Working From Home Megathread

Interesting perspective, thanks for sharing. Is there anything to suggest that WFH might improve the service provided to the customer (which should be the main focus)?

Do you really think people are happy with the services provided by the PS? The health service is awful, the school system is around average for the OECD but almost entirely private at primary level (provided by religious organisations).

The services are provided by the employees, they aren't political decisions. There are no real sanction for under-performing employees. Relative to other European countries, the services here are woeful. We can see the money go in and the resulting service, so there is obviously something wrong inside. The state (which ever party is in power) is generally not bad at the macro stuff, brexit negotiations etc. They are generally very bad at anything that involves getting their employees to do something that they were not doing yesterday.

Getting the PUP out is regarded as some kind of big achievement here, that is how low the expectations are! Many state services were not provided during the pandemic, so your claim that the CS/PS was able to move to remote working immediately doesn't really stack up. Here is an example from last November, 6 months into the pandemic:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/over-300-civil-servants-working-part-time-but-getting-full-time-pay-during-lockdown-39793198.html

Andrew is right that the legislation exists and should be followed.

Others are right that the legislation is a bit stupid to try and apply in people's homes and should probably be updated to account for that.

They are also right that a lot of companies don't bother or pay lip service to it because it's so rarely an issue for the majority of people.

My feeling is that unless there is neglect, the type of person suing under the legislation would be the type to sue for absolutely anything regardless what hoops a company jumps through but that the numbers are low enough that it's not really been of value to enforce (more legal cases would of course change this balance).

My own company follows all best practices here and have offered to do on site ergo surveys for home which will probably become mandatory once the mandatory WFH guidance from the government finishes in October.

(I think everyone can agree that a remote ergo assessment isn't much value and that organizing ergo assessments during severe lockdown was impossible so every company was, in effect, breaking the legislation).

I'm in the same boat, I work for CS Dept. and we have just been told we're going back next week on a "phased basis". I really feel it's going to be another missed opportunity here. I keep wondering how the majority of workers in the CS feel because it's really hard to gauge where I am. Those I have spoken to are complaining about going back but not doing anything about it and there are one or two who are looking forward to going back to the office, which is fair enough and it should be their choice. This "phased return" I think is a sneaky way of hoping we will all forget the benefits to remote working and we will all just be obedient and slot back into long commutes, crowded offices, packed steamy, miserable trains/buses - no thanks.

So far with the order to return to the office I have voiced my hesitancy on the basis I have a serious medical condition. When I questioned health and safety in the building and expressed my concerns and asked for policies I received a one liner from the DLO and HR saying I was being referred to the CMO. I contacted Forsa and was just told that others have been working throughout the pandemic. Which I understand and respect, but what is it about this need for constant comparison and competition between people. I responded saying I also have been working, albeit from home, I've actually been working longer hours and harder than I did in the office (which doesn't bother me). I also isolated for a lot of the last 18 months because I was at high risk. The union advised me to seek support from my medical team etc. then I was to let them know how I get on! I have anxiety about my health (with good reason) anyway so this push to go back to the office and being referred to the CMO is stressful for me. I know I can work safely and in a less stressed state at home yet it's others now who will decide my fate.

The whole experience has just made me start looking for another job. I work hard where I am currently, I have been told I am a valued member of the team but when you are met with a lack of transparency and understanding by the powers that be in a Department that is supposed to represent vulnerable people you just despair. It's like we should be seen and not heard.

I heard today from someone in another CS (Tech based) Department that they have been told they won't be back in the office properly until the New Year and they were emailed asking their preferences for "blended" working. So they could choose from 1 day in the office, 4 wfh, 2 days in office, 3 wfh etc. Obviously there is also no consistency across Departments.

I can see why some people want to be back in the office and I understand it but I would just like the choice not to keep paying exorbitant rent and have a chance at a better quality of life and housing. I also want the choice to prioritise my health without being made feel guilty about it by my PS employer. I've done it for the last 18 months so I know it is possible.

I mean certainly there will be cases with WFH not working due to a lack of adequate space but at home seems a lot easier to do correctly than hotdesking. I had no checks for what I was doing after I started hotdesking so they can't be that worried about it. They already trusted me to set up a screen/chair every day so they may do the same now. You just need a remote session to figure out how to set it up the first time.

Many companies were happy enough to move on in employee's personal time with email, slack on phones as well the ability to work from home was already available even if it wasn't commonly used.

These were issues before the pandemic but no one was that worried about it until some realised there might be some benefits for employees.

What about someone working for Revenue or DEASP or indeed a private payroll company? Or admin for a security company? They couldn't be leaned on?

Wake up.

The list goes on and on. In an effort to be smart, you're not coming across as at all.

And if someone wanted to steal a particular person's identity, they could glean an awful lot from far more 'harmless' WFH datasets.

Edit: these are not reasons to not WFH. All of these are addressed as part of personal responsibility within the contracts of most of the above examples.

Do criminals cajole employees? Yes, they do.

Boils my piss when the "back to the office" brigade refer to it as "back to work". Oh really? So what do they think people were doing while WORKing From Home.

It is disappointing but not that surprising that Forsa were of no help to you. it is also not surprising that other people are seemingly unhappy about the situation but won't even try to make a stand.

I was in a similar boat about a year ago except it wasn't my own health I was concerned about but that of a vulnerable person I live with who has various health problems including dementia. At the same time as I was being ordered back to the office, we were receiving no support from the HSE due to the huge focus on Covid to the detriment of other services.

I quoted the public heath guidelines at the time to my employer and received an obnoxious response. Union was useless. Subsequently, as we all know, Covid blew up again big time.

I have found that the people most keen on a return to the office are those who:

Do little or nothing when they are in the office

Spend a lot of their work day drinking tea and talking sh*t, often doing tours of the offices

Thrive on office gossip, politics and hierarchy e.g. floor area of offices and title on the door.

Live close to the office and are smug about that

Seem to like getting away from their spouse and kids

Also, scabby fcukers who come to the office mainly for free teabags and toilet paper or to show off their new clothes or hairdo. Continued to come in to office during the pandemic in contravention of publlc health guidelines while half heartedly being told not to by weak management. The next thing that will happen if it hasn't already is this will be used as justification to get everyone back fulltime "well Mary has been in the office all along so it's only fair that you come back".

It is common practice in anywhere I know where you bring your laptop home after work.

If the building burnt down and everybody's laptop was in the building the company would be ruined.

So if someone wants to break in and coerce information out of me they can drop in anytime after 6, I might inconvenience them by not being at home from 9 to 5.

Ireland is not Mexixo or some third world country, I am sure people in high positions have faced this like Bank managers as we seen cases in the past which again was nothing to do with working from home.

Can you or anybody give me 5 of 6 examples of an average office worker that has been coerced while working full time from home in Ireland.

Can you or anybody give me 5 of 6 examples of an average office worker that has been coerced while working full time from home in Ireland.

Of course I can't - among other things, part of managing issues like these is not publicising them. But this is not a theoretical nonsense, Irish society has plenty of small-time crooks who want to get their hands on personal information. It's an issue which companies have to manage, especially if they have people lone-working. GDPR means that they have obligations to customers/clients, as well as the health-and-safety obligations to their staff.

@UFCMachine it seems to me that the discussion point is that some people think WFH can continue in the way that it was suddenly widely adopted in March 2020. Others can see that there are wider issues, that it's suitable long term in some jobs and for some people but not in/for others. And that childcare / doggie-care approach we've all lived with since March-20 is not a way to do business going forward.

The people who are personally keen to stay WFH are very keen to shut down discussion of the issues: It works for then, they don't care about their colleagues for whom it doesn't work so well - and they hate Doris in accounts. They really, really don't want their employers to hear of any negatives. They're certain that if their employer insists on a return to the office, they'll quit and get another job - which can be remote from anywhere in the world. Some are already hedging their bets and have started another - or a 2nd - job (see www.overemployed.com and this WSJ article) and it's really scaring them that their manager will cop on to these possibilities and to the enhanced management that's needed for WFH people . (For all the pot-shots at middle managers, they are needed more than ever during WFH.)

I agree with you that most companies will end up with some kind of hybrid. I hope that they don't get caught up in "fairness" ideas of everyone doing the same number of on-site / off-site days: what's best for one job + living situation is not best for others. I also hope that employers don't expect me to provide office space for them in my home long-term, given that we have a nationwide housing crisis.

I'm going to stay Working from home.

1 to 1 and a half hour commute each way to the office is not acceptable anymore.

So you can't give any examples which I expected.