in the pay rates of serving public servants for the lifetime of this Agreement. This commitment is subject to compliance with the terms of this Agreement

doc22

Deleted User wrote: »

You'll note this article is referring to an employer in the US, not exactly a bastion of worker rights.

Here in Ireland not employer can't summarily reduce your salary without renegotiation of the employment contract.

Employees can't pick the location of their duties as per said contract:rolleyes:

hmmm

Naos wrote: »

Prior to the pandemic, I can understand why some managers would take up this stance (athough WFH has been in practise for years). It was a case of 'fear of the unknown'.
That being said, it's been just over a year now and the wheels are still turning in businesses where staff have been able to WFH.

So what exactly are the major workload implications?

I suspect a lot of people haven't quite made the mental jump to realising there is no going back to the office of pre-pandemic, and that this isn't a temporary blip. It's a new world, and like HappyDays says we will need creativity to figure this out.

doc22

Funny I suspect a lot of people haven't quite made the mental jump to realising who is paying their wages and when the call to come back to the office of post-pandemic it won't be a temporary blip.

doc22

doc22 wrote: »

Employees can't pick the location of their duties as per said contract:rolleyes:

I’ve been doing exactly this for a decade, across three companies

Antares35

doc22 wrote: »

Funny I suspect a lot of people haven't quite made the mental jump to realising who is paying their wages and when the call to come back to the office of post-pandemic it won't be a temporary blip.

Of course they have, but they also know that there are other potential employers out there willing to pay their wages and allow them flexible home/ office models. The days of keeping one's head down and being thankful you have a job are long gone. Companies will face a brain drain if they aren't offering what employees want.

doc22

doc22 wrote: »

Employees can't pick the location of their duties as per said contract:rolleyes:

I’ve been doing exactly this for a decade, across three companies

doc22

Deleted User wrote: »

I’ve been doing exactly this for a decade, across three companies

Good for you and your contract

The new Strategy on Remote Working will give the employee to right to apply for WFH or other flexible working arrangements and will make it a lot harder for the employer to deny it.

"Doris misses the chats at the watercooler" or some other makey up excuse will no longer suffice as justification for an employer to deny remote working.

So on that basis, I think yes, employees are going to have a lot more say in how and here they work, in post-covid times, and the new legislation will be there to back them up on it.

Christy42

doc22 wrote: »

Funny I suspect a lot of people haven't quite made the mental jump to realising who is paying their wages and when the call to come back to the office of post-pandemic it won't be a temporary blip.

People have figured it out. People have also figured out they did their job they are payed for just fine for the last year.

Some jobs will be in the office. Some the employer won't care about who is employed enough to bother with wfh. Any others will see stronger employees simply move to another company if they don't offer it. Certainly many won't be in a position to move but the people who do are likely the ones the company wanted to keep in the first place.

Lumen

It doesn't really matter whether individual employees or companies hold the upper hand over the other, the fact is that technology has offered a subset of workers a new way of working and the pandemic has forced people (who generally hate change) to try it.

The genie is out of the bottle now, and there will be a steady restructuring of the employment market.

Market forces act at the margins, so employers with an office preference will have to pay more to tempt WFHers back, and remote companies will have to pay more to tempt highly social staff to tolerate the isolation.

This won't happen. What will happen is that WFHers will work for fully remote companies and live outside the cities and the social people will work for office based companies and live in cities. People will tend to start their careers in cities and move out to have kids. Cities will be young and vibrant and outside cities will be old and boring.

This is just how the employment market and life in general has always worked. The big change is fewer people commuting. Yay.

BrianD3

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0521/1223140-what-will-be-the-result-of-the-remote-work-experiment/

After 9 months, Mr Liang and Prof Bloom discoveredworkers were 13% more productive at home

Of that 13% increased output, around 4% of it came from workers being able to do more tasks per minute due to fewer distractions. The remaining 9% was attributed to workers working more minutes per shift. Prof Bloom put this down to the fact that commutes were eliminated, lunch breaks were shorter and fewer workers took sick days.

Those who chose to work from home were the highest performing employees at CTrip. Their productivity rate increased by over 20%. Lower performing employees preferred to work in the office.