If Work From Home becomes a thing...

tony1980

It is kinda down to someone's personality too! I don't know about everyone here but I actually really like working even if it's something unexpected in the evening. It's my project so I take a personal responsibility to it even outside of work hours and don't expect anything in return like time off etc. I want it to be done right so if I have to do hours in the evening sometimes, so be it! Great thing about my Company is they are very flexible when I need something, like unexpected time-off so the comment earlier about Dinosaur thinking is correct I think! Companies need to be flexible and have trust in employees and the ones they can't trust will be quickly found out and flushed out anyway! All depends on the Industry too I guess!

Cyrus

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Thats not generally the Irish way unfortunately.

no i agree, it is something we have cultivated as best we can within the applicable laws etc and it works well,

we tend to run small, lean teams so someone not pulling their weight directly impacts everyone else.

Sunny Disposition

There is a lot of dinosaur thinking for sure. Suppose there always has been in the world of work.
A lot of managers treat their employees like schoolboys were treated many years ago, think they’re always trying to do as little as possible.
In my experience, and I employed some v poor foremen, if you treat people like that it becomes self fulfilling. You need to motivate people positively to get the best out of them and to keep the best people.

Biker79

beauf wrote: »

The why was in the post he quoted.

Personally, I'm glad that dinosaurs are in charge. Rather than tech support people.

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how it pans out. The WFH benefits are clear but perhaps the time is not yet right to pivot en masse to a new way of working.

Strumms

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Most people do that on their phone anyway (check emails I mean), WFH overall only improves work life balance for me personally. Even when I'm in the office I would still check emails in the evening and if I'm working late at home then I would have been working late in the office or alternatively I would have come home from the office, had dinner and then started working WFH for the evening. You also have the extra time you would be commuting that you can work if you wish too which can help to ease the need for working later at other times etc.

Most don’t, the majority of people I know don’t have access. Not one of my colleagues or I checked work email at home. I was the only line employee in my department with a company laptop but when the calls DID start coming “can you just look at abc email for a sec” that laptop which I used to bring home for safe keeping as the lock on my drawer was broken in work and they wouldn’t replace it.. was put in there anyway, tough if it gets nicked.

Strumms

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

There is a lot of dinosaur thinking for sure. Suppose there always has been in the world of work.
A lot of managers treat their employees like schoolboys were treated many years ago, think they’re always trying to do as little as possible.
In my experience, and I employed some v poor foremen, if you treat people like that it becomes self fulfilling. You need to motivate people positively to get the best out of them and to keep the best people.

100%

Did you ever hear the old saying... “praise the fool and drive them harder”

Always be wary of management spinning you positively or positivity with words.. actions are what counts... the talked about pay rise ? WHERE ? The replacement office chair ? WHERE ? The extra holiday allowance to correspond with you length of service, WHERE ?

Managers need to be doing not promising.

Cyrus

Strumms wrote: »

100%

Did you ever hear the old saying... “praise the fool and drive them harder”

Always be wary of management spinning you positively or positivity with words.. actions are what counts... the talked about pay rise ? WHERE ? The replacement office chair ? WHERE ? The extra holiday allowance to correspond with you length of service, WHERE ?

Managers need to be doing not promising.

people need to take responsibility for themselves, not happy with what you are getting paid, go get it somewhere else, same for any other benefits. Dont like conditions and cant convince your manager / company to change, go somewhere that will value you higher.

tommyombomb

Cyrus wrote: »

people need to take responsibility for themselves, not happy with what you are getting paid, go get it somewhere else, same for any other benefits. Dont like conditions and cant convince your manager / company to change, go somewhere that will value you higher.

This shocked me how so many people still have rarely moved companies. Max i have been at a place is 3.5yrs and that was first job. If cant move up, there is always roles in other companies

Cyrus

tommyombomb wrote: »

This shocked me how so many people still have rarely moved companies. Max i have been at a place is 3.5yrs and that was first job. If cant move up, there is always roles in other companies

yet they will sit there all day and moan about pay, conditions etc.

beauf

Wompa1 wrote: »

It's definitely not the only place R&D is done and some of it is done in Ireland specifically to avail of Irish laws on Intellectual Property. I have worked for tiny startups who were sizing up having an entity in Ireland just to avail of that.

It is true that in most large organizations, they have more lower paid\tiered support staff than high skilled. In a support sense the higher tier SHOULD just handle escalations which shouldn't be all that frequent in a well run place.

In my last IT job in Ireland, I would been considered highly skilled but on pretty poor pay. I also spent a lot of my time working with top tier engineers and architects overseas. Even if a lot of the heavy lifting was being completed by us. The higher pay and superior titles were held by those in the US, Germany, Hong Kong etc.

Still, I have a few friends who worked similar roles to me and then went out and started their own companies and did very well for themselves. Ireland needs more of that anyway. Less reliance on the likes of Facebook and more investment in creating our own Facebooks or Googles.

People are obsessed with FaceAche or Ogling. Theres more to IT than working in these places.

Strumms

Cyrus wrote: »

yet they will sit there all day and moan about pay, conditions etc.

If companies treated people with fairness and paid them a fair and proportionate wage for the time, responsibilities and work expected of them, there simply are very few complainers.... most people all they are after is a fair days pay, for a fair days work and to be treated fairly in the process.

Problems start in my experience when you have careerist middle managers try at every and all cost to screw line employees out of money, health and satisfaction in their jobs, all so they can present a nice spreadsheet to document savings at no cost to the customer.

A company I worked for did the following in addition to pay freezes and bonus withdrawals ...

Removed all vending machines so you couldn’t get a snack or bottle of water. There was no shop in walking distance.

Wanted employees to use private cars to go to the company sub stores .5 kms away for printer paper etc.

Cyrus

Strumms wrote: »

If companies treated people with fairness and paid them a fair and proportionate wage for the time and work expected of them, there simply are very few complainers.... most people all they are after is a fair days pay, for a fair days work and to be treated fairly in the process.

Problems start in my experience when you have careerist middle managers try at every and all cost to screw line employees out of money, health and satisfaction in their jobs, all so they can present a nice spreadsheet to document savings at no cost to the customer.

A company I worked for did the following in addition to pay freezes and bonus withdrawals ...

Removed all vending machines so you couldn’t get a snack or bottle of water. There was no shop in walking distance.

Wanted employees to use private cars to go to the company sub stores .5 kms away for printer paper etc.

A careerist middle manager? im not sure thats a thing, you cant just jump into middle management, everyone starts somewhere.

Anyway you know what i would do if that happened to me?

i'd leave.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

A careerist middle manager? im not sure thats a thing, you cant just jump into middle management, everyone starts somewhere.

Anyway you know what i would do if that happened to me?

i'd leave.

Subjective terms. But you start at "early careerist"...

manager, supervisor and project manager." The criteria of an early-career professional can vary. One text described an early careerists as having normally "2 years of project management experience". Further alluding to five years being the threshold as an early career professional, the most recent study released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics cites individuals have "less than 5 years". of experience in a related occupation before obtaining a position in the mid-career realm.

You get people parachuted into all levels of management. Sometimes with no industry experience or acumen.

tommyombomb

tommyombomb wrote: »

This shocked me how so many people still have rarely moved companies. Max i have been at a place is 3.5yrs and that was first job. If cant move up, there is always roles in other companies

Max for me was about 3 years. I tend to get bored and want a new challenge or want better benefits. It's worked well for me so far.

Strumms

Cyrus wrote: »

A careerist middle manager? im not sure thats a thing, you cant just jump into middle management, everyone starts somewhere.

Anyway you know what i would do if that happened to me?

i'd leave.

Ohh, it’s a thing alright.

You’d leave ? Then you’d have an employee merry go round... people don’t want to leave, they want to be secure in jobs, happy in jobs, treated fairly, paid fairly... it’s not rocket science.

Strumms

Strumms wrote: »

Most don’t, the majority of people I know don’t have access. Not one of my colleagues or I checked work email at home. I was the only line employee in my department with a company laptop but when the calls DID start coming “can you just look at abc email for a sec” that laptop which I used to bring home for safe keeping as the lock on my drawer was broken in work and they wouldn’t replace it.. was put in there anyway, tough if it gets nicked.

I can check my work emails from any device I want, the account is added to my phone's email app along side my person email so anytime I check the app I get both my personal and work email and I would be checking thought the evening or at weekends to check for personal mail anyway so I also see my work mails.

It would be the absolute norm in my area of work to check emails on your phone, do work on your laptop at home etc. I did the very same in my previous job, had emails, file access etc from where ever I want on what ever device I want.

Strumms

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

I can check my work emails from any device I want, the account is added to my phone's email app along side my person email so anytime I check the app I get both my personal and work email and I would be checking thought the evening or at weekends to check for personal mail anyway so I also see my work mails.

It would be the absolute norm in my area of work to check emails on your phone, do work on your laptop at home etc. I did the very same in my previous job, had emails, file access etc from where ever I want on what ever device I want.

If that’s a scenario that’s put in front of you from you taking the job as it’s advertised and so on and you are happy to work like that, great.

In jobs where it’s a case of goalposts being moved to enable this as the ‘new norm’.. not great.

Get this covid vaccine and hopefully it cannot be a new norm.

beauf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Max for me was about 3 years. I tend to get bored and want a new challenge or want better benefits. It's worked well for me so far.

Sometimes there are things like share options maturing or opportunities that may open up within a company that make it advantageous to stay longer. Sometimes you have a bond that you have to pay to be released from if you've received training and leave early.

There's also situations where you can't afford to move and not have it work out. Basically you need the steady income and can't risk it being interrupted.

Lots of reasons you might need or want to stay longer. Especially as you get older.

tommyombomb

tommyombomb wrote: »

This shocked me how so many people still have rarely moved companies. Max i have been at a place is 3.5yrs and that was first job. If cant move up, there is always roles in other companies

Company jumping wouldn't appeal to me to be honest, when I get settled in a place I find it very hard to move on especially if its fairly secure and more importantly is in the location where I want to live as I have no interested in moving around the place for work, I want to live in my home area and so that dictates the opportunities to move job. It wouldn't really work in my line of work either as it takes a long time to get fully on top of the work, if ever so after a few years in a company you would only be really getting properly established and really up to speed on everything. Move job and you would be back trying to get on top of things in the new place which would wear you down.

Strumms wrote: »

If that’s a scenario that’s put in front of you from you taking the job as it’s advertised and so on and you are happy to work like that, great.

.

I would have 100% expected it as its all about give and take, I'm happy to do this and in return I've always had lots of flexibility.

Cyrus

Strumms wrote: »

Ohh, it’s a thing alright.

You’d leave ? Then you’d have an employee merry go round... people don’t want to leave, they want to be secure in jobs, happy in jobs, treated fairly, paid fairly... it’s not rocket science.

So there are graduate middle managers? What industry is this ?

Employee merry go round is the employers issue they might change things if enough people vote with their feet !

beauf

I would have 100% expected it as its all about give and take, I'm happy to do this and in return I've always had lots of flexibility....

Flexibility is a two edged sword.

Sometimes it works against you. Sometimes you have to push back against it.

PokeHerKing

Cyrus wrote: »

So there are graduate middle managers? What industry is this ?

Employee merry go round is the employers issue they might change things if enough people vote with their feet !

I work for a large financial MNC, believe me they don't give a fiddlers about the constant exodus.

Plenty of graduates lining up to slot into the front lines on reduced salaries and between pensions and payouts the firm are quids up everytime. Place doesn't miss a beat because some poor soul will carry the load untill the newbies are up to speed.

I doubt they're the only MNC with this business model, in fact I dare say its the business model of most MNCs.

Cyrus

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I work for a large financial MNC, believe me they don't give a fiddlers about the constant exodus.

Plenty of graduates lining up to slot into the front lines on reduced salaries and between pensions and payouts the firm are quids up everytime. Place doesn't miss a beat because some poor soul will carry the load untill the newbies are up to speed.

I doubt they're the only MNC with this business model, in fact I dare say its the business model of most MNCs.

good for them, clearly it works,

but the poor soul needs to man, or woman, up and get out.

Strumms

beauf wrote: »

Flexibility is a two edged sword.

Sometimes it works against you. Sometimes you have to push back against it.

You have to put value on yourself and your colleagues.

If my employer shows a degree of flexibility from time to time with me... I facilitate the same back. A one way street and no, not happening.

PokeHerKing

Cyrus wrote: »

good for them, clearly it works,

but the poor soul needs to man, or woman, up and get out.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Point being the employer doesn't give a toss because the wheels of globalism churn on unabated.

Cyrus

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Point being the employer doesn't give a toss because the wheels of globalism churn on unabated.

i dont get the point though, why would someone stay in that scenario, just move on.

PokeHerKing

Cyrus wrote: »

i dont get the point though, why would someone stay in that scenario, just move on.

I was replying to your original comment of the employer will act if people vote with their feet. This is untrue for the simple reason of a conveyor belt of graduates to choose from.

I also think your mantra of 'Just leave' is far too black and white. It's your opinion though so I'm not looking to change it.

I know the real world is not black and white.

Cyrus

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I know the real world is not black and white.

depends on your world, personally i would move.

beauf

beauf wrote: »

Flexibility is a two edged sword.

Sometimes it works against you. Sometimes you have to push back against it.

Flexibility is always a positive imo. I couldn’t imagine working in a strict 9 to 5 type job where there is someone watching the time you come in and leave, having to actually take a half day out of your holidays if finishing early or clear it with someone if you have to disappear for an hour into town in the middle of the day. No thanks, give me working late for deadlines, keeping an eye on emails outside normal hours and working the odd weekend but keeping all the flexibility.

Just to give you the idea of flexibility and left to my own devices I’m used to. In my last job a few years ago I did a course completely unrelated to work that required two full midweek days per month attendance on site at the place delivering the course for almost 2 years. I did this without telling anything where I was working and didn’t take a single day of holidays on any of the days, there was just no notice taken as there was no expectation to be found at your desk in the very unlikely event someone looked for you and I always kept an eye on emails and responded throughout the day enough to keep people happy and go unnoticed.

Edit: I should add I work in the evening or weekend etc if there was work to be caught up on that I put off while out of the office.

beauf

Being flexible is fine if it works both ways.. equally. But it can creep in where it becomes expected and you're not get close to the same return back for what your putting in. You can end up working the equivalent of a 6 or 7 day week for 5 day money. Or a variation on that theme.

Strumms

Flexibility is a positive if it can work both ways.

I was in a scenario once where it did and we were the most flexible, productive team in the European region... a new manager came in, wanted all the flexibility that their predecessors had been accustomed to from us but in reply doing anything FOR us all of a sudden was was a NO....

Within a week there were emails going around...

- half days are no longer going to be approved for annual leave. Reason - it’s too difficult and complex to maintain counts. BS because the software did this automatically. Hours instead of days were debited from your allowance and recalculated automatically. So any of us basically with a hospital or doctors appointment, driving test etc lost a days holidays.

- staff are not permitted to use customer entrance to access the building. The rear staff entrance was in a poorly lit area with defective cctv that was overdue a service and repair, for about 3 years. It was an old system, part was no longer made and they wouldn’t spring for a new camera. Shifts started at 1am on certain weekend days with no on site security and now no camera, d15 you could have been left in a heap.

- staff were never allowed to be rostered working solo in any department. Even those of us office based had about 5% work that could be physical in a warehouse, using a forklift, pallet truck and so on, so H&S said a minimum of two per shift was required... which lasted about six months.


So employees can be flexible, go over and above but when some employers like the above can’t even bother to cover the basics and your wellbeing... fûck em.

The Spider

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Some managers just like bums on seats in the office, they feel if they can see employees, they can make sure they work.

As i see it, the people who are productive from home are the people who were always productive. The people who are slacking off now always did, its just more visible.

For that cohort the question is not about having them in the office to ensure productivity, its would you rather they slack off at home or have them slack off in the office.

Actually a lot of it is managers for want of a better term feeling naked without their team in front of them and terrified that their boss may twig that the manager doesn’t actually do anything of consequence but is the highest paid member of the team.

Also in the world of office politics it’s very hard to know if a managers direct reports are being courted by a competitor who wants to get their hands on their team or the highest performers on that team within the office. A manager can’t see what’s going on qfter they finish a Skype call, in the office you can more or less see who’s at who’s desk.

Cyrus

The Spider wrote: »

Actually a lot of it is managers for want of a better term feeling naked without their team in front of them and terrified that their boss may twig that the manager doesn’t actually do anything of consequence but is the highest paid member of the team.

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

I can't speak for all managers. But you get good ones and bad ones as in all walks of life.

Cyrus

Cyrus wrote: »

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

Was going to post the same, the amount of comments in the thread about managers “getting found out” or “doing nothing” is quite bizarre. Are people totally clueless to the need for management? And I don’t even mean directly managing people but all the stuff that has to get done that I would have thought is obvious to people but maybe not. Also maybe it’s different in some places but where I’ve worked and the type of work I’m in people at all levels, even senior management are involved in technical work (in the sense of directing the areas work should go, what type of developments we should be focusing on etc) and managers of teams etc would be heavily involved in the hands on work in the project but just also be responsible for the overall management of it too.

This idea of managers doing nothing couldn’t be further from the truth in my experience and also managers are as happy working from time as anyone why wouldn’t they?

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

I can't speak for all managers. But you get good ones and bad ones as in all walks of life.

same as any staff, but the narrative here seems to be that they arent needed and are worried they will get 'found out'

its nonsense.

Jim2007

Cyrus wrote: »

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.

Cyrus

Jim2007 wrote: »

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

Jim2007

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Was going to post the same, the amount of comments in the thread about managers “getting found out” or “doing nothing” is quite bizarre. Are people totally clueless to the need for management?

Ah but don’t confuse the need for management with the for managers. When it comes to cost cutting, responsibility gets pushed up, tasks get pushed down to the next potential generation of management and managers get pushed out.

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.

The type of setup really doesn't make sense to me, it almost looks like you are suggesting managers are there to just be managers and got to their position via a different route to the people below them. Its not a concept I have ever come acrosss.

A manager to me is someone who is more experienced (both technically and in management) than those in their team and has more responsibility and is responsible for guiding, directing and also working on aspects of projects along with a massive amount of reporting etc both internal and external that takes a lot of time and then there is approvals etc which need a more experienced person to give an ok to.

To be honest places I've worked we wouldn't even use terms like "manager" people have more senior job titles and this would by default make them a manager as some would see it but the reality is very little of this hierarchy stuff is really evident day to day. That being said we have a quite a flat hierarchy anyway with not many levels between the least senior and most senior people.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Ah but don’t confuse the need for management with the for managers. When it comes to cost cutting, responsibility gets pushed up, tasks get pushed down to the next potential generation of management and managers get pushed out.

This just wouldn't be possible to do in the area of tech I work in as you would be losing vital experience in doing this and often experts in the area their team.

Jim2007

Cyrus wrote: »

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

And why would You then need the management? Have them do the tasks the staff did? Replace a cheap resource with a more expensive one... when a company has got its back to the wall the only thing the owner/shareholder wants to hear about is cost. I spent some time in corporate restructuring back in the 80s and I cannot remember a single case where quality won over cost.

Jim2007

Jim2007 wrote: »

And why would You then need the management?

and who is going to have overall vision of the projects, the developments, how everything fits together from different staff, solve issues that arise that needs the experience a more senior person has etc etc.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

Not every place is structured the same.

In ours about 30-40% of the managers manage people with a specialized skillset that the managers don't have. If you cut the staff below them, half the projects would grind to a half. Even where they do have the skill set they may not be current. Since many skill sets have to actively maintained.

Cyrus

Jim2007 wrote: »

And why would You then need the management? Have them do the tasks the staff did? Replace a cheap resource with a more expensive one... when a company has got its back to the wall the only thing the owner/shareholder wants to hear about is cost. I spent some time in corporate restructuring back in the 80s and I cannot remember a single case where quality won over cost.

i have spent time in restructuring aswell, and it was about creating a leaner more efficient organisation, which normally means fewer higher calibre people with systems and processes or offshoring. the 80s was a long time ago.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Not every place is structured the same.

yes agreed, from what you are saying then you believe some of the managers in your organisation are expendable?

beauf

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

and who is going to have overall vision of the projects, the developments, how everything fits together from different staff, solve issues that arise that needs the experience a more senior person has etc etc.

In some places this vision is shared with the whole team.

In others its data silo'd within management layers. Everyone effectively works with blinkers on.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

In some places this vision is shared with the whole team.

In others its data silo'd within management layers. Everyone effectively works with blinkers on.

you can share a vision all you want, not everyone will grasp it, or want to grasp it or care about it.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

yes agreed, from what you are saying then you believe some of the managers in your organisation are expendable?

I don't believe that most organisations or processes are 100% efficient.

Do I believe that every manager I've worked with was a good manager. No.
Some were excellent, some were bad, some were ok.

I could give loads of anecdotal examples. But you shouldn't need any. Most people have run into to people who were bad at their job and causes more problems than they solve. They exist at all levels.

jonnny68

couldnt be dealing with wfh from all full time, half and half suits me fine

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

you can share a vision all you want, not everyone will grasp it, or want to grasp it or care about it.

Not sure where you are going with this. I have one guy on the team who never listens, therefore I should never share anything with the entire team. This is useful how?