Get people to wfh or spend money on major infrastructure

LXFlyer

markpb wrote: »

Anyone I know who works from home permanently is zealous in their praise for it and assumes it could or should work for everyone. There are probably quite a few people who will have the option to work from home in the future that never had it before and that’s a great thing. Equally, there are others who will want to go back to the office, who enjoy the social aspect, who are more productive face to face or who like leaving the house every day.

I’m in a 90sq.m house with three young kids (two below school age) working at a table the size of an ironing board in a space which will, in a few months, be taken up by a baby’s cot. Short of working in the attic (after converting it and replacing part of the roof), there’s no space here for a permanent desk. I also do a job which is far easier for me to do face to face. More importantly, I like the people I work with, I like going out for lunch with them, I like meeting other people who work nearby. When I was commuting across town, I enjoyed walking through the city centre in the evenings. I’ll work from home for as long as it is required but I’ve no visions of doing it forever.

I also struggle with the concept that most of the offices in the city centre will be empty hulks in a few years time because we’re all holed up at home like pod people I’m not sure that will be great for the city.

Well said. I totally agree with your post.

The notion espoused in an earlier post above that we can all happily work from home permanently is utter tosh and frankly annoyed me. It bordered on telling everyone that we should be able to cope with it, and if not, tough. Great for some people, but I would remind posters that we are all different. Some will find it suitable, but many, and I suspect they may be in the majority, will not for a variety of reasons.

I have zealously separated my professional and private lives until this point. Granted I am, I admit, coloured by the fact that my father at one point nearly had a nervous breakdown brought on by bringing work home with him. This had a profound effect on me.

I now find myself working from my kitchen table which I move into the middle of my living room every day for better light. Yes it is possible to do most things, but I detest the fact that my home is currently my workplace.

From a mental health perspective, it's awful.

I certainly cannot wait to get back to my work and personal lives not being intertwined.

The social element alone is a key part of life.

It is great that some people can work from home effectively, but it will not suit everyone on a permanent basis, and to suggest otherwise is insulting.

KaneToad

bk wrote: »

- The open plan office movement is dead, looks like we will see the return of the cubicles and even real offices with walls and doors..

The open plan office was only ever a cost saving exercise and a lazy work monitoring practice for bad managers. It was only ever for the plebs. The higher ups still had their own office.

KaneToad

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think that it is highly unlikely. Even if your job can be fully done at home (most cant) you lose enormous networking effects that is needed to get challenges solved.

Not true for everyone or for every role. It's clear that there are differentl camps: those who thrive in a WFH scenario and those who thrive in an office setting. Probably breaks down between introverts & extroverts.

Introverts often see things from extroverts point of view. Extroverts rarely see things from an introverts point of view.

bennyineire

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I think that it is highly unlikely. Even if your job can be fully done at home (most cant) you lose enormous networking effects that is needed to get challenges solved.

Spoken like a true HR drone, most office jobs in fact CAN just as productively WFH and when the schools are back open even more so. I can see merit of maybe 1 or 2 days a week going to the office but its very negligible.

Before the lockdown I was working 3 days from home and 2 days (horrible commute) to Dublin. Honestly it was pointless me being up there as even when I was there the vast majority of communication was done through email, skype, teams etc.

There'll be no more getting up at 5:15 am twice a week after this for me, if my current company don't like that (which honestly I think they will be fine with it), then there will be plenty of other opportunities for me out there

Cookiemunster

bennyineire wrote: »

Spoken like a true HR drone, most office jobs in fact CAN just as productively WFH and when the schools are back open even more so. I can see merit of maybe 1 or 2 days a week going to the office but its very negligible.

Before the lockdown I was working 3 days from home and 2 days (horrible commute) to Dublin. Honestly it was pointless me being up there as even when I was there the vast majority of communication was done through email, skype, teams etc.

There'll be no more getting up at 5:15 am twice a week after this for me, if my current company don't like that (which honestly I think they will be fine with it), then there will be plenty of other opportunities for me out there

As has been said above on the thread, it may suit you, but it doesn't suit everyone. A lot of people (most I'd imagine) prefer a demarkation between work and home. Not being able to separate work from home life has been known to lead to stress and mental issues. Some people also like to interact with their work colleagues and actually work better in face to face situations.

And calling someone a HR drone just because your own personal circumstances differ is very insulting.

markpb

bennyineire wrote: »

Spoken like a true HR drone, most office jobs in fact CAN just as productively WFH and when the schools are back open even more so.

You have a job with mostly email/online communication and somehow you’re able to determine that most office jobs can be done productively at home?

WFH works for you because of your job and your commute. That doesn’t mean it works for everyone.

Someone else here suggested that extroverts can’t see from an introverts viewpoint. That’s rubbish. Plenty of my friends work from home and love it. I’m happy for them and I wouldn’t try to change that. My problem is with people who think that everyone can and should and will work from home in the future. That’s beyond daft. If this pandemic let’s more people who want to work from home do that, it’s a great thing. Let’s not turn it into something it isn’t.

seamus

CatInABox wrote: »

In fairness, the National Broadband Plan isn't looking so ridiculous anymore, and is looking more and more like a necessary purchase. Still debatable how it came about, but by the end of it, most of the houses in the country will be WFH capable.

On the other side though, these restrictions aren't going to last forever, either because of a widespread vaccination program, or the virus burning itself out. I don't know what society will look like at that stage, but I can't imagine that it'll be totally alien. In other words, projects like Metrolink, that have benefits beyond 30 years, will still be 100% necessary.

It's funny that only about 3 months ago I recall a relative ranting about the NBP and how uncessary it was, that we didn't need broadband to every house in the country and it was a total waste of money.

I'm sure people went mad about the cost of the electrification project too.

But I agree with your second paragraph too. People will still want/need to move around, and we will still have cities where people congregate. This is a perfect time to prioritise the projects with the greatest long-term impact. The NBRU wants the metro to be shelved, but as we know from other countries, urban rail is an investment providing benefits over centuries, not just decades.

Cookiemunster

seamus wrote: »

It's funny that only about 3 months ago I recall a relative ranting about the NBP and how uncessary it was, that we didn't need broadband to every house in the country and it was a total waste of money.

I'm sure people went mad about the cost of the electrification project too.

But I agree with your second paragraph too. People will still want/need to move around, and we will still have cities where people congregate. This is a perfect time to prioritise the projects with the greatest long-term impact. The NBRU wants the metro to be shelved, but as we know from other countries, urban rail is an investment providing benefits over centuries, not just decades.

The NBRU want the driverless metrolink shelved. Always look for the ulterior motive.

tom1ie

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

It's not that I don't think it can scale, it just wont happen quickly. There is often resistance when moving or changing existing office, sometimes for little or no reason, change, particularly big change generally takes time. We are talking about huge societal change across all age profiles. Whats happening now is people are adapting to something and they have no choice in. People accept things on a short term basis which they may not if it were permanent. And making it easier and beneficial for everyone is subjective.

Most of what you have said boils down to "it works for me/my mates, so it works for everyone" (my house doesn't get cold too quickly, my job allows me work off a particular sized desk, my child "is a small bit of a challenge", etc.). There are a lot of other aspects as well for people which people just have to put up with for now but will need to be teased out if it were to be made permanent; financial (cost of light and heat), social (lack of interaction), boundaries (lack of separation between work and home life), practical (giving up a portion of your home to work), regulations and legislation (health and safety at work) etc. Naming tech companies whose employees probably joined due to the companies rapid adaption to new ways of doing things is not reflective of the wider workforce.

The cost of renting office space has little to do with it right now, most companies are in a lease and so committed to paying a level of rent every year, and can only exit a end/defined break times. They also have significant capital investments in fit out, furniture, equipment, etc. which they wont want to just drop, particularly when permanent wfh will require further investment.

Perhaps you are right and everything will change very quickly now but, getting back to the question posed in the OP, there is then no need for the government would be looking to incentivise it as it is happening anyway and at no direct cost to them. It may actually cost the government in reduced revenue or higher unemployment, in which case, they will be looking at ways to extract more money from people wfh, not give them back money.

No the original question was spend big money on major transport infrastructure or get people to wfh.

Incentives offered by government to employers to enact wfh was just a possible tool.

Cookiemunster

Another thought I've had on this. The metro once built would be there for centuries. The population of the country is growing and its projected to be up by between 600k and 1m people within 15 years and by 2m in 30 years.

Even if there is a large reduction in commuting due to WFH in the next few years, it will be a temporary reduction as these extra people will need a way to move which doesn't involve a car.

We need to build the metro, bus connects, Cork Luas etc, because we quite simply, we can't afford not too.

Marcusm

KaneToad wrote: »

The open plan office was only ever a cost saving exercise and a lazy work monitoring practice for bad managers. It was only ever for the plebs. The higher ups still had their own office.

Not everywhere and not in every industry. I worked in an office with 8,500 people in London with 7 offices! All else was open plan and the most highly paid cadre had the least personal space (trading floor) as it suited the work environment.

There is no one size fits all and that is the “future of work”. Some tech firms in Dublin can work just as well from Home as in a lot of cases the teams are spread over many countries/continents, not all in the same space. By contract, call and contact centres require immediate quality control and an ability to supervise which may benefit from co-location. If all the multilingual google/Facebook/etc staff are WFH, why would they be in Ireland in future?

By contrast, professional service firms may derive benefits (esp in staff training/development) from an office environment both in terms of work/quality and experience sharing.

Muahahaha

tom1ie wrote: »

Great input. These are all good questions.
However I would have thought there’d be a sizeable reduction in transport emissions if wfh was introduced en masse for those that can. For example someone travelling from naas to Sandyford via car that can wfh is a reduction in emissions.

The incoming govt. looks set on agreeing to a 7% reduction in carbon emissions every year for 5 years so encouraging WFH now is a golden opportunity to going some way to meeting that target. If they can make up some of that 7% figure by even 15 or 20% of employees working from home that could give them a bit more wiggle room to avoid the political hot potato of hitting farmers by reducing the national herd.

Metro still needs to go ahead though and Id hope govt. dont use any reduction in traffic volumes as an excuse to defer it. Irrespective of traffic volumes it is needed for Dublin airport alone.

Carawaystick

bennyineire wrote: »

Spoken like a true HR drone, most office jobs in fact CAN just as productively WFH and when the schools are back open even more so.

Most houses dont have space to work effectively.
I've no whiteboard, have a screen less, have no space for writing in a notebook at the only space in my house I can work in;
I've hardly room for my chair
the vpn to work is brutal laggy, while the kids can chat on any other voice app no bother,
asking or answering questions where a quick drawing is needed is impossible

Then there's the children, even when there was school, theyre home almost half the working day

Yellow_Fern

bennyineire wrote: »

Spoken like a true HR drone, most office jobs in fact CAN just as productively WFH and when the schools are back open even more so. I can see merit of maybe 1 or 2 days a week going to the office but its very negligible.

Before the lockdown I was working 3 days from home and 2 days (horrible commute) to Dublin. Honestly it was pointless me being up there as even when I was there the vast majority of communication was done through email, skype, teams etc.

There'll be no more getting up at 5:15 am twice a week after this for me, if my current company don't like that (which honestly I think they will be fine with it), then there will be plenty of other opportunities for me out there

I don't work in HR. There was some interesting work about this topic on the Freakonomics podcast and it showed through peer reviewed studies that working from home tends to improve productivity (partially due to working longer hours) but it has the disadvantage of reduced promotion even though people work longer hours.

Yellow_Fern

Muahahaha wrote: »

The incoming govt. looks set on agreeing to a 7% reduction in carbon emissions every year for 5 years so encouraging WFH now is a golden opportunity to going some way to meeting that target. If they can make up some of that 7% figure by even 15 or 20% of employees working from home that could give them a bit more wiggle room to avoid the political hot potato of hitting farmers by reducing the national herd.

Metro still needs to go ahead though and Id hope govt. dont use any reduction in traffic volumes as an excuse to defer it. Irrespective of traffic volumes it is needed for Dublin airport alone.

Sadly it wont make a significant dent. Even if we all cycled to work we would miss the ten year target by a huge amount. Literally banned all cars.

GreeBo

To address the OP question, I dont think the government gets to make the decision on people WFH or not.
so its not as simple as infra or get people to wfh. how does a government get people to wfh?

The can potentially facilitate it, but ultimately the decision lies with employee and moreso, the employer.

Muahahaha

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Sadly it wont make a significant dent. Even if we all cycled to work we would miss the ten year target by a huge amount. Literally banned all cars.

oh yeah Im not saying 20% of people WFH and not emitting carbon when communicating is going to achieve the 7%. But surely its a start or a help of some sort? I suppose it could also be a double whammy as people have to heat their houses during the day while the half empty office also has to be heated regardless.

Pete_Cavan

Muahahaha wrote: »

The incoming govt. looks set on agreeing to a 7% reduction in carbon emissions every year for 5 years so encouraging WFH now is a golden opportunity to going some way to meeting that target. If they can make up some of that 7% figure by even 15 or 20% of employees working from home that could give them a bit more wiggle room to avoid the political hot potato of hitting farmers by reducing the national herd.

Metro still needs to go ahead though and Id hope govt. dont use any reduction in traffic volumes as an excuse to defer it. Irrespective of traffic volumes it is needed for Dublin airport alone.

But how does the government encourage WFH? Why should the government spend money (or forego income) to encourage people to WFH when many of those who decide to WFH probably would do so anyway without any encouragement? I mean, the people who just want to WFH anyway or those with the long commutes will WFH if their employers facilitates it, the government doesn't have to do anything to get them to do so.

What level of encouragement is needed to get a significant number of people who otherwise would not WFH to do so, such that it has a big enough impact on emissions? Bear in mind that some of those who WFH will not be otherwise driving into work, they have be public transport users or cyclists. You would have to design a scheme that encourages car commuters who can WFH but don't want to to then WFH, I doubt it would have much impact on emissions, the cost would probably outweigh the benefits.

namloc1980

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Another thought I've had on this. The metro once built would be there for centuries. The population of the country is growing and its projected to be up by between 600k and 1m people within 15 years and by 2m in 30 years.

Even if there is a large reduction in commuting due to WFH in the next few years, it will be a temporary reduction as these extra people will need a way to move which doesn't involve a car.

We need to build the metro, bus connects, Cork Luas etc, because we quite simply, we can't afford not too.

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately if there is a long term sustained culture of WFH in Ireland, the authorities will use that as sufficient reason to say, "look, there isn't the demand for significant investment in transport infrastructure so we don't need to do it".

Pete_Cavan

GreeBo wrote: »

To address the OP question, I dont think the government gets to make the decision on people WFH or not.
so its not as simple as infra or get people to wfh. how does a government get people to wfh?

The can potentially facilitate it, but ultimately the decision lies with employee and moreso, the employer.

You are right in that the government isn't really a player in this. Going forward, there will be more WFH, for the majority that will likely be 1/2/3 days a week combined with a set office desk or hotdesking. This is almost inevitable, the government doesn't have to encourage it and it will still happen, they could discourage it but are unlikely to do so. They are also unlikely to try to encourage additional WFH where it is possible but not offered/availed of. These people/companies by definition need a good bit of encouragement but the benefit of them WFH is probably on a reducing scale after the initial uptake has eased congestion, reduced emissions, etc. So the government would have to do more for them but receive less benefit. I can't see that happening, firstly the government isn't going to want to hand out more than it has to, whatever form that encouragement takes will probably be open to abuse as people who are happy to WFH without the encouragement try to get the encouragement anyway, and the remainder of the workforce (probably the majority) won't be happy seeing others getting the benefits of WFH and an encouragement to do so while they get nothing. The easiest and safest option is for the government to do nothing about it, which is probably what they will do.

GreeBo

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

You are right in that the government isn't really a player in this. Going forward, there will be more WFH, for the majority that will likely be 1/2/3 days a week combined with a set office desk or hotdesking. This is almost inevitable, the government doesn't have to encourage it and it will still happen, they could discourage it but are unlikely to do so. They are also unlikely to try to encourage additional WFH where it is possible but not offered/availed of. These people/companies by definition need a good bit of encouragement but the benefit of them WFH is probably on a reducing scale after the initial uptake has eased congestion, reduced emissions, etc. So the government would have to do more for them but receive less benefit. I can't see that happening, firstly the government isn't going to want to hand out more than it has to, whatever form that encouragement takes will probably be open to abuse as people who are happy to WFH without the encouragement try to get the encouragement anyway, and the remainder of the workforce (probably the majority) won't be happy seeing others getting the benefits of WFH and an encouragement to do so while they get nothing. The easiest and safest option is for the government to do nothing about it, which is probably what they will do.

Agreed.
I also think that people are assuming that 1 day a week (20%) will have a 20% reduction in traffic levels or infrastructure required.
From what I have seen the reality is that it will be the exact same as it is today, but Friday and Monday will be quiet. So no real benefits in terms of infra. (though the env will see one)

My place has started a program to determine which of those currently working from home, need to be on site and how much time they need to be there based on their role/circumstances.

They will fall into 3 categories

Cat 1 - Not possible to WFH/Must be onsite 100% due to their role - Assigned desks
Cat 2 - Possible to WFH/Role requires 20-50% presence onsite on a weekly basis - Assigned desk
Cat 3 - Possible to WFH/Role requires 0-20% presence onsite on a weekly basis - Hot Desks

They have also reduced overall desk qty by 50% to enable spacing so even if everyone wanted to come back onsite it is no longer possible to do so

Also looking at 100% glove/face masks requirement while onsite. Masks will likely be machine washable rather than disposable, not a lot of details around that yet.

As people come back onsite, one big change will be in how meetings are run. There'll need to be a very strong justification for why a meeting is not held virtually anymore. Its looking like they want virtual to be the default from now on.

Muahahaha

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed.
I also think that people are assuming that 1 day a week (20%) will have a 20% reduction in traffic levels or infrastructure required.
From what I have seen the reality is that it will be the exact same as it is today, but Friday and Monday will be quiet. So no real benefits in terms of infra. (though the env will see one)

Could definitely see Fridays being quieter on the roads :pac:

Agree that it is not going to be a seismic change but reduced emissions of any type surely have to be embraced when there is a quite ambitious target of 7%. Farming seems to be in the cross hairs of that target but perhaps if transport emissions can be reduced then it wont get hit hard as it might have been.

It might only be a small win but still better than no win at all. Theres an economic cost to gridlock too, its in no-ones interests for the M50 to be a car park day in day out. It was over capacity before this pandemic and its out of room to widen. WFH gives at least some opportunity to alleviate that situation.

tom1ie

GreeBo wrote: »

To address the OP question, I dont think the government gets to make the decision on people WFH or not.
so its not as simple as infra or get people to wfh. how does a government get people to wfh?

The can potentially facilitate it, but ultimately the decision lies with employee and moreso, the employer.

agreed. thats why it was more a question of facilitating wfh by offering employers tax breaks (or something similar) to help reduce traffic congestion and possibly (from a governments point of view) no longer have a need to spend big money on capital transport infrastructure.

Pete_Cavan

A shift to public transport will probably do more for emissions than WFH as it covers a greater portion of the workforce and impacts journeys beyond those for work. With increased WFH, car emissions could remain static if people use the additional time gained from WFH to pursue other activities which they drive to, simply replacing their commuting emissions. WFH will provide benefits for certain individuals under certain circumstances, it isn't a universal benefits to society in general.

Cookiemunster

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

A shift to public transport will probably do more for emissions than WFH as it covers a greater portion of the workforce and impacts journeys beyond those for work. With increased WFH, car emissions could remain static if people use the additional time gained from WFH to pursue other activities which they drive to, simply replacing their commuting emissions. WFH will provide benefits for certain individuals under certain circumstances, it isn't a universal benefits to society in general.

Agreed. I had a discussion on another forum with a poster who said that money would be better put into rural broadband so people could WFH while living rurally. I pointed out that these people would still need to travel by car to reach schools, creches, shops etc., therefore not really saving on emissions.
If the main aim is to reduce emissions, then good (affordable) housing in urban areas and getting people out of their cars and into better PT is definitely the way to go about it.

Lord Glentoran

namloc1980 wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. Unfortunately if there is a long term sustained culture of WFH in Ireland, the authorities will use that as sufficient reason to say, "look, there isn't the demand for significant investment in transport infrastructure so we don't need to do it".

And the powers that be don’t need that much of an excuse either, unless it’s an outdoor relief scheme for the already wealthy in the shape of mosherway land acquisition and tolling.

Drifter50

Lord Glentoran wrote: »

And the powers that be don’t need that much of an excuse either, unless it’s an outdoor relief scheme for the already wealthy in the shape of mosherway land acquisition and tolling.

Yes, thats probably correct. Irish Rail have been slavering at the bit to close a bunch of rail lines that are uneconomic. Sligo line beyond Longford, Rosslare line beyond Gorey, Ballybrophy-Limerick, Waterford -Limerick and also cancell new rolling stock. If such a major WFH change happens as seems to be here now, the Metro is dead in the water also as is electrification to Maynooth and Drogheda. Any major transport infrastructure project will now go on ice for the foreseeable until we can get a handle of what level of depression we are facing into for the next 3-5 years