Forced to work from home

ineedeuro

People keep talking about office as a social place.
A huge amount of issues for companies comes from relationships in offices. The office bully taking a dislike to someone and spreading rumours etc.
I would expect a lot of HR departments are cheering that some people are now locked at home and nowhere near the rest of the employees

floorpie

ineedeuro wrote: »

People keep talking about office as a social place.
A huge amount of issues for companies comes from relationships in offices. The office bully taking a dislike to someone and spreading rumours etc.
I would expect a lot of HR departments are cheering that some people are now locked at home and nowhere near the rest of the employees

It isn't talked about as a social place, it is one, whether people here like it or not. You spend a big portion of your life there and in the urban centres that 100s thousands ppl also go to every day.

On the other hand, working at home alone for a big portion of your life is a social aberration and will likely have other ramifications for HR depts (check how many mails your HR dept have sent out about "wellbeing" this year).

Padre_Pio

ineedeuro wrote: »

People keep talking about office as a social place.
A huge amount of issues for companies comes from relationships in offices. The office bully taking a dislike to someone and spreading rumours etc.
I would expect a lot of HR departments are cheering that some people are now locked at home and nowhere near the rest of the employees

I don't know where you worked before, but I've never worked anywhere that colleagues didn't socialise outside work, go for pints on Fridays, have sports groups and fantasy leagues, organise team-building exercises that were an excuse for a piss-up.
There's a good amount of people who've gotten married to colleagues too.

I miss all of that.

jakiah

Business itself is a social activity. Business is predicated on relationship building - sales, customer relations, customer service, conferences & industry events and networking have been central for years. People are talking about the loss of this stuff when everyone is WFH, not your need to talk about the latest TV show in the office. If you lose the ability to go to a customer site and do a workshop, or a sales presentation and take the customer out to lunch afterwards there is no difference between you and a whole planet full of competitors on zoom calls.

VG31

KaneToad wrote: »

I have zero interest in the social aspects of work/learning. I interact socially with people of my choosing not with people I am randomly thrown together with in a work environment.

I find this a bit ridiculous to be honest. You could make the exact same argument with school and college. You're obviously not going to get along with everyone but assuming you have at least some interest in the area you work in you're bound to have common interests or at least get along with some people.

Like many people, most of my friends are from school or college where I was just "randomly thrown together" with them. Remote working and learning in particular is fine when you have well established friendships but before then how to you expect people to actually meet others? Do you only want to socialise with people with through sports teams, clubs or other specific interest groups?

VG31

I'm fully in favour of flexibility and personal choice when it comes to WFH, but there's a cohort of 100% WFH posters here who are condescending and dismissive to people who actually don't want full time WFH. There's an impression some give of regarding them as wasters or losers.

Padre_Pio

VG31 wrote: »

I'm fully in favour of flexibility and personal choice when it comes to WFH, but there's a cohort of 100% WFH posters here who are condescending and dismissive to people who actually don't want full time WFH. There's an impression some give of regarding them as wasters or losers.

I don't think people should be treated like Luddites for wanting to work in an office and meet people, collaborate face to face, socialise, go for lunch and interact like humans should interact.

I get that WFH is preferable for people, who based on responses in this thread, own a home with adequate space, have families, have long commutes, seem to dislike their co-workers, have enough of a social circle that they don't want/need more friends.

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't think people should be treated like Luddites for wanting to work in an office and meet people, collaborate face to face, socialise, go for lunch and interact like humans should interact.

I get that WFH is preferable for people, who based on responses in this thread, own a home with adequate space, have families, have long commutes, seem to dislike their co-workers, have enough of a social circle that they don't want/need more friends.

It sounds like hybrid is the best case for all then. Everyone gets a bit of what they want.

Padre_Pio

Deleted User wrote: »

It sounds like hybrid is the best case for all then. Everyone gets a bit of what they want.

As I said before, you can get the best of both worlds, or just as easily get the worst of both worlds.

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

As I said before, you can get the best of both worlds, or just as easily get the worst of both worlds.

I've already experienced both, so I know how it will turn out. I can't wait.

JustAThought

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I've already experienced both, so I know how it will turn out. I can't wait.

I’ve just walked into someones garden and found them crying over the birds eating the worms that came up in the rain. They should be WFH but are obviously derailed a bit. People like other peoples company and go a bit loola when left too long alone or left looking at their own dark walls by themselves for too many hours/weeks/months. WFM might suit some but a balance or office only suits others. No need for people to be so scathing & cruel about it all.

Mic 1972

newuser99999 wrote: »

If you are in Ireland for 183 days or more you need to pay tax here.

It depends on the country that you move to. Some have agreements with Ireland, some you’d have to pay double taxation.

Double taxation is another thing. If you live in a foreign country for more than 6 months regardless of the tax agreement you can't be employed by an Irish based company

a_squirrelman

JustAThought wrote: »

I’ve just walked into someones garden and found them crying over the birds eating the worms that came up in the rain. They should be WFH but are obviously derailed a bit. People like other peoples company and go a bit loola when left too long alone or left looking at their own dark walls by themselves for too many hours/weeks/months. WFM might suit some but a balance or office only suits others. No need for people to be so scathing & cruel about it all.

Cruel? :eek: But who is being cruel?

It's been said a million times on here and other threads. Those of us who want to work from home DON'T CARE if those who want to work in the office go to the office.

ineedeuro

JustAThought wrote: »

I’ve just walked into someones garden and found them crying over the birds eating the worms that came up in the rain. They should be WFH but are obviously derailed a bit. People like other peoples company and go a bit loola when left too long alone or left looking at their own dark walls by themselves for too many hours/weeks/months. WFM might suit some but a balance or office only suits others. No need for people to be so scathing & cruel about it all.

Nobody is been cruel. It's a discussion forum

Plus if that story is true then WFH or not that person has bigger issues.

People should have a clear work life and a personal life.

Padre_Pio

ineedeuro wrote: »

People should have a clear work life and a personal life.

Says who?
People should have whatever life they choose.

JustAThought

JustAThought wrote: »

I’ve just walked into someones garden and found them crying over the birds eating the worms that came up in the rain. They should be WFH but are obviously derailed a bit. People like other peoples company and go a bit loola when left too long alone or left looking at their own dark walls by themselves for too many hours/weeks/months. WFM might suit some but a balance or office only suits others. No need for people to be so scathing & cruel about it all.

No need to be so inflexible. I'm merely advocating a solution where all parties get a bit of what they want. Or would you rather your preference forced upon me, like we had before March 2020?

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's very much your employer's business: if they have an employee who lives in France, for example, then they (the employer) has to comply with the French tax and employment laws for that person. So they automatically have to give you more annual leave, etc .

Only if the employee registers as a French worker. Otherwise how would tax authorities know. Of course some companies may worry about it but it’s probably not something that the average joe has to worry about.

The Irish revenue doesn’t want to investigate Irish taxpayers who might have stayed in France a bit too long, and the French authorities would hardly know about it. You don’t have to tell them you are there for 3 months anyway.

There’s also the idea of domicile. If you don’t stay anywhere for 180 days in a year the tax authorities in countries where you have a house, are from, have family in, were born in will determine domicile. That works for the op.

The shift towards a hybrid model had already begun before Covid. The pandemic just accelerated this process. It's a brilliant innovation and one that will improve the lives of millions of workers in Europe.

It's happening whether you like it or not, so why not embrace it?

Since some of you love the office so much, you're probably fans of empty inspirational quotes that litter your antiquated workspace. So here is one for you.

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The shift towards a hybrid model had already begun before Covid. The pandemic just accelerated this process. It's a brilliant innovation and one that will improve the lives of millions of workers in Europe.

It's happening whether you like it or not, so why not embrace it?

Since some of you love the office so much, you're probably fans of empty inspirational quotes that litter your antiquated workspace. So here is one for you.

Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.

All that just to say "like it or lump it!"

As soon as we start to reopen fully towards the end of the year, this zeitgeist love in for WFH will wear thin for most.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

All that just to say "like it or lump it!"

As soon as we start to reopen fully towards the end of the year, this zeitgeist love in for WFH will wear thin for most.

I disagree with your opinion that you stated as fact.

newuser99999

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No need to be so inflexible. I'm merely advocating a solution where all parties get a bit of what they want. Or would you rather your preference forced upon me, like we had before March 2020?

You could’ve found a work from home or hybrid role before the pandemic. Nothing was “forced” upon you.

BonnieSituation

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I disagree with your opinion that you stated as fact.

Good for you I guess?

This thread is gas. Almost every conversation is like:

"I think a hybrid model will be good"

"That's all well and good for people who like working 100% WFH, but I want to be in the office."

"No, a hybrid model is both office and home based."

"That's fine for you anti social WFH types, but I want to see my colleagues"

"But you can see your colleagues in the hybrid model, since you still attend the office"

"Oh, you 100% WFH types just working at home and never going out. I want to see the office. We're being forced to work at home 100% of the time."

"No, you can still attend the office and in many cases you'll have mandatory attendance in the office, depending on the rota."

"Nope, I'll never accept 100% WFH"

:rolleyes:

newuser99999

newuser99999 wrote: »

You could’ve found a work from home or hybrid role before the pandemic. Nothing was “forced” upon you.

Good point. I guess the same applies to you now. Go find a job where there's no WFH if you don't like it.

BonnieSituation

BonnieSituation wrote: »

All that just to say "like it or lump it!"

As soon as we start to reopen fully towards the end of the year, this zeitgeist love in for WFH will wear thin for most.

What’s a Zeitgeist love in?

Plenty of people don’t want to commute. Others like the office. Companies will handle both.

jakiah

jakiah wrote: »

Business itself is a social activity. Business is predicated on relationship building - sales, customer relations, customer service, conferences & industry events and networking have been central for years. People are talking about the loss of this stuff when everyone is WFH, not your need to talk about the latest TV show in the office. If you lose the ability to go to a customer site and do a workshop, or a sales presentation and take the customer out to lunch afterwards there is no difference between you and a whole planet full of competitors on zoom calls.

I bet lots of customers would prefer zoom calls in future because their employees won’t all be in the office. More call for expertise and less for smarm.

Padre_Pio

Deleted User wrote: »

This thread is gas. Almost every conversation is like:
:rolleyes:

This thread is gas. Almost every conversation is like:
"My employer is forcing me to give over part of my bedroom as an office space! What can I do?"

"Move somewhere larger or buy a house"

"But I don't want to, I like going into the office"

"What? You freak. Working from home is great! You don't have to do the standard 3 hour commute we all have to do"

"But I don't have a commute. Like a sensible person I live near where I work. Besides, I miss face to face interactions with my colleagues".

"What? Colleagues are d*ckheads. Your only friends should be ones you specifically choose through predetermined common interests. Anyone who has any social interactions at work is bad at their job and socially inept".

"Ok, this isn't answering my specific question though, is there anything I can do to improve my situation".

"No. Suck is up buttercup, working from home is here to stay. It's the future. It's also the past. You're saving so much money from your non-existent commute, and that childcare you don't have. Anyone who likes working face to face with other people is a loser and a dinosaur."

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

This thread is gas. Almost every conversation is like:
"My employer is forcing me to give over part of my bedroom as an office space! What can I do?"

"Move somewhere larger or buy a house"

"But I don't want to, I like going into the office"

"What? You freak. Working from home is great! You don't have to do the standard 3 hour commute we all have to do"

"But I don't have a commute. Like a sensible person I live near where I work. Besides, I miss face to face interactions with my colleagues".

"What? Colleagues are d*ckheads. Your only friends should be ones you specifically choose through predetermined common interests. Anyone who has any social interactions at work is bad at their job and socially inept".

"Ok, this isn't answering my specific question though, is there anything I can do to improve my situation".

"No. Suck is up buttercup, working from home is here to stay. It's the future. It's also the past. You're saving so much money from your non-existent commute, and that childcare you don't have. Anyone who likes working face to face with other people is a loser and a dinosaur."

Aww you got more thanks than me.

ineedeuro

Padre_Pio wrote: »

This thread is gas. Almost every conversation is like:
"My employer is forcing me to give over part of my bedroom as an office space! What can I do?"

"Move somewhere larger or buy a house"

"But I don't want to, I like going into the office"

"What? You freak. Working from home is great! You don't have to do the standard 3 hour commute we all have to do"

"But I don't have a commute. Like a sensible person I live near where I work. Besides, I miss face to face interactions with my colleagues".

"What? Colleagues are d*ckheads. Your only friends should be ones you specifically choose through predetermined common interests. Anyone who has any social interactions at work is bad at their job and socially inept".

"Ok, this isn't answering my specific question though, is there anything I can do to improve my situation".

"No. Suck is up buttercup, working from home is here to stay. It's the future. It's also the past. You're saving so much money from your non-existent commute, and that childcare you don't have. Anyone who likes working face to face with other people is a loser and a dinosaur."

Any chance you asked your manager or HR if you could get a desk? :P

Padre_Pio

ineedeuro wrote: »

Any chance you asked your manager or HR if you could get a desk? :P

You asked this twice before. I answered twice already.
Post 25.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Aww you got more thanks than me.

i liked your post, you're winning now.

ineedeuro

Padre_Pio wrote: »

You asked this twice before. I answered twice already.
Post 25.



i liked your post, you're winning now.

This is what you posted

Padre_Pio wrote: »

We asked for permanent desks and were denied.
Basically say 200 employees, 100 desks.
50 employees need a permanent desk for laptops, monitors, equipment etc (in our opinion), so that leaves 50 desks for 150 employees, which was a no go.

"We asked", which would mean a large number of people asked all at once which of course the company would reject

What is wrong with you going direct yourself to ask? If it was me and I wanted a personal desk I would go direct and make my personal case for why I need a desk.

Something I guess you haven't done.

Mrs OBumble

ineedeuro wrote: »

This is what you posted



"We asked", which would mean a large number of people asked all at once which of course the company would reject

What is wrong with you going direct yourself to ask? If it was me and I wanted a personal desk I would go direct and make my personal case for why I need a desk.

Something I guess you haven't done.

And the manager / HR would say "What part of NO don't you understand?", thinking to themselves "This one is either particularly stupid, or very entitled".

Even if you had a strong personal case (eg living with a person with dementia), they would realise that saying yes to one sets a precedent for all.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And the manager / HR would say "What part of NO don't you understand?", thinking to themselves "This one is either particularly stupid, or very entitled".

Even if you had a strong personal case (eg living with a person with dementia), they would realise that saying yes to one sets a precedent for all.

Again, that is just wrong. I’ve hotdesked for a decade and some people have always had permanent desks for personal or business reasons. The example that you describe would likely be one such reason. Only for a weak manager does that set a precedent.

(It seems like a lot of companies that you work for
/ have worked for have very poor management and HR functions)

ineedeuro

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And the manager / HR would say "What part of NO don't you understand?", thinking to themselves "This one is either particularly stupid, or very entitled".

Even if you had a strong personal case (eg living with a person with dementia), they would realise that saying yes to one sets a precedent for all.

No they wouldn’t.
You do understand what a HR department is?

Each employee is different every manager and HR department will realise that, unless of course they are a terrible manager and backed up by a worse HR department.

A large qty of people coming will always get a rejection because majority probably have zero reason why they need a desk. A 1-1 discussion explaining the situation first to a manager and then if required to a HR department should work. I say should because nobody can be 100% on a forum

I personally don’t see why the HR or company would care if they have to make 1-2 exceptions

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

And the manager / HR would say "What part of NO don't you understand?", thinking to themselves "This one is either particularly stupid, or very entitled".

Even if you had a strong personal case (eg living with a person with dementia), they would realise that saying yes to one sets a precedent for all.

That has to be up there amongst the most stupid thing I've seen posted against WFH yet.

So if employee went to their employer and asked for a permanent desk because they were experiencing difficulty working at home while caring for a dementia patient, you think their employer would say no? Because it might set a precedent?

Far from it. They are far more likely to say yes, thank you for being honest about the difficulties of your situation, and please come into the office and take this desk, where we know you will actually be able to concentrate on your work during the hours we're paying you for.

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule and employers will be prepared to make them. At least the decent ones will.

(Said as someone who took care of a parent with dementia, while working full time.)

floorpie

Deleted User wrote: »

That has to be up there amongst the most stupid thing I've seen posted against WFH yet.

So if employee went to their employer and asked for a permanent desk because they were experiencing difficulty working at home while caring for a dementia patient, you think their employer would say no? Because it might set a precedent?

Far from it. They are far more likely to say yes, thank you for being honest about the difficulties of your situation, and please come into the office and take this desk, where we know you will actually be able to concentrate on your work during the hours we're paying you for.

There are always going to be exceptions to every rule and employers will be prepared to make them. At least the decent ones will.

(Said as someone who took care of a parent with dementia, while working full time.)

My employer is currently saying no to anybody who asks, OPs employer said no, so...?

Then your issue is you have a ****ty employer. The OPs employer has hot desks they can use.

WFH is not the issue.

Some of the excuses being made against allowing WFH are stretching into the realm of the utterly ridiculous now.

I honestly can't tell anymore whether some people are actually being serious, or just playing devil's advocate.

floorpie

Deleted User wrote: »

Then your issue is you have a ****ty employer. The OPs employer has hot desks they can use.

WFH is not the issue.

Some of the excuses being made against allowing WFH are stretching into the realm of the utterly ridiculous now.

I honestly can't tell anymore whether some people are actually being serious, or just playing devil's advocate.

I'm confused as to your point.

I replied to your post in which you said it was "the most stupid thing ... posted" to say that an employer wont provide you with a desk if you tell them you're having difficulties, that they'll instead say "please come in and use this desk". I'm pointing out two counter examples. And no, I have a great employer, they just didn't want people catching COVID-19 in work. Will they be more amenable post-pandemic? I don't know, maybe.

floorpie

floorpie wrote: »

I'm confused as to your point.

I replied to your post in which you said it was "the most stupid thing ... posted" to say that an employer wont provide you with a desk if you tell them you're having difficulties, that they'll instead say "please come in and use this desk". I'm pointing out two counter examples. And no, I have a great employer, they just didn't want people catching COVID-19 in work.

I was referring to what will happen when all restrictions on office based working are lifted. It seems you're referring to your employer refusing permanent desks while restrictions are still in place.

floorpie wrote: »

Will they be more amenable post-pandemic? I don't know, maybe.

Then maybe wait and see?

It would be ridiculous and completely counter-productive for an employer not to make exceptions in some cases, such as an employee trying to work with a dementia patient at home.

(As an aside, I can't remember if the OP formally requested a permenant desk, or what their reason for wanting one, is.)

Mrs OBumble

floorpie wrote: »

My employer is currently saying no to anybody who asks, OPs employer said no, so...?

You and I know that no means no.

But I've concluded that the extreme WFH fan-boys often have poor reading comprehension as well as mathematical ability. Probably not worth trying logical discussions with them.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

You and I know that no means no.

But I've concluded that the extreme WFH fan-boys often have poor reading comprehension as well as mathematical ability. Probably not worth trying logical discussions with them.

You left logical discussion back in the 1980's, Mrs OBumble.

Along with a lot of your HR, ISD and office practices, apparently.

Amadan Dubh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Only if the employee registers as a French worker. Otherwise how would tax authorities know. Of course some companies may worry about it but it’s probably not something that the average joe has to worry about.

The Irish revenue doesn’t want to investigate Irish taxpayers who might have stayed in France a bit too long, and the French authorities would hardly know about it. You don’t have to tell them you are there for 3 months anyway.

There’s also the idea of domicile. If you don’t stay anywhere for 180 days in a year the tax authorities in countries where you have a house, are from, have family in, were born in will determine domicile. That works for the op.

Exactly, this is a line trotted out on behalf of institutional landlords of the ghost estate offices peppered about Dublin. You see it written in the papers every few months or so, where a lobby group pays for an article about something to do with tax reasons for the non-senior employees needing to return to Ireland.

However, there is never a reference to the specific tax laws at play. Additionally, even if there were some specific laws that required the worker bees boots on the ground in Ireland why would the Irish Revenue Commissioners go poking around too closely and risk biting the MNC hand that feeds? Meanwhile, the French tax authorities aren't able to actually monitor the employee of the Irish company who is working in France and it is they who are the ones that would actually try to argue the company has a tax presence in France.

The Student

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

Exactly, this is a line trotted out on behalf of institutional landlords of the ghost estate offices peppered about Dublin. You see it written in the papers every few months or so, where a lobby group pays for an article about something to do with tax reasons for the non-senior employees needing to return to Ireland.

However, there is never a reference to the specific tax laws at play. Additionally, even if there were some specific laws that required the worker bees boots on the ground in Ireland why would the Irish Revenue Commissioners go poking around too closely and risk biting the MNC hand that feeds? Meanwhile, the French tax authorities aren't able to actually monitor the employee of the Irish company who is working in France and it is they who are the ones that would actually try to argue the company has a tax presence in France.

Employment laws and income taxes rates very from country to country. Social insurance rates also differ.

No company is going to allow its staff work in another country without the proper company and tax set up.

Any company doing so will be contravening Irish law and will be fined accordingly.

Companies may have a legal entity in other countries and may agree to allow staff transfer to the legal structure in another country and the stahh are employees of that entity and are bound by the laws of that country.

The above may be facilitated for employees who the company wish to retain otherwise they might leave but for the majority of workers this will not be the case.

This is not some conspiracy by institutional landlords. It's EU law.

Amadan Dubh

The Student wrote: »

Employment laws and income taxes rates very from country to country. Social insurance rates also differ.

No company is going to allow its staff work in another country without the proper company and tax set up.

Any company doing so will be contravening Irish law and will be fined accordingly.

Companies may have a legal entity in other countries and may agree to allow staff transfer to the legal structure in another country and the stahh are employees of that entity and are bound by the laws of that country.

The above may be facilitated for employees who the company wish to retain otherwise they might leave but for the majority of workers this will not be the case.

This is not some conspiracy by institutional landlords. It's EU law.

What laws are you referring to?

Because this is literally my point that people put out the words "law" and "tax" but don't even know what they are referring to themselves.

The Student

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

What laws are you referring to?

Because this is literally my point that people put out the words "law" and "tax" but don't even know what they are referring to themselves.

Health & Safety act, Working time act to name two I know of. I expect a HR person can no doubt list others.

You did not ready the part in my post about in income tax and social insurance payments.

Can I suggest you Google them with your choice of destination and compare them with your current ones.

A lot of the posters on this forum have significant knowledge so if I were you I would temper your posts.

Amadan Dubh

The Student wrote: »

Health & Safety act, Working time act to name two I know of. I expect a HR person can no doubt list others.

You did not ready the part in my post about in income tax and social insurance payments.

Can I suggest you Google them with your choice of destination and compare them with your current ones.

A lot of the posters on this forum have significant knowledge so if I were you I would temper your posts.

I note you still have not listed the laws which would not enable an employee in Ireland to work in France nor, I bet, can you give a concrete example of such laws operating in practice whereby an employee of an Irish company (not at senior management level) was hounded but he relevant authorities in Ireland or the other country to go back to Ireland.

Also, you are coming across ignorant and a bit dim with this post.

Mrs OBumble

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I note you still have not listed the laws which would not enable an employee in Ireland to work in France nor, I bet, can you give a concrete example of such laws operating in practice whereby an employee of an Irish company (not at senior management level) was hounded but he relevant authorities in Ireland or the other country to go back to Ireland.

Also, you are coming across ignorant and a bit dim with this post.

You seriously expect posters in this forum to be familiar enough with French laws to be able to list them? Really?

I chose France for the example because I know that it has a higher minimum annual leave entitlement than Ireland (source).

I also know they have other rights around disconnection.

I also know that in general, if you live in a country you are subject to the laws in that country. I am 99.9999% sure that France has an equivalent to Ireland's Finance Act, which says that companies which employ people living there must operate their version of the PAYE system (which may be quite different to the one in Ireland).

Bass Reeves

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I note you still have not listed the laws which would not enable an employee in Ireland to work in France nor, I bet, can you give a concrete example of such laws operating in practice whereby an employee of an Irish company (not at senior management level) was hounded but he relevant authorities in Ireland or the other country to go back to Ireland.

Also, you are coming across ignorant and a bit dim with this post.

There are multiple issue with WFH employees being allowed to live in another country. For the company it means that this employee's tax and social insurance have to be regularised in that country. It might also risk companies having to pay corporation tax in that state on a portion of there profits.

The largest issue may be compliance costs. Recently I saw a thread on boards about an employer that was having a few employees based in the UK. Basic tax advice was going to cost 5k. The UK tax code is in English and not too dissimilar to Ireland. The Tax codes in France, Italy or Poland are totally different and in a different language. The cost of basic taxation advice for different states might cost 10 k/country.

As well you have registeration costs. Friend has a business partnership with his spouse. They wanted to employ a child revenue charge them about 65/ month in what is a PAYE registeration charge.

Even if allowing employees to WFH in another state allowed companies to save money on wages compliance and registeration costs would wipe out any savings for a company.

The Student

Amadan Dubh wrote: »

I note you still have not listed the laws which would not enable an employee in Ireland to work in France nor, I bet, can you give a concrete example of such laws operating in practice whereby an employee of an Irish company (not at senior management level) was hounded but he relevant authorities in Ireland or the other country to go back to Ireland.

Also, you are coming across ignorant and a bit dim with this post.

You appear to be of the opinion that working in another country is ok so go for it.

Multiple posters have told you why you can't but you think you know better.

Your final paragraph does not even warrant a response. So I am not going to lower myself to personal insults.

ineedeuro

Depending on your company policies etc you may be able to work in another country. So it’s hard to answer on a public forum

If a multinational of course it is easier.

Contact HR and they will tell you exactly what you can/can’t do.