Working From Home Megathread

BrianD3

shadyslimshady wrote: »

I do feel sorry for the people that bought in Dublin before the pandemic where they could of getting a mansion outside of Dublin for the same price or something better for half the price.

I'd say that's part of the reason why some are so anti WFH. Someone buys a house close to their Dublin workplace and has a 5 minute walk to work. Congratulates themselves on their life choices. If someone else couldn't afford to buy in Dublin and instead has to commute 2 hours each way - faux sympathy may be shown but really the attitude is "I'm alright, sucks to be you".

But wait, now that commuter may be able to WFH. Tables turned, egos bruised.

Another related one is in plenty of workplaces, senior people regard junior people as scum. Keep them under the thumb, order them about like bold children and take pleasure in seeing them struggle with long commutes and family commitments. Even if WFH is, at worst, neutral for the employer and greatly benefits the employee, don't offer it lest it impacts on these ego boosts and sadistic pleasures.

AndrewJRenko

Infoanon wrote: »

What is the extra security risk if you are WFH ?

.

If you share your accommodation with anyone, they will have access to confidential information, through what they overhear or what they see over your shoulder.

a_squirrelman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you share your accommodation with anyone, they will have access to confidential information, through what they overhear or what they see over your shoulder.

In fairness, unless you're 007 most of what any of us talk about in work time probably sounds dreary and nonsensical to those who don't work in the exact same industry.


If you need to be paranoid about your housemates to that extent I'd suggest finding better housemates.

recyclops

Is it possible to say you don't like working from home without being accused of being either lazy, chatterbox, Karen or mini Hitler on this thread? It's bizarre.

Study after study on both sides as to the benefits and downfalls. Some people getting into anti vaxxer levels of Conspiracy as to why they could be forced to work in an office.

Personally I've seen a fair amount staff members productivity fall off a cliff and when challenged blame WFH, most are stable and some perform better. Now this is not me advocating anything just what I can prove with the data I have.

I can show the data to a few diff people in the office and they cherry pick whatever data suits their side, me il go back prob 60% of the time I can't see my business going full time.

FlubberJones

I reckon I'll be back in the office by September and will probably be able to pick and choose the days I'm in, which is fine by me.
I also foresee a lot of these social distancing demands relaxed due to the vaccine rollout... All good things

Quin_Dub

recyclops wrote: »

Is it possible to say you don't like working from home without being accused of being either lazy, chatterbox, Karen or mini Hitler on this thread? It's bizarre.

Study after study on both sides as to the benefits and downfalls. Some people getting into anti vaxxer levels of Conspiracy as to why they could be forced to work in an office.

Personally I've seen a fair amount staff members productivity fall off a cliff and when challenged blame WFH, most are stable and some perform better. Now this is not me advocating anything just what I can prove with the data I have.

I can show the data to a few diff people in the office and they cherry pick whatever data suits their side, me il go back prob 60% of the time I can't see my business going full time.

I think you'll find that that reaction is to those who say things like "WFH is terrible ,No one should be allowed do it , Companies will fail if they allow it to continue!!"

There is fairly universal acceptance that it works for some people and doesn't work for others for a variety of personal or professional reasons.

Some want to WFH all the time , some want the ability to work a few days here and there at home and all levels in between.

The vast majority of people on this thread are advocating for choice and flexibility in working options.

It is those that claim that everyone needs to get back to the office immediately and that any other solution is a complete and utter disaster for all concerned that tend to garner reactions here.

Lumen

One interesting aspect about employees' principle place of work being their home is that (I think) travel to the office then becomes paid, both in terms of time and expenses.

This means that people who formerly spend 2 hours of their day commuting now get paid to commute.

If this is true, it will encourage employers (corporately) to minimize trips to the office, even if their managers hate it.

Quin_Dub

Lumen wrote: »

One interesting aspect about employees' principle place of work being their home is that (I think) travel to the office then becomes paid, both in terms of time and expenses.

This means that people who formerly spend 2 hours of their day commuting now get paid to commute.

If this is true, it will encourage employers (corporately) to minimize trips to the office, even if their managers hate it.

That's certainly not the case for me.

I've been 100% remote for well over a decade.

My company has 3 or 4 offices around the country but I am "assigned" to the one nearest to me in terms of payroll , HR support etc.

From an administrative perspective I am an employee for that location and they need to account for me in terms of desk space (albeit a hot desk), support staff (1 HR person per X number of staff etc.) and any other allocations they need to make financially or for tax purposes etc.

I cannot claim any expenses for travel to that office , but I can (and do) for travel to any of the others.

Antares35

Lumen wrote: »

One interesting aspect about employees' principle place of work being their home is that (I think) travel to the office then becomes paid, both in terms of time and expenses.

This means that people who formerly spend 2 hours of their day commuting now get paid to commute.

If this is true, it will encourage employers (corporately) to minimize trips to the office, even if their managers hate it.

How? If you've to start work at 9am that's when you get paid from surely? Why does your boss care what time you've to leave at to be at your desk by 9? Do you mean if you're 100percent remote but have to go in unexpectedly?

Lumen

Antares35 wrote: »

How? If you've to start work at 9am that's when you get paid from surely? Why does your boss care what time you've to leave at to be at your desk by 9? Do you mean if you're 100percent remote but have to go in unexpectedly?

All of our staff have their "normal place of work" specified as their home (I think that's the wording in the contract), even though most of them are in range of an office.

I don't recall any expense claims for travel to the office because most of them are quite close and don't bother, but I'm speculating about whether it might be allowed.

We're not the sort of company that clock watches anyway, so people turn up whenever.

If not expensable, I wonder if they are offsettable against tax?

I don't see why travelling to a company office for a meeting is any different from travelling to a customer site for a meeting.

shadyslimshady

I'll seeing an extra roughly 450 euro a month in my pay check roughly because of WFH.

Around 80 Diesel a week, tolls etc.

It's great

Never mind the savings on work clothes

Also can stay up 2 hours later which is a major plus and get out of bed at 8.30 instead of 7AM.

Long live work from home and screw the begrudgers

Hopefully I can do the five days from home after Covid but company did say min two days in office, see what happens.

nearzero

shadyslimshady wrote: »

I'll see an extra roughly 450 euro a month in my pay check roughly because of WFH.

Around 80 Diesel a week, tolls etc.

It's great

This is the thing my employer wont entertain, I havent had a payrise in years and when I explained that all the other benefits of not travelling into work have been amazing like more disposable income/less expenses/less financial pressure and less stress from travelling, better work/life balance and now not only do I have anxiety from Covid going back to the office but a horrible anxiety about losing all the lovely things I've gained from being able to WFH.

They arent supporting any positive mental health outcomes from WRH, only listening to those want to come for the same reasons that they feel it will benefit their mental health. Its so one-sided and unfair

color_girl

color_girl wrote: »

This is the thing my employer wont entertain, I havent had a payrise in years and when I explained that all the other benefits of not travelling into work have been amazing like more disposable income/less expenses/less financial pressure and less stress from travelling, better work/life balance and now not only do I have anxiety from Covid going back to the office but a horrible anxiety about losing all the lovely things I've gained from being able to WFH.

They arent supporting any positive mental health outcomes from WRH, only listening to those want to come for the same reasons that they feel it will benefit their mental health. Its so one-sided and unfair

Its been said many times in this thread, if you are in a work situation post-covid that no longer works for you, change jobs, regardless of your stance on WFH.

People move jobs every.single.day.of.the.week for a whole lot less than what you have outlined

There are plenty of employers willing to offer all levels of WFH, find one that suits, and give your notice.

If its negatively affecting your mental health, why would you not.

Personally, I've already decided that for the remainder of my career I've no intention of ever working in the office again. Current employer is agreeable, if that changes, I'll move, simple as.

hots

Deleted User wrote: »

Its been said many times in this thread, if you are in a work situation post-covid that no longer works for you, change jobs, regardless of your stance on WFH.

People move jobs every.single.day.of.the.week for a whole lot less than what you have outlined

There are plenty of employers willing to offer all levels of WFH, find one that suits, and give your notice.

If its negatively affecting your mental health, why would you not.

Personally, I've already decided that for the remainder of my career I've no intention of ever working in the office again. Current employer is agreeable, if that changes, I'll move, simple as.

and there's no better time than now, a lot of job markets are hot at the moment, go find something worth your effort while there's options open, next year or the year after who knows, it might not be so good.

dkav9

Love reading the comments from those desperate to get their office identity back.

I am glad that the WFH revolution happened at this stage of my life and not when I am in my 40s when I might realise that all of the time I spent at work previously wasnt even necessary!!

An Ri rua

Lumen wrote: »

I don't see why travelling to a company office for a meeting is any different from travelling to a customer site for a meeting.

Revenue do though. So, until that changes, visits to the 'place of work' is not an expense. Will be interesting whether place of work designated as home office in a contract holds any water with Revenue. e.g. if people are on a hybrid model and must turn up even 1 day a week, that may give effect to 'place of work'. A little like being a contractor and the criteria for being deemed employer/employee and not customer/contractor

Lumen

An Ri rua wrote: »

Revenue do though. So, until that changes, visits to the 'place of work' is not an expense. Will be interesting whether place of work designated as home office in a contract holds any water with Revenue. e.g. if people are on a hybrid model and must turn up even 1 day a week, that may give effect to 'place of work'. A little like being a contractor and the criteria for being deemed employer/employee and not customer/contractor

The guidance is a bit confusing.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/employing-people/employee-expenses/travel-and-subsistence/normal-place-of-work.aspx

Frank Bullitt

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Pretty crap data centre staff, if they didn't have a scheduled generator test once a month.




Apart from a few corners of the public service, anyone who has absolutely nothing to do will have been let go, long ago. And those who are in that sort of position don't go round drawing attention to themselves.

Just because YOU don't value a role (Compliance Officer, Privacy Officer, Operational Auditor, Fixed Asset manager, whatever) doesn't mean that NO-ONE else does. 99% of the time, if they company is still paying them, then it's because they are doing something either operationally useful or legally required.

I expect that as places get back our new-business-as-usual, there will be some hard, unpleasant questions about certain things related to the Organisation of Working Time Act, and GDPR. If you want to WFH, expect to have your workspace assessed for ergonomic suitability, privacy, security and quality of broadband connection. I actually do hope that those of you who want to WFH can (I don't want to deal with your grumpy selves in the office) - but I believe there will be more challenges than you expect.

The point a few posts back about low performing employees was interpreted by most as employees who are fully experienced but lazy. I'd expect it refers mainly to employees who are still learning the job (recently qualified, recently moved to this role or company) who find it a lot easier to learn from colleagues who are readily available, and also from observing how those employees deal with real-life issues in the workplace, ie learning to ask questions that they didn't even know needed asking.

What planet do you live on? Do you have any idea how hard it is to fire or let someone go? A lot of the times it is just cheaper to keep them employed!

Frank Bullitt

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

What planet do you live on? Do you have any idea how hard it is to fire or let someone go? A lot of the times it is just cheaper to keep them employed!

In fairness, its pretty easy to either (a) improve performance or (b) get rid of someone, so long as you do your people management correctly and consistently.

Granted you won't be able to get rid of someone within a day without gross negligence, but you can, essentially, give someone enough rope so they basically manage themselves either into a better performer or out the door

Frank Bullitt

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, its pretty easy to either (a) improve performance or (b) get rid of someone, so long as you do your people management correctly and consistently.

Granted you won't be able to get rid of someone within a day without gross negligence, but you can, essentially, give someone enough rope so they basically manage themselves either into a better performer or out the door

True, that is still a very far cry from saying they are still employed because they are an asset or benefit to a company.

Plenty of companies have deadweight that has built up over time, a bunch of legacy employees that say the right things at the right time, as opposed to doing the right things. The gift go gab is powerful.

Plenty of companies can offer room for improvement, and most do.

Frank Bullitt

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

Plenty of companies have deadweight that has built up over time, a bunch of legacy employees that say the right things at the right time, as opposed to doing the right things. The gift go gab is powerful.

Again, it comes down to how the people are managed i.e. if a poor performer is not managed, then they will remain a poor performer.

For the companies in question, the issue is not the poor performer, it is how they are being managed.

Naos

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I expect that as places get back our new-business-as-usual, there will be some hard, unpleasant questions about certain things related to the Organisation of Working Time Act, and GDPR. If you want to WFH, expect to have your workspace assessed for ergonomic suitability, privacy, security and quality of broadband connection. I actually do hope that those of you who want to WFH can (I don't want to deal with your grumpy selves in the office) - but I believe there will be more challenges than you expect.

The point a few posts back about low performing employees was interpreted by most as employees who are fully experienced but lazy. I'd expect it refers mainly to employees who are still learning the job (recently qualified, recently moved to this role or company) who find it a lot easier to learn from colleagues who are readily available, and also from observing how those employees deal with real-life issues in the workplace, ie learning to ask questions that they didn't even know needed asking.

Is there a reason why you are so anti-WFH? It is very strange.

I love WFH. I support anyone who wants to WFH. Likewise, I support anyone who wants to work in the office. Good for them.

I am more productive WFH. You may be more productive from the office. At the end of the day, isn't that what a company wants, productivity?

AdamD

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I think you'll find that that reaction is to those who say things like "WFH is terrible ,No one should be allowed do it , Companies will fail if they allow it to continue!!"

There is fairly universal acceptance that it works for some people and doesn't work for others for a variety of personal or professional reasons.

Some want to WFH all the time , some want the ability to work a few days here and there at home and all levels in between.

The vast majority of people on this thread are advocating for choice and flexibility in working options.

It is those that claim that everyone needs to get back to the office immediately and that any other solution is a complete and utter disaster for all concerned that tend to garner reactions here.

This just isn't true though. Tonnes of posts in this thread making derogatory and generalising comments about people who don't want to work from home.

shadyslimshady

AdamD wrote: »

This just isn't true though. Tonnes of posts in this thread making derogatory and generalising comments about people who don't want to work from home.

The last 10 pages says otherwise to be fair.


Return to Office People.
Every single person should return to office and no one should be allowed to work from home. I don't care if you have a four hour commute or paying crazy Dublin rents to support your family.


Work from Home People
The people posting are saying their delighted to work from home and hopefully the companies provide office space for people who wish to work from the office or don't have the space to work from home.

Pwindedd

shadyslimshady wrote: »

The last 10 pages says otherwise to be fair.


Return to Office People.
Every single person should return to office and no one should be allowed to work from home. I don't care if you have a four hour commute or paying crazy Dublin rents to support your family.


Work from Home People
The people posting are saying their delighted to work from home and hopefully the companies provide office space for people who wish to work from the office or don't have the space to work from home.

No prizes for guessing which of those two categories, in your completely unbalanced assessment of the thread, you place yourself in!

And after you “Karened” these return-to-office-people....TWICE

I don’t think you are as magnanimous and patient as you think you are.

shadyslimshady

Pwindedd wrote: »

No prizes for guessing which of those two categories, in your completely unbalanced assessment of the thread, you place yourself in!

And after you “Karened” these return-to-office-people....TWICE

I don’t think you are as magnanimous and patient as you think you are.

Yes I did call that user Karen because they keep posting pointless points on why work from home shouldn't happen.There only thinking about themselves.

If a company had 100 employees and 40 wanted to work from the office and the company provided this they would still want the other 60 onsite and not working from home even though the company provided them with what they wanted, an office space.

Mrs OBumble

Naos wrote: »

Is there a reason why you are so anti-WFH? It is very strange.

I love WFH. I support anyone who wants to WFH. Likewise, I support anyone who wants to work in the office. Good for them.

I am more productive WFH. You may be more productive from the office. At the end of the day, isn't that what a company wants, productivity?

I'm not anti-WFH on principle.

But I am pointing out that it's not nearly as simple as some people think.

There are a whole lot of factors which kept people working in employer-controlled-premises before Covid-19, even though the technology existed to allow work-from-anywhere a long time ago. Those factors palled into insignificance beside Covid-19. But they haven't gone away, and will become more important as we return to "normal".

Personally, as long as I can be back in the office at least 3 days/week, then I don't care where other people are. I don't want to be there for the social contact, I'm just sick of having 3 square inches of space to move my mouse on the kitchen table.

But I'm already seeing young employees who aren't getting the feedback / development they deserve. I'm hearing them say they want social contact. I'm listening to a friend who's forced to WFH and lives with his mother with dementia. I'm seeing operational issues develop that would have been fixed so quickly with a quick chat with a colleague (the chat never happened with WFH because the initial person didn't realise they were wrong about something, so didn't ask). I've observed high staff turnover in WFH hires, and a surprising willingness on the company's part to fail someone's probation.

I suspect that the WFH advocates deny all these factors because they're desperate to be allowed to continue WFH. I also suspect that this is a poor strategy: they'd do better to acknowledge the issues, and be part of mitigating the.

One thing I don't have is data about actual WFH productivity vs self-perception of productivity and career impact. I've a hunch that there are some interesting trends in that area, but am not naming them yet. (One poster put up observations from his/her team earlier in the thread.)

If this makes me a "Karen". then I'll wear that badge (stroppy woman who says what she thinks) with pride.

Christy42

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm not anti-WFH on principle.

But I am pointing out that it's not nearly as simple as some people think.

There are a whole lot of factors which kept people working in employer-controlled-premises before Covid-19, even though the technology existed to allow work-from-anywhere a long time ago. Those factors palled into insignificance beside Covid-19. But they haven't gone away, and will become more important as we return to "normal".

Personally, as long as I can be back in the office at least 3 days/week, then I don't care where other people are. I don't want to be there for the social contact, I'm just sick of having 3 square inches of space to move my mouse on the kitchen table.

But I'm already seeing young employees who aren't getting the feedback / development they deserve. I'm hearing them say they want social contact. I'm listening to a friend who's forced to WFH and lives with his mother with dementia. I'm seeing operational issues develop that would have been fixed so quickly with a quick chat with a colleague (the chat never happened with WFH because the initial person didn't realise they were wrong about something, so didn't ask). I've observed high staff turnover in WFH hires, and a surprising willingness on the company's part to fail someone's probation.

I suspect that the WFH advocates deny all these factors because they're desperate to be allowed to continue WFH. I also suspect that this is a poor strategy: they'd do better to acknowledge the issues, and be part of mitigating the.

One thing I don't have is data about actual WFH productivity vs self-perception of productivity and career impact. I've a hunch that there are some interesting trends in that area, but am not naming them yet. (One poster put up observations from his/her team earlier in the thread.)

If this makes me a "Karen". then I'll wear that badge (stroppy woman who says what she thinks) with pride.

In the middle of this anti wfh piece you mention that you are happy to wfh 2 days a week? If you see so many flaws with it why are you happy to settle for wfh?

Frank Bullitt

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm not anti-WFH on principle.

But I am pointing out that it's not nearly as simple as some people think.

There are a whole lot of factors which kept people working in employer-controlled-premises before Covid-19, even though the technology existed to allow work-from-anywhere a long time ago. Those factors palled into insignificance beside Covid-19. But they haven't gone away, and will become more important as we return to "normal".

Personally, as long as I can be back in the office at least 3 days/week, then I don't care where other people are. I don't want to be there for the social contact, I'm just sick of having 3 square inches of space to move my mouse on the kitchen table.

But I'm already seeing young employees who aren't getting the feedback / development they deserve. I'm hearing them say they want social contact. I'm listening to a friend who's forced to WFH and lives with his mother with dementia. I'm seeing operational issues develop that would have been fixed so quickly with a quick chat with a colleague (the chat never happened with WFH because the initial person didn't realise they were wrong about something, so didn't ask). I've observed high staff turnover in WFH hires, and a surprising willingness on the company's part to fail someone's probation.

I suspect that the WFH advocates deny all these factors because they're desperate to be allowed to continue WFH. I also suspect that this is a poor strategy: they'd do better to acknowledge the issues, and be part of mitigating the.

One thing I don't have is data about actual WFH productivity vs self-perception of productivity and career impact. I've a hunch that there are some interesting trends in that area, but am not naming them yet. (One poster put up observations from his/her team earlier in the thread.)

If this makes me a "Karen". then I'll wear that badge (stroppy woman who says what she thinks) with pride.

If you said this first, you would have saved us all reading that post.

A lot of what you are saying though is more a failing of the company, not WFH. This has been pointed out before. You talk about a "chat" that never happened and the ramifications from that. Does your work not use the proper tools to help alleviate these issues? Zoom, Slack, email, text, phone, none of these?

https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/whats-next-for-remote-work-an-analysis-of-2000-tasks-800-jobs-and-nine-countries#

Here is some data that informs the narrative around what the future for WFH and in-person work looks like. In a nutshell, if you rock is computer based or knowledge or learning based, WFH works well. If it operating machines...not so well.

WFH works better in advanced economies, so most of the western world. It also has an impact on urban economics, so how cities and towns are made and laid out.

To sum up, employers (all of them) have a lot to gain from WFH, so they will be working hard to adjust to that to help their businesses along.

limnam

Frank Bullitt wrote: »

What planet do you live on? Do you have any idea how hard it is to fire or let someone go? A lot of the times it is just cheaper to keep them employed!

Surprising she's worked in so many MNC's and hasn't witnessed people getting promoted out of the way.