Is there really that many working from home?

kippy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed, we've got one scenario where Johnny and Jane are married and WFH in the same house (in two more closely-related industries). They tell us that one uses the kitchen and the other the front room. Every so often, we wonder if the data protection commissioner would be happy with just their assurance, in the event that someone complained.

You're fairly obsessed with this GDPR angle. Is there a reason for this?

kippy

kippy wrote: »

You're fairly obsessed with this GDPR angle. Is there a reason for this?

Mrs O'Bumble does seem obsessed with GDPR.

I think that bosses who insist on presenteeism (work from the office where I can watch you) will soon find that their staff will be voting with their feet, when this situation is over.

AlmightyCushion

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed, we've got one scenario where Johnny and Jane are married and WFH in the same house (in two more closely-related industries). They tell us that one uses the kitchen and the other the front room. Every so often, we wonder if the data protection commissioner would be happy with just their assurance, in the event that someone complained.

You can still run into that issue in the office with different teams working in the same office or using the same canteen.

magicbastarder

kippy wrote: »

You're fairly obsessed with this GDPR angle. Is there a reason for this?

it's a genuine concern though, and how serious depends on your nature of work.
if i go into the office, only other employees can access my laptop were i to walk away without locking it, and they're all subject to the policies and rules of the company.
if you were housesharing, the person who might be able to have a browse of your laptop were you to walk away without locking it might be someone you don't particularly like.

i don't think it's a massively serious issue but of course it's not ideal. more an issue for the employer than the DPC really. but as per normal, regardless of where the employee is working, you have to trust your staff on a micro level (and distrust them on a macro level)

stefanovich

kippy wrote: »

You're fairly obsessed with this GDPR angle. Is there a reason for this?

It's the EU superstate flexing its muscle. Who wouldn't get excited?

Stone Deaf 4evr

Isn't gdpr gas? Years ago you could come home from a hard day's work and chat to your partner about your day, and troubles / encounters you might have had with odd or demanding clients.

Now you've to bottle up all your stresses for fear for breaching gdpr.

Absolute nonsense.

stefanovich

Deleted User wrote: »

I think that bosses who insist on presenteeism (work from the office where I can watch you) will soon find that their staff will be voting with their feet, when this situation is over.

Unless there is good reason to be in the office then I can't see why they would insist. Unless they don't trust their staff. And if they don't trust their staff then why did they hire them?

loyatemu

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a genuine concern though, and how serious depends on your nature of work.
if i go into the office, only other employees can access my laptop were i to walk away without locking it, and they're all subject to the policies and rules of the company.
if you were housesharing, the person who might be able to have a browse of your laptop were you to walk away without locking it might be someone you don't particularly like.

if you're using a laptop, presumably you're allowed take it out of the office anyway, so they should already have measures in place to account for that risk.

If anything the risk is lower at the moment because no-one is travelling, you're not going to leave a laptop or a memory stick in an airport or a hotel, or even on the Dart.

Basically any company that allows employees to take data out of the office at any time, regardless of whether they're working from home or not, needs to have policies in place around device security, encryption etc.

magicbastarder

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Now you've to bottle up all your stresses for fear for breaching gdpr.

do you think this happens? that couples regularly discuss information which allows customers to be identified, with each other after work?
i.e. not 'some prick from athlone was obnoxious to me on the phone today about his missed delivery', but that they'd say 'bartram fetherstone from 114 goolie heights in athlone was obnoxious to me on the phone today'?

magicbastarder

loyatemu wrote: »

Basically any company that allows employees to take data out of the office at any time, regardless of whether they're working from home or not, needs to have policies in place around device security, encryption etc.

exactly - like i said, trust your staff on a micro level, distrust them on a macro level. there were regular awareness campaigns where i work (large multinational) before lockdown, and these haven't stopped. they're less visible though, because a large part of them had been posters etc. in the building, now they take the form of intranet notices and emails people probably delete as unread.

amadangomor

Still not as bad as pre Covid going in on the M4 at about 7am but has crept up from the lows of April when traffic was very sparse.

It's the only small silver lining of Covid, not stuck in traffic for 20/30 mins going the last few kms before my workplace.

stefanovich

stefanovich wrote: »

Unless there is good reason to be in the office then I can't see why they would insist. Unless they don't trust their staff. And if they don't trust their staff then why did they hire them?

Old habits die hard, there are plenty of middle managers out there who exist only to supervise their staff, they need the staff "in sight" to justify their position.
These people are in real fear of their jobs becoming irrelevant in a WFH environment.

Jimson

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

We've told them that they aren't allowed to print, but couldn't find a way to prevent taking screenshots only whenever we
Also we've said that no member of the household should be able to overhear phone calls, but there's no way to enforce that.

You do realize at any point in time an employee can just take a picture with their phone at anytime right or record a conversation over the phone very easily whether a voip phone or regular phone if there working from home or in the office right? Our company told us whats expected over a teams meeting. That was it.

If you don't trust your employees they will soon move on. Your thinking is seriously 25 years outdated.

Indeed, we've got one scenario where Johnny and Jane are married and WFH in the same house (in two more closely-related industries). They tell us that one uses the kitchen and the other the front room. Every so often, we wonder if the data protection commissioner would be happy with just their assurance, in the event that someone complained.

The very fact you know that the spouse of your employee works in a similar industry is much more creepy than any GDPR guideline. Also, that you have had them promise they work in different rooms.

Jimson

Id love to know the industry Mrs o bumble is in.

It must be a horrific company to work in.

We have 2500 working from home and no issues so far from an IT perspective where I'm a sys administrator with regards GDPR.

When this is all over I expect us to be back in office two days a week at most.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

The very fact you know that the spouse of your employee works in a similar industry is much more creepy

huh? i know what my boss's wife does. he knows what my wife does. it's not creepy, it's just small talk.

and it's also small talk to chat about how you're coping with having several people working in the same house.

magicbastarder

my sister used to work in a job where she wasn't allowed bring her phone with her to go to the loo. and if you rang her on her desk phone, it'd beep every 20s or so to remind you that all calls were being recorded.

she worked for a large financial institution where they handled some *large* stock market and other transactions. which meant that in theory there was a possibility of her vanishing from her desk and ringing a relative and saying 'you've probably got about 5 minutes to load up on/sell your entire stock of Acme shares', IIRC.

stefanovich

magicbastarder wrote: »

my sister used to work in a job where she wasn't allowed bring her phone with her to go to the loo. and if you rang her on her desk phone, it'd beep every 20s or so to remind you that all calls were being recorded.

she worked for a large financial institution where they handled some *large* stock market and other transactions. which meant that in theory there was a possibility of her vanishing from her desk and ringing a relative and saying 'you've probably got about 5 minutes to load up on/sell your entire stock of Acme shares', IIRC.

I'd wager that is the exception.

magicbastarder

oh very much so. was just thrown in as an example where it could happen.
and i suspect an example of a job where she'd have been classed as an essential worker anyway, so probably moot in this context.

thebiglad

Jimson wrote: »

You do realize at any point in time an employee can just take a picture with their phone at anytime right or record a conversation over the phone very easily whether a voip phone or regular phone if there working from home or in the office right? Our company told us whats expected over a teams meeting. That was it.

If you don't trust your employees they will soon move on. Your thinking is seriously 25 years outdated.

I work in financial services and I have seen companies where employees work in a very sterile environment - i.e. phones left in lockers outside of the office. No paper on the desk so the only way you are getting any data out, let alone GDPR data is in your head so short of brain wipe every day they could not lock it down much tighter.

Not investment companies here, customer facing roles.

Of course, arguing no phones at the desk for security is also a good way to ensure productivity is not impacted by employees checking on their phones constantly

fits

Ive been in the office 60% of time recently and am being 'encouraged' to be in more. Im not sure if this will change now. 95% of my work can be done easily from home.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

huh? i know what my boss's wife does. he knows what my wife does. it's not creepy, it's just small talk.

and it's also small talk to chat about how you're coping with having several people working in the same house.

It was more so the fact that they had promised to work in different rooms.

And sure, small talk, but:

MrsOB: What does your wife work in?
Johnny: A similar industry to us.
MrsOB: Oh nice.

Thats small talk.

MrsOB: What does your wife work in?
Johnny: A similar industry to us.
MrsOB: I need to alert the InfoSec team to a potential GDPR violation!

Thats when it stops being small talk.

jim salter

GT89 wrote: »

The schools would be a big one too

This is a huge one.

Commute into the city center from, say...Dublin 15 (for example) and during school time it can take up to 50 mins.

Same commute during summer/Easter/other school holidays - 20/25 mins :rolleyes:

jamesbondings

veryangryman wrote: »

Dr Glynn the other wk mentioned the traffic around Dublin. Given that alot of the work there is office based, what is causing the queues. There must be a decent amount of office workers in those cars.

I have found that yes, larger companies are letting staff work from home some indefinitely others until a post covid world (whenever that might be).

Another thing to bear in mind, I know of at least two companies who during the last lockdown put the majority of their staff onto the PUP. They were deemed non essential. Since lockdown was lifted they put nothing into any sort of business continuity plan or technology acquisition to enable wfh. These companies are now saying they are an essential operation and will not be putting their staff on PUP or allowing anyone work from home.
I would imagine most smes would be similar. Not sure if the government are giving funding to smes to buy tech but they should.

Id hazard a guess traffic wont be impacted that much tbh. All the gaurds require is a letter from the employer stating they are essential.

thebiglad

thebiglad wrote: »

I work in financial services and I have seen companies where employees work in a very sterile environment - i.e. phones left in lockers outside of the office. No paper on the desk so the only way you are getting any data out, let alone GDPR data is in your head so short of brain wipe every day they could not lock it down much tighter.

Not investment companies here, customer facing roles.

Of course, arguing no phones at the desk for security is also a good way to ensure productivity is not impacted by employees checking on their phones constantly

I did a security audit for a company down in Waterford. I'm pretty sure Area-51 are more lax in their security than this place. Man traps in reception. Phones in lockers. No phones in the toilet.

I spent 2 days in there and couldn't wait to leave. Can't imagine working there.

ELM327

thebiglad wrote: »

I work in financial services and I have seen companies where employees work in a very sterile environment - i.e. phones left in lockers outside of the office. No paper on the desk so the only way you are getting any data out, let alone GDPR data is in your head so short of brain wipe every day they could not lock it down much tighter.

Not investment companies here, customer facing roles.

Of course, arguing no phones at the desk for security is also a good way to ensure productivity is not impacted by employees checking on their phones constantly

I also work in financial services and have done so in various sites and roles since 2009.


What you describe is very unusual. So unusual in fact that I could probably guess where you work in 3-4 guesses.

magicbastarder

Deleted User wrote: »

It was more so the fact that they had promised to work in different rooms.

to be fair, you *did* explicitly quote and cite them knowing their spouse's professions as being the creepy thing. and mentioned the above as an 'also...'

seablue

Ive been WFH since March (tech company). No going back to the office for the foreseeable future, that's the current line.

I have a friend who voluntarily goes to the office as she doesn't want to wfh full time, for mental health reasons.

Another friend works for the HSE (not frontline). As soon as lockdown lifted management wanted everyone back in the office.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I did a security audit for a company down in Waterford. I'm pretty sure Area-51 are more lax in their security than this place. Man traps in reception. Phones in lockers. No phones in the toilet.

I spent 2 days in there and couldn't wait to leave. Can't imagine working there.

Please elaborate? I'm imagining an Indiana Jones scenario.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

Please elaborate? I'm imagining an Indiana Jones scenario.

Two doors with interlocks. Common on bank branches that handle cash.

Open door one, go in, close door one and wait for it to lock before door two will open; often only after a security guard verifies there is only one person in the locked box.

Prevents any form of tailgating access

magicbastarder

i am disappointed that it's not an actual Siren (in the mythological sense).

Stone Deaf 4evr

magicbastarder wrote: »

do you think this happens? that couples regularly discuss information which allows customers to be identified, with each other after work?
i.e. not 'some prick from athlone was obnoxious to me on the phone today about his missed delivery', but that they'd say 'bartram fetherstone from 114 goolie heights in athlone was obnoxious to me on the phone today'?

All depends on what you work at though doesn't it? If you're an accountant in a small town and your wife is, say an insurance broker, of course you'll both know jimmy murphy the local publican whos busting balls over being forced to curtail his business.

either way the gdpr breach is the same.

Eric Cartman

veryangryman wrote: »

Dr Glynn the other wk mentioned the traffic around Dublin. Given that alot of the work there is office based, what is causing the queues. There must be a decent amount of office workers in those cars.

traffic has been artificially slowed by a road diet program and the addition of far too many cycle lanes at the expense of road space. Despite the lower volume traffic is just as bad.

Mrs OBumble

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

All depends on what you work at though doesn't it? If you're an accountant in a small town and your wife is, say an insurance broker, of course you'll both know jimmy murphy the local publican whos busting balls over being forced to curtail his business.

either way the gdpr breach is the same.

Indeed. The scenario i mentioned is closer to that than some other things discussed here.

And the issue is not laptops (our staff are well trained in screen locking), but inferences from overheard conversations.

FWIW I didn't go looking for employee information they've volunteered it while chatting. I didn't feel any need to report it either.

But someone asked for reasons why WFH may not affect co.muting volumes so much long term, and I obliged.

Anyone who thinks that GDPR is mot a big deal has failed basic training in this area.

Jimson

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed. The scenario i mentioned is closer to that than some other things discussed here.

And the issue is not laptops (our staff are well trained in screen locking), but inferences from overheard conversations.

FWIW I didn't go looking for employee information they've volunteered it while chatting. I didn't feel any need to report it either.

But someone asked for reasons why WFH may not affect co.muting volumes so much long term, and I obliged.

Anyone who thinks that GDPR is mot a big deal has failed basic training in this area.

Your badly overthinking things. Any employee should have enough of cop on not to discuss things about anyone. They could easily spread the news of someone if they really wanted to without eavesdropping.

kippy

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Indeed. The scenario i mentioned is closer to that than some other things discussed here.

And the issue is not laptops (our staff are well trained in screen locking), but inferences from overheard conversations.

FWIW I didn't go looking for employee information they've volunteered it while chatting. I didn't feel any need to report it either.

But someone asked for reasons why WFH may not affect co.muting volumes so much long term, and I obliged.

Anyone who thinks that GDPR is mot a big deal has failed basic training in this area.

I don't think anyone is saying GDPR isn't a big deal - just that it isn't as big a deal as some are making out, particilarily for a massive majority of employees.
There are risk mitigation processes and tools that can be used to reduce the risks of GDPR breaches - even when it comes to over heard conversations.

GDPR hasn't REALLY changed the base obligation in respect of a persons data management by an organisation and a large amount of organisations have had staff WFH or on the road long before covid.

The bigger deal is the effect of WFH on the onboarding process for new employees and the training of those employees over the first few weeks - particularily on a longer term basis.

AndrewJRenko

Eric Cartman wrote: »

traffic has been artificially slowed by a road diet program and the addition of far too many cycle lanes at the expense of road space. Despite the lower volume traffic is just as bad.

School run parents just might have something to do with it. Very, very few cycle lanes have been fitted at the expense of traffic lanes, though when you've had the privilege of taking up all the road space to drive around with four empty seats for decades, I understand it can feel like a threat when a small amount of that space is reallocated to more efficient users of space.

magicbastarder

magicbastarder wrote: »

to be fair, you *did* explicitly quote and cite them knowing their spouse's professions as being the creepy thing. and mentioned the above as an 'also...'

Her reaction to knowing the information was the creepy bit. And everyone else on the thread understood my reaction.

Eric Cartman

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

School run parents just might have something to do with it. Very, very few cycle lanes have been fitted at the expense of traffic lanes, though when you've had the privilege of taking up all the road space to drive around with four empty seats for decades, I understand it can feel like a threat when a small amount of that space is reallocated to more efficient users of space.

The entire north quays, dundrum village, dun laoiighre strand, just 3 locations that have lost a full road lane to cycle path.

magicbastarder

never let the fact that the thread is about working from home stop you ranting about cycling. anyway:

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The entire north quays ... have lost a full road lane to cycle path.

on inns quay and ormond quay, they've lost the parking to a cycle lane. not a road lane.
and it's great.

but also, three locations.
three.
not three hundred or even thirty.
three.
and one of those you got wrong.

AndrewJRenko

ICTU is on the case

https://twitter.com/drbambrick/status/1318808364424548352

trixi001

GDPR is an issue - and not necessarily between husband and wife etc - as generally although you should make sure the other spouse doesn't overhear confidential information, if they do overhear, they are unlikely to use the information...

Many young professionals live in shared housing, so you could have 4 or even more, working from home, overhearing information etc, and being young and ambitious possibly using this information to their advantage....

I have been WFH since early March, and we are unlikely to be back this side of Christmas - a few people were in the office occasionally, to print a few things, collect documentation they need etc, or for meetings etc. But all access stopped again once some areas hit level 4.

Jimson

trixi001 wrote: »

GDPR is an issue - and not necessarily between husband and wife etc - as generally although you should make sure the other spouse doesn't overhear confidential information, if they do overhear, they are unlikely to use the information...

Many young professionals live in shared housing, so you could have 4 or even more, working from home, overhearing information etc, and being young and ambitious possibly using this information to their advantage....

I have been WFH since early March, and we are unlikely to be back this side of Christmas - a few people were in the office occasionally, to print a few things, collect documentation they need etc, or for meetings etc. But all access stopped again once some areas hit level 4.

Would ya stop, trust your employers like you do in the office and stop talking nonsense.

techdiver

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/working-from-home-could-save-you-8-weeks-and-3k-a-year-and-halve-your-transport-footprint-1.4373366?mode=amp

More evidence of the advantages.

ongarboy

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

ICTU is on the case

https://twitter.com/drbambrick/status/1318808364424548352

Unless you never ever bought coffee, breakfast or lunch out or in the canteen when at work and you could walk to work therefore having zero commuting expenses, I really struggle to understand how it now costs workers more. Yes, heating bills may go up in the winter months and I'd have thought most people were on unlimited broadband plans so where are the excess costs if you offset these against what you save?

Milena009

ongarboy wrote: »

Unless you never ever bought coffee, breakfast or lunch out or in the canteen when at work and you could walk to work therefore having zero commuting expenses, I really struggle to understand how it now costs workers more. Yes, heating bills may go up in the winter months and I'd have thought most people were on unlimited broadband plans so where are the excess costs if you offset these against what you save?

Additionally there is this eworker tax refund? Payable either by revenue or the company.
I can see my bills going bit up However I am also saving more so mixed bag I suppo

Financially, for me I makes a small saving WFH with a stay at home wife, the bills are almost unchanged, the main saving of course is commuting costs.
I wouldn't be surprised if companies in the future, reduce the basic wage for the job and pay commuting costs as a "benefit" for those they expect to commute any significant distance to make the job more attractive.

AndrewJRenko

ongarboy wrote: »

Unless you never ever bought coffee, breakfast or lunch out or in the canteen when at work and you could walk to work therefore having zero commuting expenses, I really struggle to understand how it now costs workers more. Yes, heating bills may go up in the winter months and I'd have thought most people were on unlimited broadband plans so where are the excess costs if you offset these against what you save?

I bring lunch into work, so I'm paying the same for lunch either way. I commute on the bike, so I'm not saving any money.

I've had to provide furniture, space, and now heating - all excess and no saving.

Locotastic

stefanovich wrote: »

Unless there is good reason to be in the office then I can't see why they would insist. Unless they don't trust their staff. And if they don't trust their staff then why did they hire them?

My employer won't let anyone WFH even though its entirely possible and probably more productive.

No contingency for planning for working from home at all or god forbid a case in the workplace meaning staff have to isolate for a couple of weeks.

If it was my business I would not feel comfortable with the lack of a back up plan. It has the capacity to really impact the company when there's no plan B.

Business continuity is not even being considered seriously, never mind the safety of staff.