If Work From Home becomes a thing...

DSN

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

That's not a "neat little plan" it is quite the juggling act if you d bothered to read it. And I haven't said it could be done full time with no child care.
And no where have I generalised and said there is free child care on tap from grand parents.

Of course it wouldn't work for everyone.

The question was how would wfh reduce child care costs and I outlined a particularly difficult situation to start with. Parents with three kids in 2nd class upwards would find it far easier as they will have them in school 5 1/2 hours .

You re the one who took my EXAMPLES as a result for everyone.
Nurses teachers gardai retail staff, plumbers, electricians, lab technicians, painters, cannot work from home in a practical way.. I didn't state that originally as I assumed most people could understand what an example was.
You obviously don't .
It's not fantasy at all.

For a lot of people it won't be easy and will require juggling and people are making those sacrifices as it is saving them money and hassle of getting childcare .

Most of the situation s I'm aware of its one of the couple who work from home.

People make all sorts of sacrifices, garda couples who barely see each other because they work opposite shifts to all them to care for their children- try doing something like that when your on a 24 hour roster shift work .

Then juggling a 9-5 job with childcare becomes a doddle

Sorry it's a fantasy work would allow you wfm & juggling kids/homework/kids bickering/full days when school shut under normal circumstances. I wfm all the time but still need childcare til 5th/6th. It will become more accepted though & it has its flexibility benefits long as people don't take advantage & double job. (Which is what it is & people have tried it it doesn't bode well for either party!)

beauf

gnf_ireland wrote: »

I am not saying that everyone is suited to the 9-5 environment, but most office environments are aligned to this model. If the person has 'conformed' to this model in the office, it will be a big jump for some to accommodate remote working and full schedule flexibility. For some, it would be a step too far.

I would argue that creative people are never suited to an office environment in the first place. That said, if you consider journalists as creative, they have to work off deadlines the same way the rest of us do, whereas a book author is a different matter.

The one thing I have learned over the years of working remotely, its not about you think or the effort you put in, its about the perception as to what you do and when you do it. As long as those around you, including your boss, believe you are doing a better job remotely than in the office, questions are rarely asked. If their perception is the opposite, that's when the issues arise.

I know you weren't, and I agree with all of that.

But we were verging on a booted and suited 9-5 good, everything else bad route.

snotboogie

beauf wrote: »

I don't agree with your prism.

But as services and opportunities are stripped from the rural locations and concentrated on urban centers as a short sighted cost cutting strategy and economic policy it causes urbanization. However this will cause stress, and bottlenecks in concentrated areas.

It causes stresses but there are massive economies of scale too. Vital services like universities, hospitals and airports need a large population base to make them viable. Services like broadband, gas, electricity, post and transport are all far cheaper as you up population density. The social benefits are huge too, you can have concerts, sports teams, good restaurants, shopping and large communities for diverse and unique interests. These are not possible on any scale outside of large urban areas. In rural areas these services tend to be far more generic, that's if they are available at all. Also, cities are robust. If we are all working from our McMansions with little to no physical contact with our employers, what's stopping the replacment of roles to Manila or Mexico or Nigeria?

beauf

All these things were already viable, they've been there for decades.

snotboogie

beauf wrote: »

All these things were already viable, they've been there for decades.

Yes, in cities and as we have urbanised the quality and variety of these services has increased. Look at Dublin Airport in 1970 compared to today, or the hospital offering in Cork City in 1970 vs today. If we deurbanize these services will suffer or cease to exist.

beauf

snotboogie wrote: »

Yes, in cities and as we have urbanised the quality and variety of these services has increased. Look at Dublin Airport in 1970 compared to today, or the hospital offering in Cork City in 1970 vs today. If we deurbanize these services will suffer or cease to exist.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/emergency-talks-tomorrow-as-overcrowding-in-two-cork-hospitals-reaches-crisis-levels-973597.html

https://fora.ie/air-traffic-ireland-3345169-Apr2017/

You realize this means we should centralize all services in Dublin obviously.

The third of the population there are obviously more important than the two thirds in the rest of the country. Economy of scale and all that.

snotboogie

beauf wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/emergency-talks-tomorrow-as-overcrowding-in-two-cork-hospitals-reaches-crisis-levels-973597.html

https://fora.ie/air-traffic-ireland-3345169-Apr2017/

You realize this means we should centralize all services in Dublin obviously.

The third of the population there are obviously more important than the two thirds in the rest of the country. Economy of scale and all that.

I don't know how those links are relivant? Are you saying that hospitals were better in 1970? Or that Cork Airport doesn't offer a vital service?

1/3 don't live in Dublin, 1/3 of the country live within a commutable distance of Dublin, a huge number of these people live in rural areas. We should invest in all of our cities and towns of scale. Sleeking off to one off country houses will kill us in the long run, as their prevalence has killed small cities and towns all over the country. I'm bearish on a swift recovery but the recovery will eventually come and urbanisation will resume with it.

tastyt

Who will have the final call on the possibility of working from home IF it is a viable option for the type of work being done?

Obviously it will be left up to individual companies but do people envisage the government encouraging such a move?

it would put a lot less pressure on public transport, traffic, may even inject some life into the regions long term.

Personally I think the government should push wfh strongly, could be a huge benefit to the absolute joke that is the Dublin commute and congestion, might even give the opportunity to pedestrianise some of the city streets and make the city a much more pleasurable experience

beauf

snotboogie wrote: »

I don't know how those links are relivant? Are you saying that hospitals were better in 1970? Or that Cork Airport doesn't offer a vital service?

1/3 don't live in Dublin, 1/3 of the country live within a commutable distance of Dublin, a huge number of these people live in rural areas. We should invest in all of our cities and towns of scale. Sleeking off to one off country houses will kill us in the long run, as their prevalence has killed small cities and towns all over the country. I'm bearish on a swift recovery but the recovery will eventually come and urbanisation will resume with it.

Those numbers do not need explaining.

Electric Sheep

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The nature of my own job in normal times means I need to be on-site at least twice a week generally, so moving away from the office won't be an option.

I'm fully expecting WFH to take off big time in our workplace one we return fully. The biggest change will be the reduction in childcare costs.

How old are your kids?

gnf_ireland

jrosen wrote: »

Having the work from home option will be hugely beneficial for a lot of people. Less commute, more time at home. Could even be better for local business in smaller communities.

Cost of travel.

My husbands company did a survey for who would come back to the office when they can re-open. It was less than 10%.

I am absolutely not saying that working from home has benefits, especially in normal life rather than the current environment. There are lots of benefits to it, both from personal and environmental/infrastructure levels.

However, the key to remember is this is not always the employee/workers decision - it is mostly up to the company to decide what its arrangements will be. As someone else stated, if the job can be done fully remote, what is stopping that job being outsourced to a location with cheaper labour?

I believe in the short term, the amount of roles that will go 100% remote will be small enough, but there will be a move towards more remote working (say 40%-60%) and over an extended period this may change. It is a very different working model when done right, and companies will need time to adapt to it. Some will do it faster than others.

gnf_ireland

tastyt wrote: »

Personally I think the government should push wfh strongly, could be a huge benefit to the absolute joke that is the Dublin commute and congestion, might even give the opportunity to pedestrianise some of the city streets and make the city a much more pleasurable experience

Companies absolutely will have the final call. The person who pays the piper decides the tune !!

But I can see incentives being put in place around hitting environmental targets for companies, as well as agriculture, and the cost of commuting may be included in those calculations, as well as building footprint (energy costs etc). Companies will then be financially incentivised to act, and you are likely to see some real engagement then.

The problem the government have is they need to be careful what they wish for. Remote working is bad for urban areas - a chunk of jobs will be lost in the food service industry if the number of workers fall by 30%. Similarly, the footfall in urban shopping areas will drop etc. Duty on fuel drops, and wages are likely to stagnate a bit as employers might see it as an opportunity not to give wage increases (employees are saving in other ways). Like so many things, its a double edged sword for the government

gnf_ireland

beauf wrote: »

But we were verging on a booted and suited 9-5 good, everything else bad route.

I would think we are at the opposite and say that 9-5 is bad and flexibility is good, but there are boundaries to that flexibility. People are still expected to work a 'normal day' and they are expected to be available to colleagues when they need access to them. Again, it really depends on how collaborative the environment they work in is.

I am not sure many companies I know would be heavily in favour of someone starting at noon, disappearing for 3 hours from 3-6pm and then working until midnight, unless they do a lot of work with the west coast USA, or their role is better suited to being done when people are offline. But I tend to work in a pretty collaborative environment generally

JustAThought

It will be interesting come performance review time how many of the office passive floaters will survive - or be able to justify their role/time - the kind that attend every meeting but say nothing, have no contribution or research done, who silently sit through everyhing but deliver nothing and make no active contribution. I think many will be culled if the WFH become normalised.

Nobody so far has spoken about the pressures - or costs - of having to heat and llght an additional room, or two rooms in a house for a WFH setup nor of two adults now sharing a home and an office together for an additional 8 hours a day bringing work to home and to your relationahip long term is not necessarily a positive dynamic.

As regards younger people who may be appartment living and sharing an open plan sitting/living area and kitchen as the open space I can easily see how this could be total non runner - one wants to relax and cook/wtch tv - the other has a conference call or needs to work late - and its not as though Irish appartments have the wide open spaces to install a home office set up with desk and folders and printers for two or more people in them.

The merits of seperating your study (insert work) environment from your relaxing or sleep environment are well documented - yet everyone is jumping in with both feet to embrace it or applaud it. Personally I see many relationship breakups and mental health issues on the horizon.

As for the elephant in the room of people ‘working’ to the ame quality and professional level in their houses with children hanging out of them and being a total distraction - I can’t see the long term lowering of standards, quality or productivity being accepted - particularly as Imagine a good manager will be looking to scrutinise work outputs and quality and not just a clockin logbook for hours worked.

krissovo

gnf_ireland wrote: »

I would think we are at the opposite and say that 9-5 is bad and flexibility is good, but there are boundaries to that flexibility. People are still expected to work a 'normal day' and they are expected to be available to colleagues when they need access to them. Again, it really depends on how collaborative the environment they work in is.

I am not sure many companies I know would be heavily in favour of someone starting at noon, disappearing for 3 hours from 3-6pm and then working until midnight, unless they do a lot of work with the west coast USA, or their role is better suited to being done when people are offline. But I tend to work in a pretty collaborative environment generally

US companies especially any in the West Coast have been working like this for at least 5 years. Having teams based in Ireland is a good choice due to the time zones. I have flexible hours generally, I often start meetings when I am not travelling at 7 am with Engineering teams in Asia and finish at 08:30. I then get kids ready for school and drop them off. I start again at 10>10:30 and work to 12:30. Start again at 13:15 and work until 3pm have another break to collect kids and then start again at 6pm or 8pm after the kids are in bed and have meetings with California based teams.

I plan my weekly schedule and block book slots in dairy, if colleagues need to get me they will book a slot and I am available For them. I have never had an issue with being available as we all work in a similar way. The company trusts us to get the job done. If we struggle to book a meeting slot with the whole team for an important meeting we indicate it in the invite and most will make alternate arrangements for the kids. If they cannot make arrangements then often they will have a child on their lap for the meeting.

anndub

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

And I m saying that example is not in any way ideal. 20 minutes work then 35 minutes getting kids out of work maybe grabbing a cup of tea yourself and a slice of toast because you have. To be ready for a morning meeting at 930 and only getting back to the house before that. Then work like a demon as you have to get our by 1245 as any later than that and there are delays at the playschool . Back to desk at 115 having driven nine minutes each way and having to prep lunch.then 30 minutes intensive work again as you have another meeting at 330 and you've to spend another 40 minutes collecting and prepping lunch before then..
Not until after that meeting that you can begin the wind down as you know that that any interruption s after that won't interfere with your work as you can always work late. The next batch of tasks font really have to be ready before midnight when the team in another time zone starts their day. But you do like to try and maintain some normality so try to get all done by 6pm so you can have some family time before bed time. Hardly ideal is it

Trust me that's a hell of a lot more hectic than driving 40minutes to your office for 830working till 5 and coming home leaving it all in the office.

The parts of the day when the kids, in particular the preschooler, are home? Can you clarify are we locking them a padded, soundproof room somewhere or how exactly are they entertaining themselves? Because my experience small children have a non exhaustive list of demands and they have a tendency to direct them at their parents, constantly.

gladerunner

Working from home absolutely won't suit everyone, but for the people it does, wouldn't it be amazing.
Even on a 2/3 day a week roll out.

In our place, they have been talking about e-working for years, but were so reluctant to move in that direction.
So you have 900 people crushed into a building designed for 500. Many travelling over an hour and half each way.
No parking, fighting for seats, filthy toilets, lack of productivity ( due to the sheer volume of people chatting ) and the added cost associated with housing so many staff.
If the office could be halved, it would result in a better performance both at work and at home.

Since the lockdown, staff moved very quickly to facilitate their roles. Borrowing laptops, getting broadband in, generally getting on board. In some areas people are fighting over work now.. productivity is gone up and everyone's performance is easily recognised.
It will have to be looked at favourably later in the year.

beauf

Couldn't agree more. Our place is muttering about a 2 or 3 day in the office. Not 3 or 4 months ago they veto the idea of working from home on an ongoing basis.

It might be that managers having been forced to experience it themselves have a light bulb moment. Since previously they couldn't get their heads around the idea.

Kintarō Hattori

Permanent remote working looks like it'll become a thing in our place. Up to this point only one person was never in the office except for the day where everyone had to be in for the weekly meeting. I think that will become more the norm now for the rest of the staff. If that's the case then it'll certainly open up the possibilities for my partner and daughter. We'd very seriously consider moving further afield than we are at the moment. I wouldn't mind a longer commute to the office if it was just once a week that I had to be there.

Currently living in North County Dublin and working on the southside, so I'd consider a move out to Meath/Louth or the likes of Carlow/South Kildare/Laois.

AndrewJRenko

gnf_ireland wrote: »

The problem the government have is they need to be careful what they wish for. Remote working is bad for urban areas - a chunk of jobs will be lost in the food service industry if the number of workers fall by 30%. Similarly, the footfall in urban shopping areas will drop etc. Duty on fuel drops, and wages are likely to stagnate a bit as employers might see it as an opportunity not to give wage increases (employees are saving in other ways). Like so many things, its a double edged sword for the government

The money not spent in urban areas won't be stuffed in the mattress. It will get spent, just in a different location. Money saved on fuel will get spent on other basics, maybe on products with more local economic value than an imported product like petrol.

I'm a Dub, but Dublin is overloaded. If more shops outside of Dublin get a bigger slice of consumer spending, that's probably a good thing all round. Dublin rents might drop a bit eventually, rents in rural towns might come up a bit.

Seamai

I've been working from home a couple of days a week for the last two years and while I'm not altogether sold on the idea, I loved it at first but when the novelty wore off I realised that it blurred the boundary between work and home life and I don't like that. I also have a boss you somehow doesn't quite get WFH which makes me feel like I'm constantly having to justify it.
These are only my personal issues but looking at the bigger picture if any glitches can be ironed out and there is no drop in productivity there are plenty of people for whom it will suit, maybe not every day.

M

No intentions on moving abroad, I just want to sell up my overpriced Dublin box and trade it for a mansion on a plot of land out in the sticks. There are very few places in Ireland that cannot be considered commutable when you only need to commute to the office now and again, maybe 1 day a week or occassionally 2 tops. Traffic is a non issue if you have meetings starting no earlier than 11am. Work from home for a couple of hours before heading on into the office.

Broadband is the big problem with this plan. Such a shame. With good rural broadband Ireland could become the country to live in when it comes to a modern office and work life balance.

2lazytogetup

if we start working from home, not sure why the 9-5pm will continue. some people esp with children at home will want to work early morning or when the kids have gone to bed. esp to save on childcare costs.

And to take it further, i can see new companies/employers deciding to pay per task/project. So say it was designing a website. they are going to just use a contractor a set amount based on how long it should take. so taking the zero contract hours worker to the next level. And if they bring in universal social payment that everybody gets regardless if they work or not, then i think the working world will be for darwins survival of the fittest. I would worry if i was middle management getting paid to do nothing all day in work.

KaneToad

Ultimanemo wrote: »

Don't worry about that, the greens will find a solution: build a bridge between Ireland and France wide enough for two cycle lanes and two pedestrian paths.

What!? No space for a grass media ??

mojesius

I'm praying that my company will give us clearer guidance on long-term wfh options soon. They're still in the 'we're looking into it' phase when asked about it. Before coronavirus, wfh was more of an exception, once a week type allowance.

Most of my meetings are with colleagues in other countries and timezones, so my schedule is not typical 9-5 and it doesn't really matter if I'm on the office or not. I tend to get more done wfh as I don't have a 3hr round commute (living currently in se Meath).

We're buying a house this year and are in love with a village in South Wicklow but commuting there and back 4 days a week in traffic isn't sustainable, current commute is bad enough. If current policies remain, we'll have to buy in Dublin, bigger mortgage, less space etc. Would love for our kids to grow up a bit outside the city and to have space and peace.

I work for a large multinational, and even here, WFH is not a straightforward as some would believe it to be. There are substantial insurance implications. If WFH permanently, the organisation will need to assess the workspace being used and ensure that it is appropriately set up. If it cant be appropriately set up, then WFH could be declined. Working from home more than (I think) 40% of the time is even more complicated from an insurance perspective, as both locations need to be insured and tracked as to where you are. Large companies with sophisticated HR and facilities functions will be able to deal with this. Small companies are potentially running a substantial risk if they don't jump through all these hoops and do whatever is needed to ensure that their liability is reduced.

All that to say, its not as easy as an employer just saying "sure, work from home"

IvoryTower

Deleted User wrote: »

All that to say, its not as easy as an employer just saying "sure, work from home"

Thats pretty much what would happen where I work. They're itching for us back though, old school no trust vibes.

Sunny Disposition

I think the huge drift to urbanisation all over the world is going to slow now. For economic reasons it made sense for a long time and now, for the
medium term at least, it makes sense to have workers in rural rather than urban areas.
Whether this is good or bad somewhat misses the point, it’s coming and people need to adapt.
It could help rural Ireland and make Dublin more affordable, but it could see more and more jobs going abroad.

beauf

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think the huge drift to urbanisation all over the world is going to slow now. For economic reasons it made sense for a long time and now, for the
medium term at least, it makes sense to have workers in rural rather than urban areas.
Whether this is good or bad somewhat misses the point, it’s coming and people need to adapt.
It could help rural Ireland and make Dublin more affordable, but it could see more and more jobs going abroad.

The horse bolted a long time ago on saving rural Ireland.

A way past a bit of WFH saving it.

Sunny Disposition

IvoryTower wrote: »

Thats pretty much what would happen where I work. They're itching for us back though, old school no trust vibes.

Would expect a lot of that. Are your employers partly right or a long way off the mark about their workers?
Another issue is how Councils will be funded, it’s been a while since I ran an office, but could never understand how the way your liability calculated was so crude. If company’s are doing business from their employees homes then the system will have to move with the times. In the short term there could be big enough savings for companies that downsize their offices. In my time in business I found the rates system absolutely stupid and as technology evolved it was becoming less and less for for purpose.

rn

beauf wrote: »

The horse bolted a long time ago on saving rural Ireland.

A way past a bit of WFH saving it.

There's a lot of infrastructure and houses that would not take much to put back in action if people wanted them. Excellent broadband being a prerequisite.

Sunny Disposition

Be interested to know if ye young people find working from home makes any difference to how much ye get done? One of my sons swears he is doing way more with no colleagues distracting him, a daughter says it is making no real difference.

Electric Sheep

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Be interested to know if ye young people find working from home makes any difference to how much ye get done? One of my sons swears he is doing way more with no colleagues distracting him, a daughter says it is making no real difference.

It makes a big difference, I get much more done. On the downside I seem to find myself working longer hours.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I work for a large multinational, and even here, WFH is not a straightforward as some would believe it to be. There are substantial insurance implications. If WFH permanently, the organisation will need to assess the workspace being used and ensure that it is appropriately set up. If it cant be appropriately set up, then WFH could be declined. Working from home more than (I think) 40% of the time is even more complicated from an insurance perspective, as both locations need to be insured and tracked as to where you are. Large companies with sophisticated HR and facilities functions will be able to deal with this. Small companies are potentially running a substantial risk if they don't jump through all these hoops and do whatever is needed to ensure that their liability is reduced.

All that to say, its not as easy as an employer just saying "sure, work from home"

Sounds more like a company policy than anything. Never heard of this and I know quite a few working from home (some for multinationals) and I work from home lots myself (prior to covid).

An employer has no responsibly to insure you in you’re own home or look at your workspace. I don’t agree with this myself and I have a dedicated office at home but I know a few people working almost full time from home with a multinational who work on a laptop at their kitchen table.

dubrov

Keenan Rhythmic Cab wrote:

An employer has no responsibly to insure you in you’re own home or look at your workspace. I don’t agree with this myself and I have a dedicated office at home but I know a few people working almost full time from home with a multinational who work on a laptop at their kitchen table.

They do have a responsibility but can get around it by getting you to state that you have assessed your work area and it is suitable for working from home. It exonerates then from subsequent claims.

If you don't make the statement, you don't get to work from home

dubrov

dubrov wrote: »

They do have a responsibility but can get around it by getting you to state that you have assessed your work area and it is suitable for working from home. It exonerates then from subsequent claims.

If you don't make the statement, you don't get to work from home

I’ve never been asked for nor made this statement to my employer.

krissovo

Deleted User wrote: »

I work for a large multinational, and even here, WFH is not a straightforward as some would believe it to be. There are substantial insurance implications. If WFH permanently, the organisation will need to assess the workspace being used and ensure that it is appropriately set up. If it cant be appropriately set up, then WFH could be declined. Working from home more than (I think) 40% of the time is even more complicated from an insurance perspective, as both locations need to be insured and tracked as to where you are. Large companies with sophisticated HR and facilities functions will be able to deal with this. Small companies are potentially running a substantial risk if they don't jump through all these hoops and do whatever is needed to ensure that their liability is reduced.

All that to say, its not as easy as an employer just saying "sure, work from home"

This is BS, you perform a workplace assessment and you pass or fail. If you fail then make the adjustments. The insurance issue is complete fabrication.

rn

Companies are definitely on the hook for providing a safe place to work that meets the long term needs of employee, including when they work at home. This requirement can't be waived by the employee making a statement. Employers can use trained h&s expert to evaluate a home office to help discharge liability, but it's not ideal as the work place is outside control of employer.

An employer simply saying "work from home" is leaving themselves wide open for compensation claims, with no way of discharging their liability.

gnf_ireland

krissovo wrote: »

US companies especially any in the West Coast have been working like this for at least 5 years. Having teams based in Ireland is a good choice due to the time zones. I have flexible hours generally, I often start meetings when I am not travelling at 7 am with Engineering teams in Asia and finish at 08:30. I then get kids ready for school and drop them off. I start again at 10>10:30 and work to 12:30. Start again at 13:15 and work until 3pm have another break to collect kids and then start again at 6pm or 8pm after the kids are in bed and have meetings with California based teams.

I plan my weekly schedule and block book slots in dairy, if colleagues need to get me they will book a slot and I am available For them. I have never had an issue with being available as we all work in a similar way. The company trusts us to get the job done. If we struggle to book a meeting slot with the whole team for an important meeting we indicate it in the invite and most will make alternate arrangements for the kids. If they cannot make arrangements then often they will have a child on their lap for the meeting.

@krissovo Absolutely. There of course are companies that allow their employees be flexible today - but mainly because it suits themselves. Having you work from 7am to 8pm with gaps in between suits their business model and its in their interest to do so, as it provides a clean handover between their different time zones.

Its a different story, for a lot of companies, where they have nothing to gain from offering you that level of flexibility. Yes some will be fine with it, but the majority don't today, and I cannot imagine a total change in attitude across the board in 6 months time either.

Working from home will be a major step for a lot of companies. I would not bet on having total flexibility in work hours included in the expectations (as standard)

gnf_ireland

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The money not spent in urban areas won't be stuffed in the mattress. It will get spent, just in a different location. Money saved on fuel will get spent on other basics, maybe on products with more local economic value than an imported product like petrol.

I'm a Dub, but Dublin is overloaded. If more shops outside of Dublin get a bigger slice of consumer spending, that's probably a good thing all round. Dublin rents might drop a bit eventually, rents in rural towns might come up a bit.

I am not sure I said that the money would not be spent I said it was bad for urban areas and jobs are likely to be lost in the service area, which is a massive employer in Ireland. Just look at the numbers who availed for the special covid payment the minute the bars & food establishments closed their doors.

The money is now more likely to be distributed more across the country, and this is likely to protect jobs in a lot of places rather than generate jobs in others. I am not saying its a bad thing - I am saying that there will be an economic impact to this from the governments point of view.

I am not a Dub, but I do live and work here. I 100% agree that Dublin is overloaded, and we need a migration out of the place before it falls over. This includes everything from infrastructure to schools, to housing to life in general. It would be fantastic for the citizens if this was to happen, but I am willing to bet economically (at least in the short term) it would have negative effects.

And yes, any drive through any town in Ireland and its pretty obvious they could do with any cash injection a migration out of Dublin would give them - as well as making Dublin more sustainable in the medium term

GreeBo

Some of you need to go talk with your Financial Controllers before you up sticks and work in another country. There are severe financial implications to your company if you do.
For example, if you decided to work in India, your company is now liable to pay corporation tax in India, just because you live and work there.

gnf_ireland

Deleted User wrote: »

Broadband is the big problem with this plan. Such a shame. With good rural broadband Ireland could become the country to live in when it comes to a modern office and work life balance.

Love it or hate it, this is where the National Broadband Plan will make a massive difference. The project will be an absolute game changer when it comes to what people are talking about here, and is the true enabler of the remote working across the board.

gnf_ireland

GreeBo wrote: »

Some of you need to go talk with your Financial Controllers before you up sticks and work in another country. There are severe financial implications to your company if you do.
For example, if you decided to work in India, your company is now liable to pay corporation tax in India, just because you live and work there.

Not to mention you need to pay income tax in the country of residence

GreeBo

gnf_ireland wrote: »

Not to mention you need to pay income tax in the country of residence

Compared to the potential millions you might cost your employer, I think your (likely lower) income tax rate is negligible!
Especially if you work for any of the multinationals.

GreeBo

Going rural would only really work if you were 100% from home.
If you need to be in the office on an adhoc or even 1 or 2 days a week then it would be a total pain in the arse to have to travel for 3 hours each way IMO.

gnf_ireland

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Be interested to know if ye young people find working from home makes any difference to how much ye get done? One of my sons swears he is doing way more with no colleagues distracting him, a daughter says it is making no real difference.

Not sure I fall into the "young people" classification, but when I normally work from home I find it much more productive than in the office. Spend 3 days intensive meetings & workshops in the office and then 2 days being left alone to get stuff done at home.

Sadly, since we are now all working remotely, the emails come thick and fast all hours of the day and night and my ability to hide away and get stuff done is diminishing. I don't have that nice clean line of out of sight/out of mind, so I have found productivity has greatly reduced. But this is more a cultural thing than a remote working thing.

Certain people don't work well remotely and at this stage are starting to hit panic stations within my organisation !!

gnf_ireland

GreeBo wrote: »

Going rural would only really work if you were 100% from home.
If you need to be in the office on an adhoc or even 1 or 2 days a week then it would be a total pain in the arse to have to travel for 3 hours each way IMO.

I am not sure on this - really depends on the location of the employer. Its very easy to spend 45-60 minutes a day commuting each way, even within Dublin. This does add up. If you have to be in the office a day or two a week, it would probably still be ok to come from places within most of the country (maybe not the back end of Cork, Kerry or Donegal).

At one point in my life I worked "officially" out of a London office of a company and would pop over once a week or so, either for a day trip or an overnight trip. Was it a pain - absolutely. Was it worth it to spend the rest of the time at home - absolutely !

Granadino

I work in digital marketing, and in theory, we could all be working from home all the time, but it's not the case. I am based between here and abroad and would be in the office, under normal circumstances every other month for a week or so. I'm not sure we will be changing to 100% wfh after this is all over, but in theory, could do.

gnf_ireland

2lazytogetup wrote: »

And to take it further, i can see new companies/employers deciding to pay per task/project. So say it was designing a website. they are going to just use a contractor a set amount based on how long it should take. so taking the zero contract hours worker to the next level. And if they bring in universal social payment that everybody gets regardless if they work or not, then i think the working world will be for darwins survival of the fittest. I would worry if i was middle management getting paid to do nothing all day in work.

I think we need to be very careful about going down this route in general. While I have no issue with it personally, it is very much a removal of all employee rights and you are basically putting everything up to tender (in effect).

I have been a contractor for over 2 decades and the volatility in that market is very high. I think you would see a lot of people very very nervous about this model, not just middle management. In general it tends to be a race to the bottom in terms of pricing over time, and very quickly will be outsourced to a country with cheaper labour.

GreeBo

gnf_ireland wrote: »

I am not sure on this - really depends on the location of the employer. Its very easy to spend 45-60 minutes a day commuting each way, even within Dublin. This does add up. If you have to be in the office a day or two a week, it would probably still be ok to come from places within most of the country (maybe not the back end of Cork, Kerry or Donegal).

At one point in my life I worked "officially" out of a London office of a company and would pop over once a week or so, either for a day trip or an overnight trip. Was it a pain - absolutely. Was it worth it to spend the rest of the time at home - absolutely !

I'd still rather 60 mins a day than 1 day having a 4 hour commute.
I also reckon your employer wouldnt see it as their problem that your commute was 4 hours and they would still expect you to be in the office for your normal hours...