Forced to work from home

ineedeuro

Mic 1972 wrote: »

We don't have the option.


People made arrangements to accommodate WFH during the pandemic, pushing this as a permanent solution seems unfair as not everyone is equipped for a home office

Find a local hot spot to work from, they are popping up everywhere

Mic 1972

jakiah wrote: »

Cant be that much of an issue for you if you are just going to accept this change and work from home permanently then.

Not sure what your point is
I have adapted to changes before, were they fair? some were, this one isnt

jakiah

Mic 1972 wrote: »

But it's not causing me to think about quitting
It's causing me to think that permanent WFH was pushed onto employees with a degree of selfishness from employers and little understanding of employees ability to accommodate

Why would any employer care if you are just going to accept the new conditions?

Mic 1972

ineedeuro wrote: »

Find a local hot spot to work from, they are popping up everywhere

that's not the point, I can find whatever solution suits me to accommodate a change, i'm not here for advise.


WHF as an emergency solution had everyone doing their best to accommodate.

Making it a permanent solution is unfair, but nevermind

Mic 1972

jakiah wrote: »

Why would any employer care if you are just going to accept the new conditions?

because i may still like the job and my colleagues and I'm happy with my career and the skills i'm developing in my field, I could go on

jakiah

Mic 1972 wrote: »

because i may still like the job and my colleagues and I'm happy with my career and the skills i'm developing in my field, I could go on

OK. Work permanently from home then.

Mic 1972

jakiah wrote: »

OK. Work permanently from home then.

Your point being?

Mrs OBumble

ineedeuro wrote: »

Find a local hot spot to work from, they are popping up everywhere

Who pays? How do you make it ergonomically safe?

jakiah

Mic 1972 wrote: »

Your point being?

My point is there is little point complaining about it if you are not prepared to do anything about it. Not sure why you are struggling to grasp the point tbh.

mrslancaster

jakiah wrote: »

Conditions change in lots of jobs people like. Offices move location, departments are restructured as business requirments change, buyouts, merges & takeovers happen, redundancies happen.

Sounds like you are going to like it a lot less if they start making you work from home when you dont have the facilities to accomodate. Why would you not be looking for something else?

Why is it ok for a company to expect employees to provide their business with free office space?

The big winner in the change to WFH is the company who will save huge amounts on office rent, light & heat, furniture, cleaning, repairs & maintenance, security, rates, insurance, even things like water, tea coffee milk & sugar etc.

Of course it is convenient for some employees if WFH reduces their commute time but that doesnt alter the fact that a part of their home is not available for home life any longer whether it is a spare room or garden shed or just a corner of a kitchen or living room.

Also health & safety regulations about safe working environments are very specific in terms of lighting, size of space, access, fire safety, etc. Most homes are not set up like that.

WFH incurs extra costs for heating, wear & tear, electricity, broadband & possibly house insurance. Even if a company wants to pay an allowance towards those costs, anything over 3.20 per day is liable to paye/prsi/usc.

It's understandable that many are happy with WFH but people shouldn't be fooled into thinking that companies are making this change for the benefit of employees.

jakiah

mrslancaster wrote: »

Why is it ok for a company to expect employees to provide their business with free office space?

I didnt say it is? If a company is forcing you to do something that doesnt suit you, you should engage with them to resolve and ultimately be prepared to change jobs if it cant be sorted, just like with every other business change a company might make.

Mic 1972

jakiah wrote: »

My point is there is little point complaining about it if you are not prepared to do anything about it. Not sure why you are struggling to grasp the point tbh.

We are here discussing whether permanent WFH is a fair change for employees. That's what you do in a forum.


Whether I'm going to make changes to my current employment is irrelevant

oisinog

ineedeuro wrote: »

Maybe, Im not saying it wont happen but that was always an option. I have family living in the UK, they live outside london and if they have to go to the office they get a train in. They could move to Ireland for the amount of times they need to actually go into an office but prefer to live in the UK

Its the same in Ireland, you had people driving stupid distances to get into Dublin because they wanted "Dublin wages" yet complaining about the time in a car.

At this stage it is far far too early to see a huge shift in focus. We haven't even got out of total lockdown. Majority of offices are still closed because of Covid. So these options hjad always been available, people are just more aware of it now. I know of one company who has hundred of people sitting in Ireland and they look after other european countries, they have zero to do with the day to day business of the irish operations.

We are both thinking along the same lines here, people who are compaining abount being "forced to work from home" only see the disdvantages and doont look at the advantages that there is available to them.

For giving up a small corner of a room you have cost savings, if you manage you time right you cal also have a better woirk life balance.

Mic 1972

oisinog wrote: »

We are both thinking along the same lines here, people who are compaining abount being "forced to work from home" only see the disdvantages and doont look at the advantages that there is available to them.

For giving up a small corner of a room you have cost savings, if you manage you time right you cal also have a better woirk life balance.

...and back to square one again.


Everyone will have pros and cons, but ultimately WFH is being forced upon employees and what was initially an emergency solution is now to be considered a permanent one.

jakiah

Mic 1972 wrote: »

...and back to square one again.


Everyone will have pros and cons, but ultimately WFH is being forced upon employees and what was initially an emergency solution is now to be considered a permanent one.

So what? Its not fair, thats your whole point?

oisinog

Mic 1972 wrote: »

...and back to square one again.


Everyone will have pros and cons, but ultimately WFH is being forced upon employees and what was initially an emergency solution is now to be considered a permanent one.

Working from home is not being forced upon employees, employees have a choice to choose to work from home. If this does not suit you engage with your employer and give them a set of reasons why this does not suit you.

If you employer is unable to unwilling to move from that you are free to seek alternative employment.

Mic 1972

jakiah wrote: »

So what? Its not fair, thats your whole point?

what's the point of being on a forum? maybe you want to address that

Mastroianni

Mic 1972 wrote: »

My commute was 5-10 minutes for example, instead i now have 0 minutes commute, higher bills and a living room permanently turned into an office.

among hundreds of people that I personally know (and yes I'm aware that personal opinions sometimes are not facts) don't have your luck: they spent an average 20-30-60 mins commuting taking or not public transport, because believe me or not a single room in city center costs FROM 700€, so they all live far from center.
I'm forced to be in a s.h.i.t.h.o.l.e. that landlord dared to call house. I don't know my company what are waiting to move everyone to WFH forever because, in this case, I will certainly leave Dublin for more affordable cities.
If we see WFH as an opportunity for a better housing we won't find any weakness.

ineedeuro

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Who pays? How do you make it ergonomically safe?

"Where there's a will there's a way"

jakiah

Mic 1972 wrote: »

what's the point of being on a forum? maybe you want to address that

Some people want to discuss solutions to the issue, instead of just saying 'its not fair' over and over.

Mic 1972

Mic 1972 wrote: »

...and back to square one again.


Everyone will have pros and cons, but ultimately WFH is being forced upon employees and what was initially an emergency solution is now to be considered a permanent one.

This is true of some employers yes

Businesses make business decisions every day of the week, no surprise there.

Sometimes they change start/finish times, change team structures, change work assignments, change locations, change ownership, change policies etc etc etc etc

Sometimes these things suit you sometimes they don't.

If they don't you have options.

You can change employer, speak to your supervisor, review with HR for additional options and so on.

It's swings and roundabouts. WFH is great for most, but doesn't work for all. It sucks for those who it doesn't suit but again, there are options.

Nobody is trapped by the change brought about by WFH in the same way nobody is trapped by an employer who wants 100% attendance in the office..... there are options

jakiah

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

How do you make it ergonomically safe?

Do you think grown adults are not capable of sitting at a desk properly? How do you get through life?

ineedeuro

jakiah wrote: »

Do you think grown adults are not capable of sitting at a desk properly? How do you get through life?

I see this thrown out all the time. Mostly because people don't know what ergonomically safe is. Not saying this is the case but it's been mentioned a number of times and I have no idea why. Especially in the context of a hot spot for working.

jakiah

ineedeuro wrote: »

I see this thrown out all the time. Mostly because people don't know what ergonomically safe is. Not saying this is the case but it's been mentioned a number of times and I have no idea why.

Jobsworths who think employment means following an endless list of rules instead of generating value for the business.

Mrs OBumble

ineedeuro wrote: »

"Where there's a will there's a way"

Where there's a will, there's a weeping relation.

Your refusal to answer, and triviaisation of people's genuine concerns, says more about you than about me.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Where there's a will, there's a weeping relation.

Your refusal to answer, and triviaisation of people's genuine concerns, says more about you than about me.

I think people have just become bored with your constant problem creation, negativity, lies and nonsense and have stopped taking you seriously.

For you the only solution is 100% back to the office. Great, enjoy.

ineedeuro

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Where there's a will, there's a weeping relation.

Your refusal to answer, and triviaisation of people's genuine concerns, says more about you than about me.

Not concerns, excuses. You have refused to acknowledge reasonable answer and provided more extravagant excuses. That your choice and best of luck to you.

oisinog

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Where there's a will, there's a weeping relation.

Your refusal to answer, and triviaisation of people's genuine concerns, says more about you than about me.

People did try to answer peoples's genuine concerns but then there was further unsual situations that kept being thrown out.

As it has been pointed out on several occassions that working from home is not suitable for everyone and most employers are aware of this and have offered a hybrid working solution. which again a number of people are not happy with.

You are never going to agree with the wfh fanboys as you don't want to hear other opinions.

GreeBo

oisinog wrote: »

We are both thinking along the same lines here, people who are compaining abount being "forced to work from home" only see the disdvantages and doont look at the advantages that there is available to them.

For giving up a small corner of a room you have cost savings, if you manage you time right you cal also have a better woirk life balance.

This all assumes that people are travelling hours to work and buying a latte every two mins.
There are very many people who commute under 20 mins to work and have a free caffeteria to avail of.

WFH is a pure cost for me, ignoring the cost of having to dedicate a room as an office.

GreeBo

oisinog wrote: »

Working from home is not being forced upon employees, employees have a choice to choose to work from home. If this does not suit you engage with your employer and give them a set of reasons why this does not suit you.

If you employer is unable to unwilling to move from that you are free to seek alternative employment.

So suck it up or leave isn't something being forced onto employees?

ineedeuro

GreeBo wrote: »

This all assumes that people are travelling hours to work and buying a latte every two mins.
There are very many people who commute under 20 mins to work and have a free caffeteria to avail of.

WFH is a pure cost for me, ignoring the cost of having to dedicate a room as an office.

I personally am not throwing everyone into the same bucket. My friend lives in Dublin city, he is max 20 mins from work. Still he loves and wants to continue to WFH for the future. He just thinks it allows him more freedom and he doesn't depend on work for social.

Just because someone lives beside and office doesn't mean they want to go into an office. The same as just because someone is an hour away doesn't mean they want to work from home.
As I already mentioned people have different requirements and they should be treated as such. If you want to go into an office and your company is deploying a WFH just go talk to Manager/HR. Not get 30 people to put in a request, go yourself and explain. No company will lose good employees over something like this

GreeBo

Deleted User wrote: »

WFH is great for most

Is it though?
What do you base this on?

ineedeuro

GreeBo wrote: »

Is it though?
What do you base this on?

Personally as I mentioned I have WFH since 2006. The majority of the people are the same in our office. I know when people have left to other companies it was a requirement that they didn't give up the option for WFH.

I do know the jobs coming up in our office would be very competitive to get because of the WFH ability. I know when I joined I had option and the ability to WFH swung it for me.

GreeBo

ineedeuro wrote: »

I personally am not throwing everyone into the same bucket. My friend lives in Dublin city, he is max 20 mins from work. Still he loves and wants to continue to WFH for the future. He just thinks it allows him more freedom and he doesn't depend on work for social.

Just because someone lives beside and office doesn't mean they want to go into an office. The same as just because someone is an hour away doesn't mean they want to work from home.
As I already mentioned people have different requirements and they should be treated as such. If you want to go into an office and your company is deploying a WFH just go talk to Manager/HR. Not get 30 people to put in a request, go yourself and explain. No company will lose good employees over something like this

Oh sorry, I didn't realise about your friend, case closed so.

Its impossible for anyone to state that WFH is good or bad in general, its entirely up to the individual and not only that, its likely to change for each individual as their circumstances change.

It's also far, far too early to see what impact it will have on a business and its employees, despite it being around in various guises for a couple of decades.
Never before have we had large numbers of employees entering the workforce and having little to no physical interaction with their colleagues. There have always been niche jobs where interaction with colleagues was minimal, but now this has been extended to almost every sector, from accountants to it staff.
Its a huge change and my personal opinion is that it will have negative impacts on productivity and output, simply because of the amount of work that happens in corridors and due to overhearing other conversations. Thats all gone now and is, at this point, unquantifiable.

GreeBo

ineedeuro wrote: »

Personally as I mentioned I have WFH since 2006. The majority of the people are the same in our office. I know when people have left to other companies it was a requirement that they didn't give up the option for WFH.

I do know the jobs coming up in our office would be very competitive to get because of the WFH ability. I know when I joined I had option and the ability to WFH swung it for me.

So basically you based it on your personal experience?

ineedeuro

GreeBo wrote: »

Oh sorry, I didn't realise about your friend, case closed so.

.

Leave you to it
Best of luck

GreeBo

ineedeuro wrote: »

Leave you to it
Best of luck

So when you said
"people who are compaining abount being "forced to work from home" only see the disdvantages and doont look at the advantages that there is available to them.

For giving up a small corner of a room you have cost savings, if you manage you time right you cal also have a better woirk life balance."

You weren't throwing everyone into the same bucket? The bucket of those who dont want to be forced into WFH?

Seems very much like you were tbh...

jakiah

GreeBo wrote: »

This all assumes that people are travelling hours to work and buying a latte every two mins.
There are very many people who commute under 20 mins to work and have a free caffeteria to avail of.

WFH is a pure cost for me, ignoring the cost of having to dedicate a room as an office.

So dont WFH then?

Around and around we go.

GreeBo

jakiah wrote: »

So dont WFH then?

Around and around we go.

Yeah, around and around because people seem incapable of reading the OP.
The employer is telling everyone that their own home will be their permanent work address.

ELM327

GreeBo wrote: »

This all assumes that people are travelling hours to work and buying a latte every two mins.
There are very many people who commute under 20 mins to work and have a free caffeteria to avail of.

WFH is a pure cost for me, ignoring the cost of having to dedicate a room as an office.

It's a cost to me too.
I had free coffee, free breakfast etc at work. They also provided free fuel (EV chargepoints at work). I lived an hour away.


Nowadays I buy my own coffee, I buy my own petrol/diesel (Sold the EV) but I save the hour commute and I get more done at home. I'm lucky enough to have a home office though.

ineedeuro

ELM327 wrote: »

It's a cost to me too.
I had free coffee, free breakfast etc at work. They also provided free fuel (EV chargepoints at work). I lived an hour away.


Nowadays I buy my own coffee, I buy my own petrol/diesel (Sold the EV) but I save the hour commute and I get more done at home. I'm lucky enough to have a home office though.

I mentioned it already but time is more important. I doubt anyone wil be sitting on death bed happy they went into an office everyday because they save a fiver on electricity

GreeBo

ineedeuro wrote: »

I mentioned it already but time is more important. I doubt anyone wil be sitting on death bed happy they went into an office everyday because they save a fiver on electricity

I don't consider 15 mins a day to be more important than money.
Certainly not when that same money could be used to purchase something better for me, rather than for my company.
I'm sure I wont be sitting on my deathbed happy that I saved the company money by working from home, despite it making me poorer.

jakiah

GreeBo wrote: »

Yeah, around and around because people seem incapable of reading the OP.
The employer is telling everyone that their own home will be their permanent work address.

The approach your employer and tell them it doesnt suit and if you cant work it out move, just like you would with any other major change to the business that impacts you.

ineedeuro

jakiah wrote: »

The approach your employer and tell them it doesnt suit and if you cant work it out move, just like you would with any other major change to the business that impacts you.

Which was the advice given all along and the OP ignored it. Go to manager/HR and discuss the requirement to work in the office.

Mrs OBumble

ineedeuro wrote: »

Which was the advice given all along and the OP ignored it. Go to manager/HR and discuss the requirement to work in the office.

The OP's employer is telling everyone that their own home will be their permanent work address. No exceptions.

ineedeuro

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The OP's employer is telling everyone that their own home will be their permanent work address. No exceptions.

The OP confirmed they didn't approach their manager or HR direct to request so unless you work for the company you don't know.

Padre_Pio

ineedeuro wrote: »

The OP confirmed they didn't approach their manager or HR direct to request so unless you work for the company you don't know.

I never confirmed that.
You've ignored many of my own previous posts and gone with your own interpretation of events that aligns with your own biases.

I said before that many of us asked and were rejected. I have asked my own manager again and told it was blanket company policy and was rejected, as I knew it would, since what's the point of a policy if you make exceptions immediately?

We're looking at alternatives and adjustments to this policy since it does not suit some people. Things are still developing.

jakiah

Padre_Pio wrote: »

We're looking at alternatives and adjustments to this policy since it does not suit some people. Things are still developing.

What a surprise.

ELM327

ineedeuro wrote: »

I mentioned it already but time is more important. I doubt anyone wil be sitting on death bed happy they went into an office everyday because they save a fiver on electricity

Exactly. That's why I'm happy to be working from home.
Sky news on, coffee machine beside the desk, what more would ya want?
And I save 2 hours a day - no commute.

ineedeuro

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I never confirmed that.
You've ignored many of my own previous posts and gone with your own interpretation of events that aligns with your own biases.

I said before that many of us asked and were rejected. I have asked my own manager again and told it was blanket company policy and was rejected, as I knew it would, since what's the point of a policy if you make exceptions immediately?

We're looking at alternatives and adjustments to this policy since it does not suit some people. Things are still developing.

My apologies. Sorry if I misunderstood but the way you documented it earlier sounded like a group of you went to management and they rejected.

I did suggest HR, if a manager says no that doesn't mean you can't approach HR and explain the situation. Especially as they are the ones who will be involved in these policies.