If Work From Home becomes a thing...

BrianD3

I've posted a few times about WFH in the public sector and the obstacles I envisaged with "managers" pressuring everyone to get back to the office fulltime. This has now started to happen (in at least some workplaces) in contravention of government guidelines and guidelines from other public service bodies and departments.

It is causing a huge amount of bad feeling and stress among those who have been working successfully from home but have ongoing difficulties with childcare or other caring responsibilities.

The problem I see is that managers are disengaged from what their staff do and therefore don't know that they have been working successfully from home. Performance issues are not tackled whether they are occurring at home or in office. Appraisals are a joke. Very few measurable targets are set. When you dispense with the above, what sort of management style are you left with? Seems to be a case of "Is she at her desk? No. Get her back. Ok she's back, my job is done now"

The unions need to be all over this but from what I've seen they aren't, in fact I think unions are anti working from home as they are fearful about outsourcing?

limnam

BrianD3 wrote: »

I've posted a few times about WFH in the public sector and the obstacles I envisaged with "managers" pressuring everyone to get back to the office fulltime. This has now started to happen (in at least some workplaces) in contravention of government guidelines and guidelines from other public service bodies and departments.

It is causing a huge amount of bad feeling and stress among those who have been working successfully from home but have ongoing difficulties with childcare or other caring responsibilities.

The problem I see is that managers are disengaged from what their staff do and therefore don't know that they have been working successfully from home. Performance issues are not tackled whether they are occurring at home or in office. Appraisals are a joke. Very few measurable targets are set. When you dispense with the above, what sort of management style are you left with? Seems to be a case of "Is she at her desk? No. Get her back. Ok she's back, my job is done now"

The unions need to be all over this but from what I've seen they aren't, in fact I think unions are anti working from home a they are fearful about outsourcing?

The issue I see it and might be slightly more prevalent in the public sector.

Is the lack of genuine or what I call "Real" managers.

Incompetent managers with a junior mentality that can't seem to cope if they can't "see" their team.

Working remotely seems to expose all the weaknesses of these managers and this country seems to be full of them. Although not exclusive to Ireland we just seem to be quiet immature in this regard

Good strong managers generally have no concerns with managing complex/remote teams

PhilOssophy

If a manager can't see who is working just as well remotely than they do in the office, I would strongly question their management ability. By now, I would expect any capable manager to have noted the reduction/increase in productivity, who is always there when you call them, who is "Oh I'm just out for 15 minutes I'll be back shortly", etc, etc.
If they need to have somebody within eyeshot, they are clearly a very bad manager to begin with. Just because they are within eyeshot, doesn't mean they are working any harder. If they have had a 2 hr commute, it is probably the opposite.

kippy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

If a manager can't see who is working just as well remotely than they do in the office, I would strongly question their management ability. By now, I would expect any capable manager to have noted the reduction/increase in productivity, who is always there when you call them, who is "Oh I'm just out for 15 minutes I'll be back shortly", etc, etc.
If they need to have somebody within eyeshot, they are clearly a very bad manager to begin with. Just because they are within eyeshot, doesn't mean they are working any harder. If they have had a 2 hr commute, it is probably the opposite.

To be fair, a new skillset may be required as well as different ways to do things. If the manager themselves has never been in a WFH scenario, or the employees haven't, it takes some time to learn and implement better ways of managing.

Mrs OBumble

jrosen wrote: »

They could attract new staff down the line who are looking for a better work life balance. .

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

PhilOssophy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

Except the ones who realise the benefits to everybody. A person who hasn't just spent an hour crammed on a bus, or in traffic, is probably going to give more productive hours while they are working.

More hours in work does not mean a more productive employee.

limnam

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Except the ones who realise the benefits to everybody. A person who hasn't just spent an hour crammed on a bus, or in traffic, is probably going to give more productive hours while they are working.

More hours in work does not mean a better employee.

With so many companies aggressively advertising their work life balance philosophy. Would seem strange then they didn't actually want to hire people who would take advantage of it

PhilOssophy

limnam wrote: »

With so many companies aggressively advertising their work life balance philosophy. Would seem strange then they didn't actually want to hire people who would take advantage of it

There's plenty of firms (e.g. accountancy/law firms) where they still think pushing people to within an inch of their life is the way to get the best out of people.

Technocentral

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

Your thinking is completely outdated.

Blanco100

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

This is so true. It should be the tagline of this thread in fairness. And its such a pity. I'm not saying that the view is correct, but its disgracefully true in 2020.

Companies will always sell themselves as being forward thinking "we promote a fair work/life balance", but its just a marketing tool.

American companies especially, you cannot be promoting work life balance when the average employed American takes damn all days off.

There is no law that requires US employers to offer paid holiday time to their staff. However, in reality, most US employers offer paid holiday to their workers. The number of days varies from employer to employer, but on average, US workers receive around 10 days of paid holiday each year.

And they would see that as ample time to spend with your family. No wonder they all get divorced

PhilOssophy

Blanco100 wrote: »

This is so true. It should be the tagline of this thread in fairness. And its such a pity. I'm not saying that the view is correct, but its disgracefully true in 2020.

Companies will always sell themselves as being forward thinking "we promote a fair work/life balance", but its just a marketing tool.

American companies especially, you cannot be promoting work life balance when the average employed American takes damn all days off.

There is no law that requires US employers to offer paid holiday time to their staff. However, in reality, most US employers offer paid holiday to their workers. The number of days varies from employer to employer, but on average, US workers receive around 10 days of paid holiday each year.

And they would see that as ample time to spend with your family. No wonder they all get divorced

Yeah, thankfully most of us don't live in the US.

lickalot

Reading this thread I really pity some of the people and the companies they work for.

They are stuck in the stone age with their thinking.

If you have a good skillset and jobs are in demand people won't be long moving on from these type of companies.

There are some horrific companies out there but most these days actually care about their employees, you do your 9-5, your asked if you want to go on an out of hours roster to take calls and be paid for it.

The days of scare tactics are long gone.

JimmyVik

limnam wrote: »

With so many companies aggressively advertising their work life balance philosophy. Would seem strange then they didn't actually want to hire people who would take advantage of it

I work for one for sure.

jrosen

There are lots of companies who have great flexi options.
In my personal experience valued employees tend to be able to negotiate better.

Mike3287

Blanco100 wrote: »

Of course its different if you live 10 mins from you office

Why is it different?

Unfair to bring them into the office because they are sensible and don't do a crazy commute from Ballinasloe to Dublin

Crazy commuters shouldn't get preferential treatment

seamus

antimatterx wrote: »

I think it is. We were always told in college to include our address on CV's.

This is outdated advice at this stage. In times gone by it was advised to put down a "good" address, e.g. Blackrock instead of Tallaght, and to even use a relative's address if you can, to elevate your position.

HR departments will specifically try and exclude this information if at all possible, because it can in theory be used against the company on discrimination grounds, depending on the address.

Anecdotally from the CVs I get, I'd say it's 50/50 whether someone includes their address. Usually foreign workers do, Irish people generally don't.

The kind of address snobbery that went on in the 80s and 90s is mostly gone anyway, but I'd imagine still exists in small companies to some extent.

Electric Sheep

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

Employers who don't offer a good work life balance will find it hard to attract any staff of quality at all in the future.

Electric Sheep

seamus wrote: »

The kind of address snobbery that went on in the 80s and 90s is mostly gone anyway, but I'd imagine still exists in small companies to some extent.

In small companies and small minds.

Electric Sheep

JimmyVik wrote: »

Pretty sure a CV without an address would be thrown in the bin in my place.
If you were found to have lied about anything at all on your CV you can probably be fired.

Why would it be thrown in the bin? What do you learn about the applicant from the address on the CV?

limnam

JimmyVik wrote: »

I work for one for sure.

Me too.

Thankfully, I would be reluctant to work anywhere that had a reputation for not offering good work life balance

lickalot

This talk of putting your address down on a C.V is nonsense.

Ah sure we won't hire this grad in Dublin as he is living in Sligo.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Gael23

House prices in Dublin would nosedive

limnam

Gael23 wrote: »

House prices in Dublin would nosedive

No more 750k matchboxes

Unearthly

Although I still prefer it, the novelty has kind of worn off for me. Definitely think now that I'd prefer 50% at home, 50% in office.

Companies that dig their heels in and refuse to offer any kind of WFH will be left behind though. It reminds me of the managers in the company that I work for a few years ago that insisted people kept to strict schedules of 8-4-30 despite the job not requiring to be time specific. They were quickly moved on with their stone age views

Blanco100

There are people out there who embrace the lack of work/life balance as it allows them climb that ladder.

In these companies you can do your 9-5, the problem is the overspill of work is left for you the next day. People dont start afresh the following day.

Its breeding an environment that the work never stops, even when your not there, especially on global teams.

PhilOssophy

seamus wrote: »

This is outdated advice at this stage. In times gone by it was advised to put down a "good" address, e.g. Blackrock instead of Tallaght, and to even use a relative's address if you can, to elevate your position.

HR departments will specifically try and exclude this information if at all possible, because it can in theory be used against the company on discrimination grounds, depending on the address.

Anecdotally from the CVs I get, I'd say it's 50/50 whether someone includes their address. Usually foreign workers do, Irish people generally don't.

The kind of address snobbery that went on in the 80s and 90s is mostly gone anyway, but I'd imagine still exists in small companies to some extent.

They are probably the same people who'd look at a CV and decide to offer an interview/job based on what school the applicant went to!

antimatterx

My company installed barriers and we're down to less than half available desks. About 25.

If you want to come in you can, but you don't have to.

Technocentral

mayo londoner wrote: »

I'm really dreading going back the week after next, going to be extremely hard to re-adjust to the arse lickers, office melters and all the ****e that goes with it. Loving working from home and no decrease in productivity, been busier if anything. My company couldn't have less interest in offering any semblance of WFH once 29th June comes.

Old school management just never learn, really hope there's a mass exodus from the company once office reopens (they offer zero benefits/perks as is) and other companies start to offer WFH.

I've an interview coming up in the next few weeks where they will offer minimum of one day per week WFH, hell of a lot less money per week but would be relocating so saving on future house purchase costs/rent etc. I'd value the flexibility of being able to WFH at a good €50 per day. Can offer all the money in the world but if you aren't remotely happy in your job, know the company doesn't give a ****e about me or any other employee for that matter, then what's the point of having couple hundred extra quid in the bank every week, misery of it all wears you down eventually. The freedom of being able to work from home, extra time in the morning and evening, less noise around me during working hours, not listening to other people's nonsense has been heaven, job can be stressful and as I said up above I've been busier than ever, yet I don't feel half as stressed due to WFH if that makes any sense.

Best of luck with your interview, sounds like you need to get out of that toxic environment.

charlietheminxx

I really wish my employer was on board with continued work from home. I can split my time for the first month back (from 29 June) and then have to be back in the office full time. The annoying thing is that I've worked well at home and have been told as much. It's really made me re-evaluate what I want from my working life, so I'll be starting to look elsewhere.

charlietheminxx

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I really wish my employer was on board with continued work from home. I can split my time for the first month back (from 29 June) and then have to be back in the office full time. The annoying thing is that I've worked well at home and have been told as much. It's really made me re-evaluate what I want from my working life, so I'll be starting to look elsewhere.

Can you not push them on it and highlight how much better it is for you, makes you more productive and request the reasons why they are still forcing you back to the office full time.

You should also be highlighting that you should not be returning to the office on the 29th if you can work from home, the 29th is not supposed to signify a mass return to offices it is only supposed to be for those who are unable to do their job from home (i.e. someone who needs to physically do things that is only possible onsite).

jrosen

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I really wish my employer was on board with continued work from home. I can split my time for the first month back (from 29 June) and then have to be back in the office full time. The annoying thing is that I've worked well at home and have been told as much. It's really made me re-evaluate what I want from my working life, so I'll be starting to look elsewhere.

Couple of things. You say you have worked well at home. Has your work been consistent at home compared to pre-covid? Work load the same, deadlines etc? Or was your work load reduced.

If you work load has been consistent and you have been doing your job the same at home as you would in the office then you could put forward a convincing argument for some wfh flexibility. But some companies for whatever reason are not supportive of work from home.

charlietheminxx

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Can you not push them on it and highlight how much better it is for you, makes you more productive and request the reasons why they are still forcing you back to the office full time.

You should also be highlighting that you should not be returning to the office on the 29th if you can work from home, the 29th is not supposed to signify a mass return to offices it is only supposed to be for those who are unable to do their job from home (i.e. someone who needs to physically do things that is only possible onsite).

On the first half I have done, it's the only reason I have some flexibility for the first month back.

I've also highlighted the guidelines but some areas of the company are not working as well remotely and larger projects can't go ahead with things as they are (have to try and stay vague here!). Even though my work is not in that area because it's a small company we apparently all have to come back in. I had fully expected to be working from home for the next few months.

charlietheminxx

jrosen wrote: »

Couple of things. You say you have worked well at home. Has your work been consistent at home compared to pre-covid? Work load the same, deadlines etc? Or was your work load reduced.

For a few weeks it was quieter and my regular workload was lighter (around April) but it ramped up again quickly, and I took on some additional things while it was quiet. My employer did note it at the time and I was thanked for it.

Having spent 3 months at home, I've enjoyed avoiding rush hour traffic and distractions in the office and I just don't want to go back to that 5 days a week. To be fair, I'm in my current role for 4 years and it may be time to move on and get some more diverse experience anyway.

PhilOssophy

Tried to ring somebody on Teams an hour ago, no answer. Just arrived back and said "I'll do that for you now".
This is why WFH isn't going to be a thing. The minority who can't be disciplined enough to do it, will just ruin it for everybody. Companies won't want a "you can have it, you can't" style arrangement, it'll just create too much hassle. Easiest to just get everybody back in. Pity as was a great opportunity to prove it can work.

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Tried to ring somebody on Teams an hour ago, no answer. Just arrived back and said "I'll do that for you now".
This is why WFH isn't going to be a thing. The minority who can't be disciplined enough to do it, will just ruin it for everybody. Companies won't want a "you can have it, you can't" style arrangement, it'll just create too much hassle. Easiest to just get everybody back in. Pity as was a great opportunity to prove it can work.

I'm on a client's site 100% since mid March........ I'm not welded to Teams all day and I take my lunch etc at different times.
What you describe above if it happened when the person was in the office you woiuldn't think too much of it.

limnam

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Tried to ring somebody on Teams an hour ago, no answer. Just arrived back and said "I'll do that for you now".
This is why WFH isn't going to be a thing. The minority who can't be disciplined enough to do it, will just ruin it for everybody. Companies won't want a "you can have it, you can't" style arrangement, it'll just create too much hassle. Easiest to just get everybody back in. Pity as was a great opportunity to prove it can work.

People who are lazy/avoid work will do it WFH or in the office.


Good workers will tend to work well from the office or WFH.


Policies should be made to to enable the vast majority


And tooling put in place to deal with the minority

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Tried to ring somebody on Teams an hour ago, no answer. Just arrived back and said "I'll do that for you now".
This is why WFH isn't going to be a thing. The minority who can't be disciplined enough to do it, will just ruin it for everybody. Companies won't want a "you can have it, you can't" style arrangement, it'll just create too much hassle. Easiest to just get everybody back in. Pity as was a great opportunity to prove it can work.

Could just as easily happen in an office, certainly any office I worked in are fairly flexible and people are never tied to their desk all day could easily call to someone and they wouldn’t be there so would call back later to catch up with them. No big deal and nothing unusual.

We don’t use teams as we use zoom but I also would not see it as ever being a way to contact someone for an impromptu call but rather to be used for pre arranged calls as it would be easy to have the application closed, not see a notification etc if you aren’t using it at the time. Email, phone call or text message would be better as even if someone is away from their computer they will get it and can quickly return.

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Tried to ring somebody on Teams an hour ago, no answer. Just arrived back and said "I'll do that for you now".
This is why WFH isn't going to be a thing. The minority who can't be disciplined enough to do it, will just ruin it for everybody. Companies won't want a "you can have it, you can't" style arrangement, it'll just create too much hassle. Easiest to just get everybody back in. Pity as was a great opportunity to prove it can work.

I'm in and out of my office all the time, to go for walk, to pop to the shop for a snack. No more or less than when I am WFH. Who never leaves their desk in a day?

snowgal

I wonder will alot of people start looking for work else where now? (if it can be found!) where wfh is an option if its not where they currently are. Its making me and 2 of my colleagues think long and hard about it to be honest.....And I think this is just the beginning. For many employees, they haven't even got back to work yet. Itll be over the next 4 weeks or so. I think when you get back into it properly, it feels very depressing after having that freedom to wfh for months...

PhilOssophy

I know it could happen in the office but as far as Management are concerned, they will find the person in the office!
In our work situation, it is expected that people answer teams.
Don't get me wrong I want WFH to work, but as far as our Management are concerned if they don't get quick responses they will pull the plug as soon as they can. Things like this just help their cause.
They could understand a 10-15 minute delay in response but an hour, especially when I had to report back to them, is just not good enough for them!

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

........
They could understand a 10-15 minute delay in response but an hour, especially when I had to report back to them, is just not good enough for them!

So managers ask you, you ask someone else and the answer is needed within an hour?

Seems a tad layered tbh ......

Stheno

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I know it could happen in the office but as far as Management are concerned, they will find the person in the office!
In our work situation, it is expected that people answer teams.
Don't get me wrong I want WFH to work, but as far as our Management are concerned if they don't get quick responses they will pull the plug as soon as they can. Things like this just help their cause.
They could understand a 10-15 minute delay in response but an hour, especially when I had to report back to them, is just not good enough for them!

Could you not have phoned them on their mobile?

PhilOssophy

Stheno wrote: »

Could you not have phoned them on their mobile?

I tried that as well, to no avail. Rang out.....but also, Teams is our key communications tool. If he was gone for 15 minutes, I would have said fine, he was getting tea or some fresh air.

I'm not trying to cause a row or anything, I am just saying that this is why WFH will just be abandoned in so many places. Sadly.

Augeo wrote: »

So managers ask you, you ask someone else and the answer is needed within an hour?

Seems a tad layered tbh ......

Yeah, there is a thing called layers in most organisations. Unless you want to tell the CFO to go get something off a contractor himself!

kippy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I tried that as well, to no avail. Rang out.....but also, Teams is our key communications tool. If he was gone for 15 minutes, I would have said fine, he was getting tea or some fresh air.

I'm not trying to cause a row or anything, I am just saying that this is why WFH will just be abandoned in so many places. Sadly.



Yeah, there is a thing called layers in most organisations. Unless you want to tell the CFO to go get something off a contractor himself!

This is not a normal WFH environment though.
I don't know wether in that example the person has kids or not but I know it's hard to be "at work" with all the time with kids at home etc........

afatbollix

Well, Its come through, We are closing our office at the end of the month.

I've got 2 weeks to move our server room :rolleyes:

The COO has gone to a holiday home in Italy till it blows over.

They hope to open a new office when offices can open again but I foresee a smaller office just for management.


He did say that for tax reasons they will only hire people in the country we are in than hire cheaper on the outside.

Stheno

PhilOssophy wrote: »

I tried that as well, to no avail. Rang out.....but also, Teams is our key communications tool. If he was gone for 15 minutes, I would have said fine, he was getting tea or some fresh air.

Where I work we would block our calendars if we were away for a while. However we wouldn't be strict 9-5 and most people in my office are quite experienced. It's not unusual for someone to be away for an hour or more. A few weeks ago I took an hour and a bit to get tyres for my car

But I'd start early or finish late in that case and when away I'd have my phone with me

PhilOssophy

Stheno wrote: »

Where I work we would block our calendars if we were away for a while. However we wouldn't be strict 9-5 and most people in my office are quite experienced. It's not unusual for someone to be away for an hour or more. A few weeks ago I took an hour and a bit to get tyres for my car

But I'd start early or finish late in that case and when away I'd have my phone with me

+1 to that. I say on my Skype/Teams "On lunch back at 2" or when I had a doctors appointment recently "Doctors appointment back in 1 hr - on mobile" or something to that effect.
Now we urgently needed the data and the other guy who could provide it was off sick, so he was the key contact. It isn't a place with a big overtime culture. A bit is expected occasionally but not much.

I guess it depends on the industry.

PhilOssophy

PhilOssophy wrote: »

.....



Yeah, there is a thing called layers in most organisations. Unless you want to tell the CFO to go get something off a contractor himself!

Ah yes, you're playing hang the contractor.

PhilOssophy

Augeo wrote: »

Ah yes, you're playing hang the contractor.

That's the best (and most inaccurate) jumping to conclusions I have come across today. I don't see where you came up with that theory but I'll get the popcorn and when I come back hopefully you'll have explained why you came to that conclusion!!

It was tongue in cheek but you seem to be working somewhere where folk are expected to be chained to the desk.

Several folk have mentioned what you describe isn't at all a problem (or shouldn't be) yet you reckon it's why WFH won't fly and described it as 'The minority who can't be disciplined enough to do it, will just ruin it for everybody'.

Unless it's call centre esque low skilled work I don't understand the problem TBH.

Why can't a CFO liaise with a contractor BTW? Why do you have to be the go between? Are contractors 2nd class citizens in your place of work...... Seems strange to mention the employment status of the person TBH.