If Work From Home becomes a thing...

Cyrus

ELM327 wrote: »

Look at Amazon for instance. Or Netflix. Loss making for years
Same as tesla.

both amazon and netflix make money now though, if they never made money they would eventually cease to exist, so are they still considered a success under that logic? id argue not.

anyway thats a digression,

history is generally kind to the victor.

Wouldnt tesla fall into the category of company thats very badly run and lurches from one crisis to the next with a founder / ceo who would be the exact opposite most of you would like to work for?

im not sure tesla exists in 10 years time

ELM327

Cyrus wrote: »

both amazon and netflix make money now though, if they never made money they would eventually cease to exist, so are they still considered a success under that logic? id argue not.

anyway thats a digression,

history is generally kind to the victor.

Wouldnt tesla fall into the category of company thats very badly run and lurches from one crisis to the next with a founder / ceo who would be the exact opposite most of you would like to work for?

im not sure tesla exists in 10 years time

They didnt (amazon etc) make profits for years. Were they a failure under your logic?

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

they may never generate profit, lots of tech companies in that category down the years, when everyone ultimately realises the music has stopped (wework for example) are the previously identified metrics of success still valid or were they only valid when people assumed profits were to come

I was referring also to public sector organisations. The police, charities, hospitals, grant authorities, etc. There are people not motivated by profit.

Even in a company a department might not be revenue generating. How do they measure success.

That aside even if you generate a profit. It might have been achieved at some terrible cost, not always financial. Sweat shops etc. Slave trade, criminality.

The main point is just because something works out doesn't mean it the right way, or the optimum way to do it.

Not that everyone cares.

Cyrus

ELM327 wrote: »

They didnt (amazon etc) make profits for years. Were they a failure under your logic?

They would have been yes !

But they aren’t because ultimately they were successful

By what logic would a company that made 100s of millions of losses and ended up bankrupt been successful?

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

I was referring also to public sector organisations. The police, charities, hospitals, grant authorities, etc. There are people not motivated by profit.

Even in a company a department might not be revenue generating. How do they measure success.

That aside even if you generate a profit. It might have been achieved at some terrible cost, not always financial. Sweat shops etc. Slave trade, criminality.

The main point is just because something works out doesn't mean it the right way, or the optimum way to do it.

Not that everyone cares.

That’s fine public services don’t need to make a profit they have a benefactor and it’s not their remit

Most wouldn’t hold them up as well run organisations either , hse being one prime example

limnam

Cyrus wrote: »

Most wouldn’t hold them up as well run organisations either , hse being one prime example

You don't have much experience with revenue then

fret_wimp2

ELM327 wrote: »

They didnt (amazon etc) make profits for years. Were they a failure under your logic?

Amazon started out in 1995 and became profitable in 2000.
The story says that this was always the plan & behavior since then agrees with that, having Bezos continually reinvest in the company rather than pay out to shareholders.

I would say that having an initial 5 year plan and executing on it shows a successful business and great management.

If a company shows great promise, but to deliver on that will take time and reinvestment, then to say its not profitable in the first few years does not make it a failure.

fret_wimp2

Cyrus wrote: »

Most wouldn’t hold them up as well run organisations either , hse being one prime example

Running efficiently is not the primary remit of the public service. its remit is to be the cogs and wheels that turn and allow a country to function, while giving a huge amount of employment. Efficiency is unfortunately way down the list of priorities, along with accountability.

Cyrus

limnam wrote: »

You don't have much experience with revenue then

You think the revenue is an example of a well run and efficient organisation?

salonfire

salonfire wrote: »

PhilOssophy makes a valid case for this scenario and I agree.

If people treat WFH as coming and going as everyone pleases, how can it possibly work.

In his scenario, what if PhilOssophy stepped away for an hour while his colleague was? Then the CFO has to wait two hours. If the CFO happened to go away just as the data was gathered, it could be three hours before he looks at it.

A three hour delay for something that could be retrieved in a few minutes if people were at their desks like they are supposed to is acceptable ?

As I mentioned earlier you are as likely to not find someone at their desk when at the office as to not get them immediately by email or their desk phone. That's just not how it works anywhere I've worked. People work their own hours, take breaks when they want, will pop into town or go for a coffee when they feel like it etc. Any important meeting will be organised at least a week in advance to ensure it suits everyone etc. Last minute things only happen on the day or day leading up to a well known deadline and everyone is aware of these things so make sure to watch for it.

In normal day to day work so what if it takes 3 hours to get the info, Id have 10 others things to be working on in the mean time while waiting for the info back.

Cyrus wrote: »

i have worked in a lots of companies, large multinationals with 1000s of employees, large semi states with 1000s of employees, big accountancy firms, small plcs etc etc.

We get things done more quickly than anywhere else, if we want to go into a new jurisdiction we do it in weeks, some of the other places i worked in would take years.

We dont necessarily do it right and we encounter problems along the way and afterwards, but to do it properly would require more people, more functions, more specific skillsets.

And it doesnt appear to be an impediment to making money.

and what else is anyone in business for.

Doesn't sound like a great place to work though, I certainly couldn't hack such a strict regime when I'm used to so much flexibility all my working life where I work to my own schedule and get the work done.

Cyrus

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Doesn't sound like a great place to work though, I certainly couldn't hack such a strict regime when I'm used to so much flexibility all my working life.

it actually is, longest i have ever stayed anywhere, i cant stand large corporates with their mission statements and all the virtue signalling nonsense that goes with it.

We work well and get paid well, everyone senior has been with the company a long time.

Cyrus

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

In normal day to day work so what if it takes 3 hours to get the info, Id have 10 others things to be working on in the mean time while waiting for the info back.

with respect i get the feeling you arent the CEO or CFO of your company, whats ok for you isnt necessarily ok for them.

limnam

Cyrus wrote: »

You think the revenue is an example of a well run and efficient organisation?

When it's taking my money.

Very much so

fret_wimp2

Cyrus wrote: »

You think the revenue is an example of a well run and efficient organisation?

I couldnt comment on how many people they have vs need or their operating costs, but every interaction I've had with revenue has been outstanding, not just for a public service department but for any company.

Never waiting long on the phone, the person on the other end always knows what they are talking about, explains stuff well, and they send on any information or forms ASAP.

So, from a customer perspective, they are nailing it.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

That’s fine public services don’t need to make a profit they have a benefactor and it’s not their remit
....

I had other examples than just public services.The point is that profit isn't the sole metric to measure success. Hard as it is to believe but not everyone is motivated by money. Profit is only one metric and it's not always valid.

If the absence of profit does not guarantee good practise or efficiency then it's likely profit doesn't either. But it certainly creates a different dynamic and drive in most people.

However the point remains that micromanaging does not prove the WFH is unworkable. It's micromanaging that makes lots of things unworkable.

Technocentral

A lot of 19th century thinking here, as people can surely see here that there are huge movements for change around the world especially with younger people, respect being the key, the model of people being treated like cattle and chained to their desks will not be tolerated when the younger generation are in positions of power, adapt or your company will die. Wake up ffs.

Cyrus

Technocentral wrote: »

A lot of 19th century thinking here, as people can surely see here that there are huge movements for change around the world especially with younger people, respect being the key, the model of people being treated like cattle and chained to their desks will not be tolerated when the younger generation are in positions of power, adapt or your company will die. Wake up ffs.

yeah younger people are the future :pac:

i for one welcome our new younger overlords

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

with respect i get the feeling you arent the CEO or CFO of your company, whats ok for you isnt necessarily ok for them.

I’m not but I’m closer to them (or site manager in some instances) in the places I’ve worked than you are imagining and none of them make “immediate” demands for things of me nor would they expect to find me at a desk or meet with me without prearranging it or an occasional call to my mobile rather than expecting me to answer a landline.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

I had other examples than just public services.The point is that profit isn't the sole metric to measure success. Hard as it is to believe but not everyone is motivated by money. Profit is only one metric and it's not always valid.

If the absence of profit does not guarantee good practise or efficiency then it's likely profit doesn't either. But it certainly creates a different dynamic and drive in most people.

However the point remains that micromanaging does not prove the WFH is unworkable. It's micromanaging that makes lots of things unworkable.

maybe not but the vast majority of people who start companys do it with a view to making money.

wfh is fine as long as everyone takes responsibility for themselves and their own roles, unfortunately everyone doesnt, hence they have a manager that keeps an eye on them.

unless you work in some sort of utopia where everyone there is diligent and takes responsibility for their own workload.

Cyrus

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

I’m not but I’m closer to them (or site manager in some instances) in the places I’ve worked than you are imagining and none of them make “immediate” demands for things of me nor would they expect to find me or meet with meet without prearranging it or an occasional call to my mobile rather than expecting me to answer a landline.

well lucky you then Nox, you must work with some exceptionally tolerant and laid back executives.

i dont know where you folks are working but that hasnt been my experience across multiple company's in multiple sectors.

Electric Sheep

Cyrus wrote: »

well lucky you then Nox, you must work with some exceptionally tolerant and laid back executives.

i dont know where you folks are working but that hasnt been my experience across multiple company's in multiple sectors.

I work for an extremely large financial organization. They have no problem with WFH for roles where it is suitable. It has become the norm in a lot of companies because it helps to retain high quality staff. Tonight I will probably be working until after midnight, so I will take the afternoon off and log back in the evening.

If I can be flexible, they have to be flexible. Everyone benefits.

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

well lucky you then Nox, you must work with some exceptionally tolerant and laid back executives.

i dont know where you folks are working but that hasnt been my experience across multiple company's in multiple sectors.

Very senior people (I’m in a senior position myself) in the places I have worked wouldn’t really have much to be chasing for, I work my projects that they have little involvement day to day in them bar signing off on things etc which would be me asking them for stuff rather than the other way around. Things don’t have to be passed up and down the chain, I manage my projects, I deal with the external people myself, I do much of the work myself on them etc.

I know when I’ll be busy, I can do that looking at my calender now that there will be a few deadlines in the coming 2 months so I’m working towards them, arranging meetings in advance, getting information of the people in need it from, getting the work done by others which I need done etc. If I need something urgent if someone tomorrow they already know about it for a week or more.

Cyrus

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Very senior people (I’m in a senior position myself) in the places I have worked wouldn’t really have much to be chasing for, I work my projects that they have little involvement day to day in them bar signing off on things etc which would be me asking them for stuff rather than the other way around. Things don’t have to be passed up and down the chain, I manage my projects, I deal with the external people myself, I do much of the work myself on them etc.

i think you are mixing up an executive running a company and someone senior within a function, they are 2 very different things, with different priorities and requirements.

Cyrus

Electric Sheep wrote: »

I work for an extremely large financial organization. They have no problem with WFH for roles where it is suitable. It has become the norm in a lot of companies because it helps to retain high quality staff. Tonight I will probably be working until after midnight, so I will take the afternoon off and log back in the evening.

If I can be flexible, they have to be flexible. Everyone benefits.

i dont think anything i said contradicts that?

do you mind me asking why you will be working until after midnight if you can afford to take the afternoon off? is it a timezone issue?

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

i think you are mixing up an executive running a company and someone senior within a function, they are 2 very different things, with different priorities and requirements.

Not at all, in the different places I’ve worked I’d have had similar relationship with both depending on how big the place was.

Lumen

Technocentral wrote: »

A lot of 19th century thinking here, as people can surely see here that there are huge movements for change around the world especially with younger people, respect being the key, the model of people being treated like cattle and chained to their desks will not be tolerated when the younger generation are in positions of power, adapt or your company will die. Wake up ffs.

It's got nothing to do with youth. The people pushing this forward are older people trying to juggle childcare and school runs. Those are the people I want to attract and keep, cos they know what they're doing

IMO it's the younger people who want to be in the office, queuing for their avocado salads at lunch, out for beers after work. (Less derisively, it is harder to learn when you're physically distant from the people you want to learn from.)

Electric Sheep

Cyrus wrote: »

i dont think anything i said contradicts that?

do you mind me asking why you will be working until after midnight if you can afford to take the afternoon off? is it a timezone issue?

Production release that has to be done outside of office hours. There is a time zone element to it, we have to be outside of business hours on the USA west coast.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

...wfh is fine as long as everyone takes responsibility for themselves and their own roles, unfortunately everyone doesnt, hence they have a manager that keeps an eye on them....

If you have clear metrics to achieve you can create business intelligence system than track this.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

If you have clear metrics to achieve you can create business intelligence system than track this.

of course, but you dont need a business intelligence system to identify workers who arent pulling their weight.

Identifying them isnt the issue.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

If you have clear metrics to achieve you can create business intelligence system than track this.

I don't really get how tracking if people are working or not is seen as such a challenge or requiring elaborate ways of doing.

Ok fair enough it differs between industries and type of work etc but most jobs have work to be done within a certain time frame and if its not then its easy to see this and question why not, there is of course acceptable reasons why a deadline has not been met but these can be demonstrated quite easily.

Like generally I have deadlines to get stuff done, the deadlines are set by various different things both internally and externally depending on the project. To achieve this there will most likely have to be either a report produced at a minimum or more than likely a piece of hardware or software and a report. To achieve the deadlines the work has to go in, if the deadlines are missed for no good reason then questions would be asked.

It doesn't need monitoring or constant checking up on people etc etc. Yes regular update meetings etc to report progress but from the perspective of what input you might need, any other resources that would help, solve issues, flag delays etc. A few months (excluding training etc) and a deadline would quickly show up if someone is on the doss or getting their work done without any looking over their shoulder, chaining them to the desk, counting their hours etc etc.

bladespin

beauf wrote: »

If you have clear metrics to achieve you can create business intelligence system than track this.

I did lol a little at this (you are right btw) but our MD (semi retired) loves sales figures, that's his immediate gauge of performance (our financial controller does the proper maths), all my main capital sales of the year so far came while I was working at home, I even joked with him about it becoming a regular thing and he's into the idea - it was luck tbh, my capital sales are developed over a long time the orders just happened to appear around the same time.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

of course, but you dont need a business intelligence system to identify workers who arent pulling their weight.

Identifying them isnt the issue.

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

I don't really get how tracking if people are working or not is seen as such a challenge or requiring elaborate ways of doing.....

... and we are here because people are saying WFH won't work because you need to see them doing the work, or a manager has to over see them.

Once you do data analysis of problems or workflows, and automation, or workloads, you often find a couple of things. What you thought was taking all the time generally isn't, is usually something unexpected. What generally saves the most times, is immediate access to information and analysis.

I've never found peoples hunches to be that reliable. Far better to measure twice and cut once. In terms of productivity, not all workloads are obvious or linear. you might find the person in a 6am everyday who never leaves their desk and comlaining about a massive workload is not doing very much at all. But the person who doesn't seem to that busy, has actually works much faster so doesn't show any stress at all.

I was wondering if WFH would show up the bluffers, but they seem to be able to do exactly the same working from home.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

... and we are here because people are saying WFH won't work because you need to see them doing the work, or a manager has to over see them.

Once you do data analysis of problems or workflows, and automation, or workloads, you often find a couple of things. What you thought was taking all the time generally isn't, is usually something unexpected. What generally saves the most times, is immediate access to information and analysis.

I've never found peoples hunches to be that reliable. Far better to measure twice and cut once. In terms of productivity, not all workloads are obvious or linear. you might find the person in a 6am everyday who never leaves their desk and comlaining about a massive workload is not doing very much at all. But the person who doesn't seem to that busy, has actually works much faster so doesn't show any stress at all.

I was wondering if WFH would show up the bluffers, but they seem to be able to do exactly the same working from home.

Surely you don’t have bluffers or they have been found out If you have this business intelligence system ? Or is it not actually in place where you work?

mr_fegelien

I don't see WFH can be a thing (or school frome home/SFM).

I've been in the house 4 months from school and for the first time in 2 years, was seriously considering suicide. How can anyone want to work from home or go to school from home? I think leaving your house is better for mental health IMO.

kippy

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I don't see WFH can be a thing (or school frome home/SFM).

I've been in the house 4 months from school and for the first time in 2 years, was seriously considering suicide. How can anyone want to work from home or go to school from home? I think leaving your house is better for mental health IMO.

WFH is a thing. It's been around decades.
The last 4 months have forced a number of places and employees into it.
Its not a bad thing that organisations who would have never considered it have been forced to have a look at it.
In an ideal work if your job can be done from home there is no reason why you can't do a do a couple of days a week/month from home.
Everyone is different.

Learning from home has been around decades also. Depending on your age and lifestyle there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's how I've done most of my education.

Having a good work life balance is good for your mental health. Working from home does not preclude you from leaving the house......

mr_fegelien

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I don't see WFH can be a thing (or school frome home/SFM).

I've been in the house 4 months from school and for the first time in 2 years, was seriously considering suicide. How can anyone want to work from home or go to school from home? I think leaving your house is better for mental health IMO.

Many people find it of great benefit as you will see if you read though the thread.

Jim2007

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I don't see WFH can be a thing (or school frome home/SFM).

Well first of all it is already a thing. And remote schooling has been going for a very long time in places like Australia for instance.

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I've been in the house 4 months from school and for the first time in 2 years, was seriously considering suicide. How can anyone want to work from home or go to school from home? I think leaving your house is better for mental health IMO.

Working from home does not mean you don't go out. It just means you don loose one or two hours travelling everyday and you have more time to get engaged in local stuff - clubs, events etc...

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

Surely you don’t have bluffers or they have been found out If you have this business intelligence system ? Or is it not actually in place where you work?

Sometimes people don't want records or to be proved wrong. It's why micromanaging is self sustaining.

OMM 0000

bilbot79 wrote: »

I'd be tempted to buy a little apartment in the Canaries and spend my winters there, in fact I'd probably

1/ Sell my Dublin gaff

2/ By a cheaper Irish gaff in the countryside

3/ Buy a place in the Canaries

4/ Buy another place somewhere in Europe, Hvar or somewhere like that

And just spend weeks and months in each place.

How would the rest of you exploit work from home if you had it permanently?

I've been working from home for 6 months.

The problem with your "Buy a place in the Canaries" idea is it's much much much harder to get a job in Ireland while living in the Canaries.

limnam

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I've been working from home for 6 months.

The problem with your "Buy a place in the Canaries" idea is it's much much much harder to get a job in Ireland while living in the Canaries.

Nothing stopping you from been there for a few months of the year though?

Why would it be more difficult if you have a residency in dub?

OMM 0000

limnam wrote: »

Nothing stopping you from been there for a few months of the year though?

Why would it be more difficult if you have a residency in dub?

100% agree with the "few months of the year" idea.

My issue is with the idea of moving somewhere cheap and thinking you can keep getting Irish jobs. I say this because I tried it when I lived in Russia (middle of nowhere). You end up becoming isolated as you lose the face to face which is invaluable.

seamus

OMM 0000 wrote: »

100% agree with the "few months of the year" idea.

My issue is with the idea of moving somewhere cheap and thinking you can keep getting Irish jobs. I say this because I tried it when I lived in Russia (middle of nowhere). You end up becoming isolated as you lose the face to face which is invaluable.

This. We're starting to look at making all new hires remote hires by default. But a key requirement will be the ability (or at least willingness) to get to the office one or twice a month. Whether it's for planning meetings or just a pissup, there is always decent value in a certain amount of face-to-face interaction.

I know plenty of people will say they've worked remote for years and never see colleagues from one side of the year to the next. However at our core we are social animals and we gain value out of in-person encounters.

My experience of nearly a decade now of working in companies with dispersed or fully remote teams is that team cohesion is always improved by the odd in-person meeting, even if it's every six months or even once a year. It's probably a trick of the brain, but there's some weird trust/respect switch that goes in your brain when the person is standing in front of you.

It's doesn't make any logical sense, but that's human nature.

The problem with the idea of spending a few months a year somewhere else is that your employer needs to be onboard. Even if you work 100% remote in Lifford, that doesn't mean your employer will be comfortable with you heading off to the Canaries for four months. What if a pandemic hits? What if a volcano goes off? Will your connectivity over there be good enough for work? Will there be a time difference, etc?

Of course you have the personal logistical issues too. Do you earn enough money to go live in the Canaries for 4 months of the year (i.e. keeping your Irish house and your Spanish one)? Will you be able to rent a property with the connectivity / reliability you need? Will you have all of the equipment you need?

It sounds like a nice idea, but whether it's realistic is the question.

Lumen

The trick to making this work is to avoid having a mixed office/remote culture. It doesn't work. The more remote people will get marginalised as the office based people will get lazy and start to talk about things wihout them.

Once everyone is remote, at least within a given function, then it balances out.

Conf calls (hateful though they are) are terrible when a couple of people on the call are at different desks in the same room, even with headphones, because they are hearing the same audio offset by lag.

All the tech works better when everyone is physically distanced.

So if you're looking to go remote, don't try and get a remote position in an office-based org. Join an org which has fully embraced it. And build your network, because whilst remote hiring is a thing (LinkedIn has just introduced some features for remote hiring) the more people who know what you can do, the less likely you are to have to travel for interviews, because you probably won't ever have an interview that isn't a formality.

Fann Linn

bilbot79 wrote: »

I'd be tempted to buy a little apartment in the Canaries and spend my winters there, in fact I'd probably

1/ Sell my Dublin gaff

2/ By a cheaper Irish gaff in the countryside

3/ Buy a place in the Canaries

4/ Buy another place somewhere in Europe, Hvar or somewhere like that

And just spend weeks and months in each place.

How would the rest of you exploit work from home if you had it permanently?

.... Or couldn't your boss just exploit working from home and get someone cheaper in Gdansk or Goa instead of yourself!

Be careful of what you wish for Bill.

ELM327

mr_fegelien wrote: »

I don't see WFH can be a thing (or school frome home/SFM).

I've been in the house 4 months from school and for the first time in 2 years, was seriously considering suicide. How can anyone want to work from home or go to school from home? I think leaving your house is better for mental health IMO.

With the greatest of respect, that;'s a you problem, not a WFH problem.

ELM327

Fann Linn wrote: »

.... Or couldn't your boss just exploit working from home and get someone cheaper in Gdansk or Goa instead of yourself!

Be careful of what you wish for Bill.

There are tax implications to changing worker location.
Not to mention, they could already do that.

Fann Linn

ELM327 wrote: »

There are tax implications to changing worker location.
Not to mention, they could already do that.

Didn't know about the tax thanks. As for your other point although they could always have done it, for a lot of employers perhaps now they can see that it can actually work from wfh.

Mike3287

Fann Linn wrote: »

For a lot of employers perhaps now they can see that it can actually work from wfh.

This!

WFH and a high cost workforce, makes alotta sense that:pac:

ELM327

ELM327 wrote: »

Not to mention, they could already do that.

They could have already reduced office space to save costs and have people WFH. They didn't. Until now.

"They could have already done that" is not a guarantee that they won't, same as now allowing full-time WFH.

cloudatlas

Are there any decent jobs that currently allow working from home?

I would also like this to continue... and I'd love to move countries.