Forced to work from home

oisinog

GreeBo wrote: »

And there you go again!
Too many people are focussing on the advantages and not accepting the disadvantages.

The huge advantages that *you* see are not advantages for many people, many people enjoy excellent work conditions and irrelevant commutes.

And yet you continue to Ignore the part where I say that working from home does not suit everyone.

I have 3 kids when covid first hit I had to work 18 hours a day for 2 weeks due to changes in the uk financial services. It was not easy having 3 children at home as well as my wife working from home.

Since then I have learned to better balance my work life and have embraced working from home.

Will I enjoy going back to the office probably. I enjoyed my commute as I cycled to work but other than the commute there is no attraction to being in the office.

I get that other people have different reasons to be in the office but we are in a situation that we may never return to normal so we need to change with the times.

GreeBo

namloc1980 wrote: »

If your company said we're moving to other end of the country or to another country (say Germany as an example), would you be here saying "I'm being forced to move to Germany"? Or would you seek new employment that suits you?

No, I would likely be on here (or elsewhere) getting advice on what the best approach would be for someone who is unwilling to move to another county/country.

Do you seriously think that any company is going to move country and just tell all the employees to like it or lump it with no conversation or compensation?

GreeBo

oisinog wrote: »

And yet you continue to Ignore the part where I say that working from home does not suit everyone.

You say it and then immediately throw in something like "anyone who doesn't want to work from home is just negative and missing all the positives"


You might as well be saying "I'm not racist but..."

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

They will have the option of trying to get a hot desk, but as many other posters have pointed out, there are more people than desks, so you are not guaranteed a desk, hence why the employer is stating that your permanent desk is in your home

Or there will be an option to book a hotdesk.

Either way, it is not the totally black and white scenario of permanent WFH that you are trying to paint.

oisinog

GreeBo wrote: »

Your issue seems to be that you couldnt separate working with your colleagues from socialising with your colleagues.

I have many friends in work, who I meet outside of work.
There is nothing unhealthy about this.

Did you consider it unhealthy when your college peers were also your friends? When your whole life revolved around college? How about school?

You are slightly twisting what I said to suit your narrative. .

I like the people I work with and consider some of them friends but when you go out with friends you work with the conversation will always get back to work.

I prefer to socalise with my group of Friends who I dont work with where we go for a drink and spent a day talking and laughing about everything but work.

I would consider it unhealthy if your whole life revolved around a certain point of your life I always felt that having a wide social circle is more benefical than haing it focused on my employment.

How do you seperate your work life from your personal life? Do you stop talking to your "friends" when you move jobs to a new social circle?

oisinog

GreeBo wrote: »

You say it and then immediately throw in something like "anyone who doesn't want to work from home is just negative and missing all the positives"


You might as well be saying "I'm not racist but..."

your now being obtuse.

I understand that being stuck at home is having a social impact on people, I also know a number of people who are struggling with their mental healt working at home. I would gladly give up my desk at work for people in this situation.

If you look at something in a negative light no matter what it is you will only see the downsides and vice versa for only looking at the positive.

You need to find a balance no matter where you work be it at home or in the office I have just happend to embrace the positives of work from home as this has given me a better work life balance.

Again you twist my words I have never called anyone negative I have said if you only look at the negativity of it that is all you will see.

Sconsey

namloc1980 wrote: »

What terms of the contract are being changed? No company will state on their contract that you are entitled to work at a certain desk in a certain building and that's it. Employment contracts will have a flexibility clause and clauses that mean they can amend the contract and will never give contractual obligations regarding specific locations.

I'd love to see this contract.

Of course they do, I'm not going to share my contract with you (large multinational) but it stipulates exactly that. We have recently changed from office based to WFH and I was presented with a new contract that I needed to sign. The changes in the contract were all around work location.

I am speaking based on fact and personal experience, where are you getting your information from?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

No, I would likely be on here (or elsewhere) getting advice on what the best approach would be for someone who is unwilling to move to another county/country.

Do you seriously think that any company is going to move country and just tell all the employees to like it or lump it with no conversation or compensation?

One word.

Decentralisation.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The OP's employer is telling everyone that their own home will be their permanent work address. No exceptions.

Thats not accurate.

Nothing was said in the OP about their home being their "permanent work address".

Their work address will still be their employer's registered business address.

Their desk location is another matter entirely.

Their employer is also providing 50 permanent desks for selected staff, (see post #25) so there are exceptions.

Padre_Pio

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats not accurate.

Nothing was said in the OP about their home being their "permanent work address".

Their work address will still be their employer's registered business address.

Their desk location is another matter entirely.

Their employer is also providing 50 permanent desks for selected staff, (see post #25) so there are exceptions.

Post 25:

We asked for permanent desks and were denied.
Basically say 200 employees, 100 desks.
50 employees need a permanent desk for laptops, monitors, equipment etc (in our opinion), so that leaves 50 desks for 150 employees, which was a no go.

Mrs OBumble

namloc1980 wrote: »

What terms of the contract are being changed? No company will state on their contract that you are entitled to work at a certain desk in a certain building and that's it. Employment contracts will have a flexibility clause and clauses that mean they can amend the contract and will never give contractual obligations regarding specific locations.

I'd love to see this contract.

Every employment contract I've ever had says "you will be based at the company office at STREET-ADDRESS"

There's legal precedent that they can move you to another company location up to 45km away with no compensation.

Moving further than that is a redundancy situation, unless you agree to the move. Some companies will even pay compensation for a smaller move, but they don't have to.

Moving you to a location which you have to provide yourself is a whole new ball-game. Even if they provide the desk, chair and computer, you are still providing the walls, roof, security-system etc. Legally untested AFAIK.

irelandrover

oisinog wrote: »

We are both thinking along the same lines here, people who are compaining abount being "forced to work from home" only see the disdvantages and doont look at the advantages that there is available to them.

For giving up a small corner of a room you have cost savings, if you manage you time right you cal also have a better woirk life balance.

oisinog wrote: »

your now being obtuse.

I understand that being stuck at home is having a social impact on people, I also know a number of people who are struggling with their mental healt working at home. I would gladly give up my desk at work for people in this situation.

If you look at something in a negative light no matter what it is you will only see the downsides and vice versa for only looking at the positive.

You need to find a balance no matter where you work be it at home or in the office I have just happend to embrace the positives of work from home as this has given me a better work life balance.

Again you twist my words I have never called anyone negative I have said if you only look at the negativity of it that is all you will see.

You seem to refuse to see that for some people there are only downsides to work from home.

Their social life didn't have to revolve around work but the social interaction in work is very important to them. They don't work a long commute, now need a home office and have lost some other benefits such as free tea/coffee so WFH is costing them money. One poster here states that he can now go for a run during his lunch hour, why couldn't he do that when he worked from the office?

Lots of people here have a massively improved work life balance now as they were doing huge commutes. They seem to see it as a threat now when others in their office say they want to return to their office. Its understandable that they want to protect the new benefits they have. However they refuse that the other side also want to protect the benefits they had.

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

There was talk that the quarter would have permanent desk space (which also comes with storage and shelves) but that leaves 75% of employees vying for 25% of the space, so it was denied.

Padre_Pio wrote: »

We're looking at alternatives and adjustments to this policy since it does not suit some people. Things are still developing.

You confirmed yesterday that things are still developing, and the above implies that your employer has not ruled out permanent desks.

If you need a permanent desk, make a stronger case for one. And if you're still denied, make it your employer's problem, by block booking a hot desk every single day for three / six months, and then go back and ask them to review the option of a permanent desk for you again after that time.

I'm honestly getting fed up with these threads now.

namloc1980

GreeBo wrote: »

No, I would likely be on here (or elsewhere) getting advice on what the best approach would be for someone who is unwilling to move to another county/country.

Do you seriously think that any company is going to move country and just tell all the employees to like it or lump it with no conversation or compensation?

Of course - have you never heard of companies closing and moving abroad? What do you think happens? Didn't a factory in Dublin recently announce they are moving to Eastern Europe - do you think all the employees get a say in that?? Statutory redundancy is what you may get in that situation.

namloc1980

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Every employment contract I've ever had says "you will be based at the company office at STREET-ADDRESS"

There's legal precedent that they can move you to another company location up to 45km away with no compensation.

Moving further than that is a redundancy situation, unless you agree to the move. Some companies will even pay compensation for a smaller move, but they don't have to.

Moving you to a location which you have to provide yourself is a whole new ball-game. Even if they provide the desk, chair and computer, you are still providing the walls, roof, security-system etc. Legally untested AFAIK.

Why would any company tie themselves to that? What if there location becomes unsuitable and they need to expand or reduce in size? Are you honestly saying that employees are contractually entitled to work in a single location and that's it? Crazy

oisinog

irelandrover wrote: »

You seem to refuse to see that for some people there are only downsides to work from home.

Their social life didn't have to revolve around work but the social interaction in work is very important to them. They don't work a long commute, now need a home office and have lost some other benefits such as free tea/coffee so WFH is costing them money. One poster here states that he can now go for a run during his lunch hour, why couldn't he do that when he worked from the office?

Lots of people here have a massively improved work life balance now as they were doing huge commutes. They seem to see it as a threat now when others in their office say they want to return to their office. Its understandable that they want to protect the new benefits they have. However they refuse that the other side also want to protect the benefits they had.

I'm not disputing anything you have said, and I agree that wfh does not suit everyone.

What I keep trying to say is its not all the doom and gloom some people here are making it out to be if they make a few changes in how they look at wfh that may change their outlook.

It looks like it will be here to stay for the foreseeable future and we need to embrace it not fight it.

Calahonda52

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you seriously think that any company is going to move country and just tell all the employees to like it or lump it with no conversation or compensation?

The foundation stone of neo-liberal market driven markets.
Workers are detritus, at best, in this conversation

Mrs OBumble

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why would any company tie themselves to that? What if there location becomes unsuitable and they need to expand or reduce in size? Are you honestly saying that employees are contractually entitled to work in a single location and that's it? Crazy

Did you ever read my whole post, or just the first paragraph?

Do you know anything about employment law? That will likely explain why location is specified.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

WFH is a pure cost for me, ignoring the cost of having to dedicate a room as an office.

This has kind of already been touched on, but what if your HQ moves miles away and your short commute becomes a PITA? What then? Would you rethink WFH or look for another job? Would you consider that unfair and why/why not?

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you seriously think that any company is going to move country and just tell all the employees to like it or lump it with no conversation or compensation?

My other half works in Dublin city centre, literally 30 secs away from the DART station. We live 3 mins walk from our own DART station so the commute was about 15-20 mins most mornings. Her job is moving to an industrial estate in Sandyford, so that 20 mins on the DART is turning into a 1.5hr M50 commute each way every morning. This sort of stuff a) happened all the time pre-Covid and b) will start to explode in the coming months/years.

Why would anyone spend upwards of 2-3 million quid to rent a prime Grade A office block in Google dock when they can get a similar building in the outskirts for 20% of the cost?

WFH suits some, and not others
Commuting suits some, and not others

newuser99999

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why would any company tie themselves to that? What if there location becomes unsuitable and they need to expand or reduce in size? Are you honestly saying that employees are contractually entitled to work in a single location and that's it? Crazy

It’s not crazy in the slightest. It has to be written in your contract where your work takes place. It’s literally a term of employment.

Padre_Pio

Deleted User wrote: »

You confirmed yesterday that things are still developing, and the above implies that your employer has not ruled out permanent desks.

If you knew that then why did you misrepresent what I said?

Deleted User wrote: »

Their employer is also providing 50 permanent desks for selected staff, (see post #25) so there are exceptions.

Deleted User wrote: »

If you need a permanent desk, make a stronger case for one. And if you're still denied, make it your employer's problem, by block booking a hot desk every single day for three / six months, and then go back and ask them to review the option of a permanent desk for you again after that time.

I'm honestly getting fed up with these threads now.

No ones forcing you to be here. TBH I don't think you're bringing anything new to the discussion.
I'm doing exactly what you suggested as it was suggested before.

newuser99999

newuser99999 wrote: »

It’s not crazy in the slightest. It has to be written in your contract where your work takes place. It’s literally a term of employment.

No it doesn't.

Stated this in another post, but I am assigned to a Department, not a location. I can be reassigned to any other location my department has.

Hundreds and civil / public servants were redeployed across services and locations during covid.

You think the locations on their contracts were amended, one by one?

Bass Reeves

namloc1980 wrote: »

Why would any company tie themselves to that? What if there location becomes unsuitable and they need to expand or reduce in size? Are you honestly saying that employees are contractually entitled to work in a single location and that's it? Crazy

They have to. It a part of EU law. There was a case about 10 years ago against a Spanish appliance repair company who were trying to put employees working day staring on arrival at first service call site and finishing at last service call. They were pushing worker to travel 150 km to first call on there own time in the morning and finish there last call maybe the same distance away adding 4 hours to the working day.

The EU court case ruled that employees had to have a defined place of start and finish that could well be there home

Mic 1972

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm honestly getting fed up with these threads now.

Why are you even here then?
Are you being forced to participate to this discussion?

newuser99999

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Stated this in another post, but I am assigned to a Department, not a location. I can be reassigned to any other location my department has.

Hundreds and civil / public servants were redeployed across services and locations during covid.

You think the locations on their contracts were amended, one by one?

Because it doesn’t apply to that.

Bass Reeves

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No it doesn't.

Stated this in another post, but I am assigned to a Department, not a location. I can be reassigned to any other location my department has.

Hundreds and civil / public servants were redeployed across services and locations during covid.

You think the locations on their contracts were amended, one by one?

Yes that right but your contract has to state a place of assignment. Yes you can be reassigned but the distance has to be reasonable and it cannot be continuously changing on a daily, weekly, or even monthly basis without compensation

Padre_Pio

Padre_Pio wrote: »

If you knew that then why did you misrepresent what I said?

Well, seeing as you're now accusing me of misrepresenting you, lets go back to what you originally said, then, shall we?

Padre_Pio wrote: »

We asked for permanent desks and were denied.
Basically say 200 employees, 100 desks.
50 employees need a permanent desk for laptops, monitors, equipment etc (in our opinion), so that leaves 50 desks for 150 employees, which was a no go.

You said your employer was providing 100 desks for 200 staff, but that 50 would be needed as permanent desks, for 50 employees, leaving 50 for the rest of the staff.

I took this to mean that 50 desks would be set aside for staff who needed them permanently due to "equipment etc", but for whatever reason, you were not selected to be assigned one of these permanent desks.

Now you say there are not going to be any permanent desks, so quite frankly, your posts are confusing and contradictory.

Either way, the bottom line is you are not being "forced to work from home". You have the option to use the hot desks provided, and if it turns out that you have an issue getting one every day, then you can take it up with your employer that they either assign permanent desks or more hot desks are needed.

irelandrover

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, seeing as you're now accusing me of misrepresenting you, lets go back to what you originally said, then, shall we?



You said your employer was providing 100 desks for 200 staff, but that 50 would be needed as permanent desks, for 50 employees, leaving 50 for the rest of the staff.

I took this to mean that 50 desks would be set aside for staff who needed them permanently due to "equipment etc", but for whatever reason, you were not selected to be assigned one of these permanent desks.

Now you say there are not going to be any permanent desks, so quite frankly, your posts are confusing and contradictory.

Either way, the bottom line is you are not being "forced to work from home". You have the option to use the hot desks provided, and if it turns out that you have an issue getting one every day, then you can take it up with your employer that they either assign permanent desks or more hot desks are needed.

THats not what he said.

At the end of the sentence it said it was a no go.

Padre_Pio

Deleted User wrote: »

I took this to mean that 50 desks would be set aside for staff who needed them permanently due to "equipment etc", but for whatever reason, you were not selected to be assigned one of these permanent desks.

Either way, the bottom line is you are not being "forced to work from home". You have the option to use the hot desks provided, and if it turns out that you have an issue getting one every day, then you can take it up with your employer that they either assign permanent desks or more hot desks are needed.

Not my problem if you have issues with comprehension.
Read it again.

Denied.
In our opinion
No go.

newuser99999

newuser99999 wrote: »

Because it doesn’t apply to that.

Doesn't apply to what?



.