Working From Home Megathread

_Kaiser_

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Can you refuse WFH, prefer in office?

There's no place I've heard of that's forcing WFH on anyone. The majority want it/flexibility but people will be able to go to the office too.

You may not have a fixed desk but unless you turn your work area into some sort of home away from home with pics and knick-knacks then is that really a big deal?

Mrs OBumble

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

There's no place I've heard of that's forcing WFH on anyone. The majority want it/flexibility but people will be able to go to the office too.

Well there's this one: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058194142

And this one: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058188714

And this business-owning poster has made it very clear that s/he will not afford to rent office space just because employees want it: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117325603&postcount=301

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Well there's this one: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058194142

And this one: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2058188714

And this business-owning poster has made it very clear that s/he will not afford to rent office space just because employees want it: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117325603&postcount=301

These highlight one of the points I made earlier about bad management, treat your staff badly these days and they're likely to walk.


In the first instance the management should allow cover for the enforced absence from the virtual office during the power outage or assist in finding alternative premisis for them to work from, or some other flexible arrangement.


The second one is simply hot desks where the poster is miffed at losing their personal desk, something that could be sorted out easily with a bit of give and take.


That last one would probably result in the person leaving if they can't or won't work from home or local hub (paid for by the company).

JTMan

The Great Resignation Wave caused by certain hybrid policies continues in the US. Irish companies who are still formulating hybrid policies should take note.

https://twitter.com/chris_herd/status/1411402857660784642

limnam

JTMan wrote: »

The Great Resignation Wave caused by certain hybrid policies continues in the US. Irish companies who are still formulating hybrid policies should take note.

https://twitter.com/chris_herd/status/1411402857660784642

Don't worry, once they all hear about the key logging going on they'll all flock back to the office :pac:

doc22

JTMan wrote: »

The Great Resignation Wave caused by certain hybrid policies continues in the US. Irish companies who are still formulating hybrid policies should take note.

https://twitter.com/chris_herd/status/1411402857660784642

I definitely believe him as he's Founder & CEO of a company founded on remote working model :rolleyes:https://www.firstbasehq.com/

limnam

Mr.S wrote: »

While he might be biased, it's definitely true.

Of interviews I've held over the last couple of months, candidates ALWAYS ask very quickly about our working location policy / wfh support. 2 years ago, it was maybe asked after offer stage - now it's upfront.

People shopping around clearly have it top of their priority list these days. Makes sense too, why would you change jobs to go somewhere that makes you work 5 days a week in an office?

We're seeing exactly the same.


Thankfully we have a very flexible policy so it's not impacting potential employees decision making.

Sheep Shagger

Mr.S wrote: »

Makes sense too, why would you change jobs to go somewhere that makes you work 5 days a week in an office?

In certain sectors at certain levels it might be employees calling the shots but in a lot it won't be. It will be do as the employer wants otherwise find a new job and in some cases jobs with the same remit and salary may not be avaliable.

I'm talking about senior c suite roles and the like in certain sectors (probably not your average boards.ie poster in fairness).

A handful of tweets saying something is happening isn't 'widedspread'.

Personally I'd never want to WFH 100%, probably an age things but I like a bit of office banter and personal contact whereas people in their 20-30s seem to like working alone/ with very contact.

limnam

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

In certain sectors at certain levels it might be employees calling the shots but in a lot it won't be. It will be do as the employer wants otherwise find a new job and in some cases jobs with the same remit and salary may not be avaliable.

I'm talking about senior c suite roles and the like in certain sectors (probably not your average boards.ie poster).

A handful of tweets saying something is happening isn't 'widedspread'.

Depends how important and how much WFH is worth to people also.


I would jump ship without a second thought and take a pay hit for flexibility.

Sheep Shagger

limnam wrote: »

Depends how important and how much WFH is worth to people also.


I would jump ship without a second thought and take a pay hit for flexibility.

Indeed it's personal, sweeping statements saying 'resignations are happening is a bit OTT IMO.

cadaliac

limnam wrote: »

Don't worry, once they all hear about the key logging going on they'll all flock back to the office :pac:

What's this?

limnam

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

Indeed it's personal, sweeping statements saying 'resignations are happening is a bit OTT IMO.

It's a bit more than a random tweet though.


Have a look at the microsoft index


https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/worklab/work-trend-index/hybrid-work


"The data is clear: extreme flexibility and hybrid work will define the post-pandemic workplace."


"Business leaders are on the brink of major updates to accommodate what employees want: the best of both worlds."


Biggest spike in resignations on record


https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm


Of course there will be some sectors where it just won't work.


But where it will and leaders put their foot down. Workers will be out the gap.


It makes total sense that if most of the people want flexibility and a large % offer it, the ones who don't will lose out.

limnam

cadaliac wrote: »

What's this?

Ah was a bit of a joke. Someone brought up earlier about companies that monitor workers output based on keystrokes and mouse movements.

Mrs OBumble

JTMan wrote: »

The Great Resignation Wave caused by certain hybrid policies continues in the US. Irish companies who are still formulating hybrid policies should take note.

https://twitter.com/chris_herd/status/1411402857660784642

Yeah, but did he actually hire anyone whose only reason for changing jobs was to get more flexibility?

cadaliac

limnam wrote: »

Ah was a bit of a joke. Someone brought up earlier about companies that monitor workers output based on keystrokes and mouse movements.

Ah, I see.
I know that some managers (who micro manage) are always looking to see who is online and at what times.
This creates a double edged sword in the sense that the people tend to deliberately "Show Offline" and are able to prove that they were indeed working during a certain time.

Not sure if this point was already raised before nor not, so apologies if so.
Management and team leads need to be more specific when it comes to measuring employees work loads. The workloads and project timelines need to be more tangible and measurable.
I'm not suggesting that you micro manage but more engagement with the employee and agree on timelines.
Back in the office there was a lot more interaction (hourly let alone daily) so without setting meetings too frequently agree the timelines. This means more organizational work but in the end it will pay off.

limnam

cadaliac wrote: »

Ah, I see.
I know that some managers (who micro manage) are always looking to see who is online and at what times.
This creates a double edged sword in the sense that the people tend to deliberately "Show Offline" and are able to prove that they were indeed working during a certain time.

Not sure if this point was already raised before nor not, so apologies if so.
Management and team leads need to be more specific when it comes to measuring employees work loads. The workloads and project timelines need to be more tangible and measurable.
I'm not suggesting that you micro manage but more engagement with the employee and agree on timelines.
Back in the office there was a lot more interaction (hourly let alone daily) so without setting meetings too frequently agree the timelines. This means more organizational work but in the end it will pay off.

Weak managerial structures will always struggle. WFH just highlights different weaknesses. The same idiot in the office is probably walking by peoples desks to see if you're "you tubing"

Infoanon

Sheep Shagger wrote: »

In certain sectors at certain levels it might be employees calling the shots but in a lot it won't be. It will be do as the employer wants otherwise find a new job and in some cases jobs with the same remit and salary may not be avaliable.

I'm talking about senior c suite roles and the like in certain sectors (probably not your average boards.ie poster in fairness).

A handful of tweets saying something is happening isn't 'widedspread'.

Personally I'd never want to WFH 100%, probably an age things but I like a bit of office banter and personal contact whereas people in their 20-30s seem to like working alone/ with very contact.

If anything it's the opposite, senior people are using their position to say we want WFH/Remote.
It's younger people , working from bedsits ,who show a preference for returning to the office.

Talk to recruitment agencies and they will confirm 'something is happening' , WFH is now a basic for many roles and staff retention is going to be an issue for companies that don't adjust.

limnam

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yeah, but did he actually hire anyone whose only reason for changing jobs was to get more flexibility?

You ask that like it's a negative for wanting flexibility.

defrule

I think there is a wider paradigm shift happening and WFH is part of it. It's a shift from "work comes first my life adapts around it" to "my life comes first and work adapts around it".

In terms of productivity, if it has to take a hit then it should.

We see the same thing happening on the climate side. People are moving towards green and sustainable investments. Saying "oh but we''ll reduce our profit" is not good enough.

Profit is important but not at the detriment of the environment.

Productivity is important but not at the detriment of employees lives and well-being.

Sheep Shagger

Infoanon wrote: »

If anything it's the opposite, senior people are using their position to say we want WFH/Remote.
It's younger people , working from bedsits ,who show a preference for returning to the office.

Talk to recruitment agencies and they will confirm 'something is happening' , WFH is now a basic for many roles and staff retention is going to be an issue for companies that don't adjust.

Recruitment consultant s are BS merchants at the best of times so ain't going to start listening to them now.

Must be a sector thing with c suite people wanting more WFH in yours.

doc22

defrule wrote: »

People are moving towards green and sustainable investments. Saying "oh but we''ll reduce our profit" is not good enough.

Profit is important but not at the detriment of the environment.

Productivity is important but not at the detriment of employees lives and well-being.

:pac: hence why the government have to legislate workers rights and environmental protections....

Thats me

Infoanon wrote: »

Talk to recruitment agencies and they will confirm 'something is happening' , WFH is now a basic for many roles and staff retention is going to be an issue for companies that don't adjust.

TBH, it is hard to project this trend to post-covid times. Right now someone could avoid office just because they have vulnerable native at household, for somebody else inability of the business to organise WFH during pandemics can be a sign to avoid them. I do not expect WFH will become less popular, but chances are.

Mrs OBumble

limnam wrote: »

You ask that like it's a negative for wanting flexibility.

Never said that.

But is an employer more likely to hire someone who has a positive reason for wanting to work for them, or someone who just wants to work for anyone who has more flexibility than their current employer is offering?

Christy42

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Never said that.

But is an employer more likely to hire someone who has a positive reason for wanting to work for them, or someone who just wants to work for anyone who has more flexibility than their current employer is offering?

They can lie like everyone else :pac: and add on a reason.

More seriously this is just another potentially important factor in where employees decide to go. People tend to interview for a number of companies. They may have a preferred option but they are hardly going to have a specific reason for all of them.

I see this as no different to being a higher salary which has enticed many a move in the past. At least for those who value WFH, obviously some may feel differently and won't see it as a positive. I have been in discussions with some people around my level who would want a lot of money to go back to the office full time.

limnam

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Never said that.

But is an employer more likely to hire someone who has a positive reason for wanting to work for them, or someone who just wants to work for anyone who has more flexibility than their current employer is offering?

I'm sure people don't state the only reason they want to work in google is free beer and pizza, but it is part of their culture and a companies culture can be a an important component to a potential employee.


You just said that.


Hire someone for a positive reason bar someone who wants or more flexibility.


Flexibility is positive and important.

Frank Bullitt

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Never said that.

But is an employer more likely to hire someone who has a positive reason for wanting to work for them, or someone who just wants to work for anyone who has more flexibility than their current employer is offering?

Like wanting to live a life?

Hello Moto GP

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Never said that.

But is an employer more likely to hire someone who has a positive reason for wanting to work for them, or someone who just wants to work for anyone who has more flexibility than their current employer is offering?

I really think your still living in the 90's. That way of thinking is long gone now, particularly for people working in IT.

If you work in a company where you feel like your bosses own you and are micro managed its time to move on.

hmmm

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Never said that.

But is an employer more likely to hire someone who has a positive reason for wanting to work for them, or someone who just wants to work for anyone who has more flexibility than their current employer is offering?

Flexibility is now regarded by many as a key part of a job offering, it's no different to salary. It hasn't come on gradually, "flexibility" has dropped from the sky thanks to Covid and perhaps 10 or 20 years earlier than it would have otherwise.

We're seeing a once-off readjustment with lots of short-term movement, but it's going to settle down and you're going to see employers mention flexibility in their job postings alongside salary and other benefits.

As an employer currently I'd see no issue with employees moving because they want flexibility, it's no different than if they moved because they want a higher salary/better holiday time/more perks. It's for me (as employer) to decide if the employee is the right fit.

hots

hmmm wrote: »

Flexibility is now regarded by many as a key part of a job offering, it's no different to salary. It hasn't come on gradually, "flexibility" has dropped from the sky thanks to Covid and perhaps 10 or 20 years earlier than it would have otherwise.

We're seeing a once-off readjustment with lots of short-term movement, but it's going to settle down and you're going to see employers mention flexibility in their job postings alongside salary and other benefits.

As an employer currently I'd see no issue with employees moving because they want flexibility, it's no different than if they moved because they want a higher salary/better holiday time/more perks. It's for me (as employer) to decide if the employee is the right fit.

Happening already, all the LinkedIn hounds are leading with "flexible/remote working arrangements but to be based in X,Y,Z"

Mrs OBumble

limnam wrote: »

I'm sure people don't state the only reason they want to work in google is free beer and pizza, but it is part of their culture and a companies culture can be a an important component to a potential employee.


You just said that.


Hire someone for a positive reason bar someone who wants or more flexibility.


Flexibility is positive and important.

Apply for a job in Google, and tell them you want to work there for the free beer and pizza. Let us know how you get on with that.