If Work From Home becomes a thing...

kippy

cloudatlas wrote: »

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.

Define "Decent"?

cloudatlas

kippy wrote: »

Define "Decent"?

What ya got?

cloudatlas

Mr.S wrote: »

Most office based jobs at the moment (that are hiring) are starting people off fully remote, with the intention to return to an office at some point in the near future (probably Septemberish on a phased basis for many offices).

If you want fully remote work, tech support @ home from the likes of eBay and Apple usually have hiring sprints every year. It's a call centre type job, but at home.

What do you mean by "I'd like to move countries"?

Yes I know, my own job is currently work from home until September.

Remote working that would enable you to work anywhere, I only know a few people who work from home, one is a romance writer, the other writes legal documents....

Yes I've read the apple remote working thread.

kippy

cloudatlas wrote: »

What ya got?

You're not fit to work from home long term if you cannot answer a simple question tbh.
No point giving you any advice or pointers if you've not defined your parameters.

quokula

Working remotely is one thing, but working remotely and moving around different countries creates all kinds of legal and tax related headaches for your employer so it’s only really realistic if you’re a contractor rather than an employee.

strandroad

quokula wrote: »

Working remotely is one thing, but working remotely and moving around different countries creates all kinds of legal and tax related headaches for your employer so it’s only really realistic if you’re a contractor rather than an employee.

That's correct. Now you could do extended or frequent trips to your Portugal villa if you wish but you need to stay under certain limits to avoid local employment and revenue laws kicking in.

shesty

seamus wrote: »

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.

I'd actually tighten that to once a month, maybe even once a fortnight.

If you walk fresh into a job, meeting people for an hour every 6 months or so isn't really that beneficial.

My own place is very flexible, and I can do my job from home, but my preference would be 1-2 days in the office each week, I think.Just to move things along more smoothly (the nature of my work).Some people I am better to speak to in the flesh, it's more productive.

As for people who think childcare costs will decrease due to WFH...eh, no.Young kids have the heaviest childcare costs and it is no easy job to work with kids around, and impossible when they are young. (I can testify to this particularly after the last 4 months).If they were school-going you would likely get work done while they are in school (4/5 hours ) and then end up logging in at night or something to make up hours, depending on what your employer requires, and most people don't like that.It might help a small bit in terms of your commuting time meaning kids spend less time in childcare but overall I reckon the decrease in childcare costs would be minimal if you were WFH full/most of the time.

mvl

Wonder how many ppl who are keen to go back to work in the office also have hot desk-ing policies in place, or do they have nominated desk ? Anything expected to change for such work arrangements after going back ?

- Assume the collocation needed for some teams doesn't work when hot desk-ing by default (e.g. if ppl reserve desks via some tools then it is not true hot desking).

jester77

quokula wrote: »

Working remotely is one thing, but working remotely and moving around different countries creates all kinds of legal and tax related headaches for your employer so it’s only really realistic if you’re a contractor rather than an employee.

Where I work we cannot spend more than half the working year working outside Germany for tax reasons. There is probably something similar in the Irish tax system.

Technocentral

mvl wrote: »

Wonder how many ppl who are keen to go back to work in the office also have hot desk-ing policies in place, or do they have nominated desk ? Anything expected to change for such work arrangements after going back ?

- Assume the collocation needed for some teams doesn't work when hot desk-ing by default (e.g. if ppl reserve desks via some tools then it is not true hot desking).

So called "hot desking" is American Capitalist bs that only **** subscribe to.

krissovo

quokula wrote: »

Working remotely is one thing, but working remotely and moving around different countries creates all kinds of legal and tax related headaches for your employer so it’s only really realistic if you’re a contractor rather than an employee.

It can get a bit messy but perfectly achievable. Its not difficult to set up as a PAYE employee as long as you get the right advise and know what you are getting into. The main issue is not so much tax but PRSI contributions but with a A1 Certificate (Multi state worker) you can overcome this.

seamus

Mr.S wrote: »

I presume it’s easier to deepclean the office when everyone is hot-desking? But then, wouldn’t it make more sense to keep everyone in an assigned seat so you don’t pick up something from the previous person, that cleaning might have missed?

That's what I'd be thinking; if everyone has an assigned seat, then you don't even really *have* to clean daily, even though you should.
Another option would be colour-coded hot desk; use Green desks one day, Blue desks the next, and Green the next, etc. Means that even if cleaning is missed, you're leaving a desk empty for 24 hours to be sure.

Hot desking is my idea of hell, but then I'm in a role where using a laptop all of the time is a non-runner. I mean, I do use a laptop, but plugged into three screens and with a proper keyboard and mouse.

gladerunner

shesty wrote: »

I'd actually tighten that to once a month, maybe even once a fortnight.

If you walk fresh into a job, meeting people for an hour every 6 months or so isn't really that beneficial.

My own place is very flexible, and I can do my job from home, but my preference would be 1-2 days in the office each week, I think.Just to move things along more smoothly (the nature of my work).Some people I am better to speak to in the flesh, it's more productive.

As for people who think childcare costs will decrease due to WFH...eh, no.Young kids have the heaviest childcare costs and it is no easy job to work with kids around, and impossible when they are young. (I can testify to this particularly after the last 4 months).If they were school-going you would likely get work done while they are in school (4/5 hours ) and then end up logging in at night or something to make up hours, depending on what your employer requires, and most people don't like that.It might help a small bit in terms of your commuting time meaning kids spend less time in childcare but overall I reckon the decrease in childcare costs would be minimal if you were WFH full/most of the time.

I just wish that some people could remember that we don't all work the same jobs.
When you mention childcare costs not reducing, you can only talk about yourself. You don't know how that system of play could work for others.
For me, I could work 7 - 2.30 ( 7hrs 30mins which is a full day for me.
School finishes at 2.30 and is local, so i could get even my parents to collect them and bring them home. Id be home for dinners, homework and all the usual madness.
In exchange my husband could do the get ready out the door breakfast madness. so yes, a much more reduced childcare situation.
Smaller children too could be minded by grandparents - say dropped up later and collected earlier. At least allowing people to make choices.

We have been caught in a form of madness prior to this pandemic.
Its time to get rid of the old way of thinking.
I see parents using breakfast clubs for children and tired children entering another creche facility after a tiring day at school.
All for what ? huge commutes, huge childcare costs and less time with children.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant, I just want people to see the positives and that all people have different workable solutions given the choice.

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

I just wish that some people could remember that we don't all work the same jobs.
When you mention childcare costs not reducing, you can only talk about yourself. You don't know how that system of play could work for others.
For me, I could work 7 - 2.30 ( 7hrs 30mins which is a full day for me.
School finishes at 2.30 and is local, so i could get even my parents to collect them and bring them home. Id be home for dinners, homework and all the usual madness.
In exchange my husband could do the get ready out the door breakfast madness. so yes, a much more reduced childcare situation.
Smaller children too could be minded by grandparents - say dropped up later and collected earlier. At least allowing people to make choices.

We have been caught in a form of madness prior to this pandemic.
Its time to get rid of the old way of thinking.
I see parents using breakfast clubs for children and tired children entering another creche facility after a tiring day at school.
All for what ? huge commutes, huge childcare costs and less time with children.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant, I just want people to see the positives and that all people have different workable solutions given the choice.

What will you do all summer , Christmas , Easter , mid term ? What if your parents can’t help for free any more ?

There’s workarounds but they aren’t ideal either especially if you are relying on the elderly to provide free child care

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

What will you do all summer , Christmas , Easter , mid term ? What if your parents can’t help for free any more ?

There’s workarounds but they aren’t ideal either especially if you are relying on the elderly to provide free child care

You assume my parents are elderly, which they are not.

But regardless, come summer i will do what i usually do.
Take unpaid Shorter Working year and use my annual leave for mid-term/easter etc.
WFH means i can take far less unpaid leave, such as parental during the year.
Removing the commute time would open up so much more possibilities.
Not everyone is the same.

gladerunner

gladerunner wrote: »

You assume my parents are elderly, which they are not.............

Don't they work so?

gladerunner wrote: »

........

Sorry, didn't mean to rant, I just want people to see the positives and that all people have different workable solutions given the choice.

Loads of folk live no where near theor parents, loads of folk also have elderly or deceased parents so I'm not so sure where your "ALL..... " spiel comes from. A significant proportion, if not a majority require paid for childcare.

gladerunner

Augeo wrote: »

Don't they work so?

No

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

You assume my parents are elderly, which they are not.

But regardless, come summer i will do what i usually do.
Take unpaid Shorter Working year and use my annual leave for mid-term/easter etc.
WFH means i can take far less unpaid leave, such as parental during the year.
Removing the commute time would open up so much more possibilities.
Not everyone is the same.

Well they are elderly in comparison to you obviously !

So you need grandparents help , an employer that allows unpaid leave / shorter working week,

You are right not everyone is the same .

gladerunner

gladerunner wrote: »

No

Unemployed? On sick benefits? Early retirement?

gladerunner

Augeo wrote: »

Unemployed? On sick benefits? Early retirement?

That's none of your business.
I was simply outlining my situation for balance

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

That's none of your business.
I was simply outlining my situation for balance

Balance ? Right

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

Balance ? Right

Crikey, its a tough crowd this morning.
By all means, lets go back to the amazing work life balance we had before Covid. Lets not look to amend the ways we work or how are children are cared for.

gladerunner

gladerunner wrote: »

That's none of your business.
I was simply outlining my situation for balance

You were sh1tting on about how " all people have different workable solutions given the choice." ..................... your situation relies on utilising non elderly grandparents ........ it turns out they are likely on the scratch.

SeeMoreBut

So people think working in office will be more benefit to have meetings and team collaboration etc.

How do you envisage that will work?

Not like people can all go into a meeting room or sit down beside someone for 30/60 minutes and talk through masks?

Have Skype/Zoom/Teams meeting in an office?

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

Crikey, its a tough crowd this morning.
By all means, lets go back to the amazing work life balance we had before Covid. Lets not look to amend the ways we work or how are children are cared for.

That’s a euphemistic way of saying why not rope in some free labour where available.

If you are happy going that way good for you but don’t present it as a solution for balance , it’s specific to you .

My wife is going to take a few years off work to look after the kids and we will see how it goes , should I present that as a solution to all for balance ?

beauf

Whats wrong with balance? Lots of different variables at at play.

Childcare issues are only for a few years. Once they are older like 5th and 6th class they mostly need minimal baby sitting.
Then again that depends on the kids. There is no one size fits all.

So it might be worth struggling through it to maintain your career.

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

That’s a euphemistic way of saying why not rope in some free labour where available.

If you are happy going that way good for you but don’t present it as a solution for balance , it’s specific to you .

That's what balance is
One person views it one way, and the other doesn't.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Whats wrong with balance? Lots of different variables at at play.

Childcare issues are only for a few years. Once they are older like 5th and 6th class they mostly need minimal baby sitting.
Then again that depends on the kids. There is no one size fits all.

So it might be worth struggling through it to maintain your career.

Sounds like 11-12 years then by your own reckoning and that’s with only one child hardly a few years

beauf

SeeMoreBut wrote: »

...Have Skype/Zoom/Teams meeting in an office?

That what we are going to do. Seems pointless going in, unless you need the quiet and/or equipment.

Kamu

Cyrus wrote: »

That’s a euphemistic way of saying why not rope in some free labour where available.

If you are happy going that way good for you but don’t present it as a solution for balance , it’s specific to you .

My wife is going to take a few years off work to look after the kids and we will see how it goes , should I present that as a solution to all for balance ?

I don't think it is specific just to Gladerunner though, my brothers did/do the exact same thing and I know many others who rely on family help in looking after their children, both before and during Covid.

WFH, especially if you have flexible arrangements, can help with childcare; having family members willing to look after children can help with childcare.

Not everyone has these arrangements in place, but some do.

Everyone's situation is different and having the option of WFH, especially if both parents have this option, can possibly factor in on childcare.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

Sounds like 11-12 years then by your own reckoning and that’s with only one child hardly a few years

We did a mix of things parents, creche, wfh, one quit work for a time etc.
That was with a mix of kids of all different ages and abilities.

If your a half glass empty kinda mindset, then it probably isn't going to work.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

We did a mix of things parents, creche, wfh, one quit work for a time etc.
That was with a mix of kids of all different ages and abilities.

If your a half glass empty kinda mindset, then it probably isn't going to work.

explain to me how this is a mindset thing?

some people have options, i.e. we can afford for one of us to take a break from work, but there is no point on me presenting that as a solution to someone who cant avail of that?

most people need child care, some people have options or free labour available, thats a solution for them though not the masses.

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

That’s a euphemistic way of saying why not rope in some free labour where available.

If you are happy going that way good for you but don’t present it as a solution for balance , it’s specific to you .

My wife is going to take a few years off work to look after the kids and we will see how it goes , should I present that as a solution to all for balance ?

So your wife is now providing free labour in order to help with your childcare issues. That's a lovely solution. I wish I had that option, but again we are all different.
The free labour i would get is a short collection from school to home. Hardly a huge inconvenience.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

explain to me how this is a mindset thing?

some people have options, i.e. we can afford for one of us to take a break from work, but there is no point on me presenting that as a solution to someone who cant avail of that?

most people need child care, some people have options or free labour available, thats a solution for them though not the masses.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/q-chi/qnhschildcarequarter32016/#:~:text=Use%20of%20parental%20childcare%20falls,70%25%20between%202007%20and%202016&text=There%20has%20been%20a%20fall,the%20years%202007%20and%202016.&text=The%20percentage%20of%20pre-school,primary%20school%20children%20is%2074%25.

It's not so much can afford to. It's more have no choice.

beauf

It's a bit like unpaid parental leave which a company can insist is taken as a block not as a few days ago week. This often makes that unviable.

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

So your wife is now providing free labour in order to help with your childcare issues. That's a lovely solution. I wish I had that option, but again we are all different.
.

Now you get the point but it took a while

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/q-chi/qnhschildcarequarter32016/#:~:text=Use%20of%20parental%20childcare%20falls,70%25%20between%202007%20and%202016&text=There%20has%20been%20a%20fall,the%20years%202007%20and%202016.&text=The%20percentage%20of%20pre-school,primary%20school%20children%20is%2074%25.

It's not so much can afford to. It's more have no choice.

Sorry what’s the point ?

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

Sorry what’s the point ?

You have to make it work.

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

Now you get the point but it took a while

I don't know where you got your flare for robust debate, but you come across as someone with tunnel vision.
I really must have hit a nerve when i explained my rather mundane work life balance..

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

I don't know where you got your flare for robust debate, but you come across as someone with tunnel vision.
I really must have hit a nerve when i explained my rather mundane work life balance..

you literally proved my point yet you cant see it

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

You have to make it work.

are you referring to someone taking time out to care for their own kids?

well of course if you cant afford it it isnt a choice. Its a binary thing, you can afford it or not, if you can then its an option.

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

you literally proved my point yet you cant see it

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is no solution for the masses.

People work different patterns
People can ask parents to help
People can take unpaid leave
Partners can give up work for a time
You can use the creche full time or part time
You can work earlier or later

In the general scheme of things, it could be useful for many to remove the commute time to lessen the need for childcare - be that full time or part time in the creche. A benefit, a small benefit.

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is no solution for the masses.

People work different patterns
People can ask parents to help
People can take unpaid leave
Partners can give up work for a time
You can use the creche full time or part time
You can work earlier or later

In the general scheme of things, it could be useful for many to remove the commute time to lessen the need for childcare - be that full time or part time in the creche. A benefit, a small benefit.

of course there is, its paid childcare, its what most people use

its a small benefit now, i thought your original point was that lots of money could be saved on child care?

our creche (and many others i know of) dont offer part time discounts either, its all in or nothing.

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

of course there is, its paid childcare, its what most people use

And if you and your family are happy with that, isn't that a marvellous solution for you.

Our childcare costs would be substantially reduced, but you know, that's just me.

shesty

gladerunner wrote: »

I just wish that some people could remember that we don't all work the same jobs.
When you mention childcare costs not reducing, you can only talk about yourself. You don't know how that system of play could work for others.
For me, I could work 7 - 2.30 ( 7hrs 30mins which is a full day for me.
School finishes at 2.30 and is local, so i could get even my parents to collect them and bring them home. Id be home for dinners, homework and all the usual madness.
In exchange my husband could do the get ready out the door breakfast madness. so yes, a much more reduced childcare situation.
Smaller children too could be minded by grandparents - say dropped up later and collected earlier. At least allowing people to make choices.

We have been caught in a form of madness prior to this pandemic.
Its time to get rid of the old way of thinking.
I see parents using breakfast clubs for children and tired children entering another creche facility after a tiring day at school.
All for what ? huge commutes, huge childcare costs and less time with children.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant, I just want people to see the positives and that all people have different workable solutions given the choice.

Yes - the opposite side of that IS that people don't all work the same jobs. I think what was going on before was nuts. Kids in creches 10/11 hours of the day, from early morning to late evening. Madness. I specifically went for jobs in certain areas to cut my commute, and get good hours, just to avoid this. Husband does mornings, I do pick up at 4.30pm. Kids are maximum 8 hours, generally 7, between our minder/school. (2 are also at preschool and primary school).


But I did specifically say that younger kids have heaviest childcare costs. If you have all school-going kids, then yes, I am sure plenty of people could work something out. I also have a 2 year old, and it is impossible to work at home with him around, so his age group would still need full time care. At most, some people's commutes being gone would reduce the hours in childcare - mightn't benefit the monthly bill, but it would benefit the child. Grandparents are an alternative but not for everybody.


I have nothing against working from home by the way, I think it's great for everyone. I could do the school run at lunchtime, not have to worry about relying on others to do it. I just don't see that it would heavily reduce childcare costs for everyone, wouldn't be banking on that as a guaranteed saving. That's all.

gladerunner

shesty wrote: »

Yes - the opposite side of that IS that people don't all work the same jobs. I think what was going on before was nuts. Kids in creches 10/11 hours of the day, from early morning to late evening. Madness. I specifically went for jobs in certain areas to cut my commute, and get good hours, just to avoid this. Husband does mornings, I do pick up at 4.30pm. Kids are maximum 8 hours, generally 7, between our minder/school. (2 are also at preschool and primary school).


But I did specifically say that younger kids have heaviest childcare costs. If you have all school-going kids, then yes, I am sure plenty of people could work something out. I also have a 2 year old, and it is impossible to work at home with him around, so his age group would still need full time care. At most, some people's commutes being gone would reduce the hours in childcare - mightn't benefit the monthly bill, but it would benefit the child. Grandparents are an alternative but not for everybody.


I have nothing against working from home by the way, I think it's great for everyone. I could do the school run at lunchtime, not have to worry about relying on others to do it. I just don't see that it would heavily reduce childcare costs for everyone, wouldn't be banking on that as a guaranteed saving. That's all.

Yes, I know where you are coming from
I suppose if you removed the cost of the commute too ( petrol & parking etc ), you " might "have more money to off-set into childcare situations for smaller kids.

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

That’s a euphemistic way of saying why not rope in some free labour where available.

If you are happy going that way good for you but don’t present it as a solution for balance , it’s specific to you .

My wife is going to take a few years off work to look after the kids and we will see how it goes , should I present that as a solution to all for balance ?

Well among my friends and in my family grandparents doing the childcare would be the norm (always and long before covid) so it’s very common in my experience.

It’s one of the advantages of living close to or next door to home which is also very common among my friends with most either living next to home, building or planning to soon.

Your tone suggested you look down on those who get free child care from grandparents, a jealousy think maybe given two people can work and earn have low/no childcare costs.

Cyrus

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Well among my friends and in my family grandparents doing the childcare would be the norm (always and long before covid) so it’s very common in my experience.

It’s one of the advantages of living close to or next door to home which is also very common among my friends with most either living next to home, building or planning to soon.

Your tone suggested you look down on those who get free child care from grandparents, a jealousy think maybe given two people can work and earn have low/no childcare costs.

I’m either jealous or look down nox which is it ?

I’ve heard all this before , you live at home your mammy looks after you you’ll build a house beside them and drink 20 pints on a weekend and they will look after your kids , that cover it?

Personally I wouldn’t expect my parents to subsidise me but you have no problem with it. That’s where we differ

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

I’m either jealous or look down nox which is it ?

I’ve heard all this before , you live at home your mammy looks after you you’ll build a house beside them and drink 20 pints on a weekend and they will look after your kids , that cover it?

Personally I wouldn’t expect my parents to subsidise me but you have no problem with it. That’s where we differ

I think your kids are better off in crèche with the type of personality you have on display here . Always on the attack, always perceiving people have it so much better off than you.
Maybe if you spent less time online you could condense your own working hours a day and lessen your childcare expenses that way.
No problems kid, just solutions.

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

I think your kids are better off in crèche with the type of personality you have on display here . Always on the attack, always perceiving people have it so much better off than you.
Maybe if you spent less time online you could condense your own working hours a day and lessen your childcare expenses that way.
No problems kid, just solutions.

I genuinely think you have some sort of comprehension issue , I’m sure I never said anyone had anything better than me.

If you think lumbering grandparents with kids is having it better than someone or living at home is says more about you than me .