Employer wants us back on site🙁

Feets

wicklow_hunter wrote: »

I’m curious to know how much can I push bk b4 I over step the Mark.

I still believe that government guidance is there to protect ppl. I feel that we are just being bullied bk to the office irrespective of Heath risks by the powers that b within the organisation

Your company is a private company and has the right to request people come back. The government departments already have some if not a lot of office staff back. From a company perspective, staff who drag their heels will be remembered.

It is normal to be nervous but think of how many people are already back - some never worked from home. The longer it is put off, maybe the harder it's getting?

Rrrrrr2

jackboy wrote: »

I know from working for a multi national that the quantity and quality of work being carried out by most at home is rubbish. I’m not surprised companies are trying to get people back.

Can you be a bit more specific? Is this true? I’m hearing the opposite from others anecdotally? Perhaps it very much depends on the nature of the work?

Rrrrrr2

TP_CM wrote: »

I think I'd survive going back and I think those closest to me would too but i simply don't want to. But instead of telling them i don't want to, I will just tell them that if the chief medical officer of the country is advising me to stay home, I'm staying home and if you want you can fire me, I'll enjoy taking you to court. Might not win, but the papers will have a field day telling everyone about the employer who forced their employees to unnecessarily go back to the office during a pandemic which may or may not be over right now.

Maybe you're the resistance the company needs right now OP. If I were you, I simply wouldn't go back. They're not going to drag you there. I would just let them know you're looking into it or something. They'll get that you're reluctant. As long as you're getting the job done I don't think they can fire you.

It'd be really interesting to see any legal cases which actually come out of this. One side arguing they do a better job at home, the other side saying they simply want them on site. I wonder what the legal situation is there.

Unfortunately this approach is unlikely to get you very far. Location of work is likely explicitly stated in the contract originally signed by the OP and is at the discretion of the employer.
Any legal cases wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Good luck in your career with that one too

Dav010

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I assume your employer put measures in place? The OP's employer is not, according to his post.

Where did the op say this?

I asked the op early in the thread if back to work safety protocols recommended by the HSA have been put in place by his/her employer, the op has not answered.

Padre_Pio

Dav010 wrote: »

Where did the op say this?

I asked the op early in the thread if back to work safety protocols recommended by the HSA have been put in place by his/her employer, the op has not answered.

Post 9

wicklow_hunter wrote: »

Management are not following government guidelines. Leo was talking about august for office workers to return

No more information than that.
I don't know why people are assuming the opposite.

Dav010

TP_CM wrote: »

But instead of telling them i don't want to, I will just tell them that if the chief medical officer of the country is advising me to stay home, I'm staying home and if you want you can fire me, I'll enjoy taking you to court. Might not win, but the papers will have a field day telling everyone about the employer who forced their employees to unnecessarily go back to the office during a pandemic.

The important word in your post is “advice”. Considering the country is reopening, I doubt your case would be newsworthy, particularly if safety protocols are in place.

Incidentally, Government policy does not always coincide with CMO’s advice.

Idioteque

jackboy wrote: »

I know from working for a multi national that the quantity and quality of work being carried out by most at home is rubbish. I’m not surprised companies are trying to get people back.

Our office is currently being reconfigured as the main reason people will go to it is for collaboration and chance encounters with colleagues you usually wouldn’t talk to in your normal day to day.

The days of people commuting long hours to mostly sit at individual desks working solely on computers is going. Do the solo work at home and go to the office only when really needed will be the norm for certain types of work.

In saying all of that. The option is there for employees who want to go to office every day of the week but from a recent employee survey, this is less than 5% of people. Also, anyone underperforming or found to be taking the p*ss will obviously have their options limited.

Edit - typed on iPad and lost first part of my post. Essentially it said that I work in a multinational and we're the opposite. Productivity is either the same or higher since pre Covid. Also employee satisfaction, engagement and work-life balance is at it's highest ever.

Wizard!

Feets wrote: »

The government departments already have some if not a lot of office staff back.

Where? I am working in DSP and we are not allowed in the office. Very few exceptions, people that need to access parer archives.

wicklow_hunter

Dav010 wrote: »

Where did the op say this?

I asked the op early in the thread if back to work safety protocols recommended by the HSA have been put in place by his/her employer, the op has not answered.

Yes , protocols are in place

The chan chan man

There’s going to be loads of this moaning about having to go to work again. Time to get the finger out now and get back to the office.

alibab

Padre_Pio wrote: »

OP says this is not the case

Maybe, maybe not.


I assume your employer put measures in place? The OP's employer is not, according to his post.

How do you know according to his posts he hasn’t been in the office to find out what has and has not been done . In the area he is working in the are in the 30 to 40 age group are being Vaccinated this is fact if people choose not to get it different matter completely. The risk is low the company know this go back to work like mandated or find a new job ,

stargazer 68

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Post 9


No more information than that.
I don't know why people are assuming the opposite.

Because that's guidelines not procedures in place. Op hasn't said anything about procedures that the employer has or hasn't put in - temp checks, masks etc.

wicklow_hunter

alibab wrote: »

How do you know according to his posts he hasn’t been in the office to find out what has and has not been done . In the area he is working in the are in the 30 to 40 age group are being Vaccinated this is fact if people choose not to get it different matter completely. The risk is low the company know this go back to work like mandated or find a new job ,

I’ve been in a few times , yes all protocols are in place

timeToLive

Why would OP care that McDonald's/shop workers have been in the whole time?


The employer is putting employees and everyone at risk and it should be discouraged and shamed for doing so imo. OP never signed up to use his home as his office but did anyway because it was needed. That should be respected by the employer and safety should be #1.

Who wants to wear a mask walking around the office? Sitting at their desk in zoom calls instead of meeting rooms? Not being able to use the tea area or bathrooms because someone else using it? The office environment is not ready yet.

stargazer 68

wicklow_hunter wrote: »

I’ve been in a few times , yes all protocols are in place

Well then get back to work!

alibab

wicklow_hunter wrote: »

I’ve been in a few times , yes all protocols are in place

So explain to me the problem. Are you trying to pull the piss or are you genuinely worried about going back to work .

Rrrrrr2

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Post 9


No more information than that.
I don't know why people are assuming the opposite.

That guidelines relating to return to office rather than the appropriate protocols whilst back in office as I understand it. Two quite different things really

wicklow_hunter

timeToLive wrote: »

Why would OP care that McDonald's/shop workers have been in the whole time?


The employer is putting employees and everyone at risk and it should be discouraged and shamed for doing so imo. OP never signed up to use his home as his office but did anyway because it was needed. That should be respected by the employer and safety should be #1.

Who wants to wear a mask walking around the office? Sitting at their desk in zoom calls instead of meeting rooms? Not being able to use the tea area or bathrooms because someone else using it? The office environment is not ready yet.

I asked for a desk and I was declined... I had to fund light heat, ink paper etc not once did they ask did we need anything.

alibab

timeToLive wrote: »

Why would OP care that McDonald's/shop workers have been in the whole time?


The employer is putting employees and everyone at risk and it should be discouraged and shamed for doing so imo. OP never signed up to use his home as his office but did anyway because it was needed. That should be respected by the employer and safety should be #1.

Who wants to wear a mask walking around the office? Sitting at their desk in zoom calls instead of meeting rooms? Not being able to use the tea area or bathrooms because someone else using it? The office environment is not ready yet.

Because most of us in work in offices have bring doing the above since covid began with protocols in place , you get on with it as you are employed and paid to do so . The key is paid to work wherever once company has put everything in place,

Foggy Jew

jackboy wrote: »

I know from working for a multi national that the quantity and quality of work being carried out by most at home is rubbish. I’m not surprised companies are trying to get people back.

Sorry - but this is absolute tosh. I’m a Civil Servant. In March 2020 we were plunged into WFH. Before the pandemic, there would have been committees, steering committees, sub committes, working groups, project management groups and God knows what else formed to assess whether WFH was feasible. But with no warning, we were all tossed into working from home. And guess what? The business of government went ahead. Social welfare payments were made, planning applications were considered, pension applications were dealt with..... Life went on. The public were well served. By Civil Servants sitting in their spare bedrooms or kitchen tables. Working remotely with no access to printers or scanners. I think these civil servants, mostly lower paid, deserve a round of applause for keeping the show on the road in very difficult working environments. DISCLAIMER. I am a Civil Servant.

Personally think you should look for a role that will facilitate working from home OP. The culture of mindlessly attending the office will never change here unless people force it to change.

Rrrrrr2

wicklow_hunter wrote: »

I asked for a desk and I was declined... I had to fund light heat, ink paper etc not once did they ask did we need anything.

Could have gone in and collected some of those things from the main office if you needed them?

Wildly Boaring

I've been on site throughout. Construction impossible from home.

But if the gpvernment's guidance is for companies to work from home where possible I'd not be impressed if my employer forced everyone back.

Our office based staff have been told to work from home and only to come in if necessary. Also they'll be allowed work from home indefinitely.

What's the point? There is evidence worldwide that people are performing better from home.

Stinks of micromanaging

Rrrrrr2

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Personally think you should look for a role that will facilitate working from home OP. The culture of mindlessly attending the office will never change here unless people force it to change.

Have to admit I’m in the luxurious position of permanent wfh and had landed a job with it a little pre Covid. So can empathise with people, it’s an enormous leap back to the office for many. The time saved commuting and not being stuck in traffic has been a huge huge boon for many people

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The government has guidelines that should be followed regardless of individual risk assessment

Guidelines aren't the law and do you think that then applies to everyone? Why is the op more precious than bar staff?

TP_CM

Rrrrrr2 wrote: »

Unfortunately this approach is unlikely to get you very far. Location of work is likely explicitly stated in the contract originally signed by the OP and is at the discretion of the employer.
Any legal cases wouldn’t have a leg to stand on. Good luck in your career with that one too

Wouldn't have a leg to stand on is a bit far. What you're talking about is someone who is getting their job done from a place which is better for the environment, better for commuters, better from a pandemic perspective and better for their mental health. Vs what exactly, a control freak who wants to bin all of that just so they can keep an eye on them.

Padre_Pio

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Guidelines aren't the law and do you think that then applies to everyone? Why is the op more precious than bar staff?

Urgh.
The OP has clarified his employer is following guidelines.

Bar staff also follow guidelines. Those who can't have been closed for 15 months.

Rrrrrr2

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

I've been on site throughout. Construction impossible from home.

But if the gpvernment's guidance is for companies to work from home where possible I'd not be impressed if my employer forced everyone back.

Our office based staff have been told to work from home and only to come in if necessary. Also they'll be allowed work from home indefinitely.

What's the point? There is evidence worldwide that people are performing better from home.

Stinks of micromanaging

They can just say “it’s essential to the running of the business” to have people back on site. I do think there’ll be a big cultural shift though and many best people looking to move to businesses where wfh is part of the deal. Ultimately it is a management discretion

TP_CM

TP_CM wrote: »

Wouldn't have a leg to stand on is a bit far. What you're talking about is someone who is getting their job done from a place which is better for the environment, better for commuters, better from a pandemic perspective and better for their mental health. Vs what exactly, a control freak who wants to bin all of that just so they can keep an eye on them.

That's all irrelevant

Dav010

TP_CM wrote: »

Wouldn't have a leg to stand on is a bit far. What you're talking about is someone who is getting their job done from a place which is better for the environment, better for commuters, better from a pandemic perspective and better for their mental health. Vs what exactly, a control freak who wants to bin all of that just so they can keep an eye on them.

Not sure the Courts can censure an employer based on which model is more efficient.