Forced to work from home

The company I work for shut the office permanently last year and we all WFH now.

Like everything, it has pros and cons. Not commuting is great but basically spending every waking hour in the same place is a drag. I think for our company it's been detrimental as a lot of people have decided to leave the company. Obviously not just because of working remotely permanently but I know for many it was an influencing factor.

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

I did the as you constantly for about the first six to eight months of lockdown and especially in December when work was crazy busy with end of year stuff. I was logging off at midnight, and back on at 7am while having my breakfast.

But no more. I was exhausted coming up to Christmas. Learning to switch off is something I realised you have to discipline yourself to do, so now I shut my work laptop down when my day is done, (latest 6pm) put it in a cabinet and it doesn't come out again until the next working day, and never at weekends.

My phone is personal and not connected to work in any way, so no emails, and its staying that way.

I had to do similar. Removed outlook and slack from my phone. And there's only one workstation in the house with slack desktop. This time last year; slack was on every single device nearly. Too much.

lawred2

lawred2 wrote: »

but your many baseless declarations are solid?

I'm just speaking from experience. I'm not pretending you said this or that. That's your territory.

If you don't like what I'm saying, you can ignore me.

ByTheSea2019

I think when we have the ability to socialise normally again work from home will actually be great. It's the being in the house all day that's the problem.

maestroamado

Would the mods consider a poll on this....

lawred2

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm just speaking from experience. I'm not pretending you said this or that. That's your territory.

If you don't like what I'm saying, you can ignore me.

unreal

consider yourself ignored

floorpie

KaneToad wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more. You have more time for meaningful social interactions with people of your choosing. Sports clubs, neighbours, volunteer groups, music groups etc...

The people you work with are foisted upon you (and you on them!). There is nobody that I work with that I would ever socialise with or keep in touch with if I left. They are all (mostly) nice people but we have nothing in common.

Also, there is life outside of Dublin city!

Deleted User wrote: »

You do realise the primary purpose of your job is to work, not to facilitate your building a social life?

Seriously concerning how many see their jobs first as places to socialise then as workplaces.

These are the people whose work performance I'd be keeping my eye on.

Bambi wrote: »

I'm not spending 8 hours a day in a building with the sort of people that I would normally cross a motorway to avoid, that's improved my social life.

I'm not just talking about relying on work for socialisation.

I said that WFH means that you're probably not in a common place with friends/family/peers every day.

I have a satisfying social life outside of work but my social life relies on people being able to meet. Typically we arrange meetings on the basis of being in the same area at the same time (e.g. a city centre). WFH doesn't stop people from meeting, but unless you happen to live near everybody you want to meet, it likely acts as a hindrance, rather than improving your social life.

I think the socialisation concern is a non issue, if I'm correct in understanding that most companies are moving towards a hybrid model. You'll get to meet your work colleagues a few days a week.

jakiah

floorpie wrote: »

Many people are saying something along the lines of "balance is the key, blended approaches will be the norm, 2 days a week in office is best".

This is the LEAST sensible approach.

Either companies should fully commit to WFH and let people move anywhere they want (including abroad) or they should assure you of office space every day without impediments (e.g. hoping that desks are free to book). It is senseless to chain people to high rent in cities, requiring them to keep their commute short, so that they can be arbitrarily called in for meetings maybe a day or two a week. I can see only one side that benefits from such a balance, and it's not the employee.

Its not an employers obligation to cater to people who want to live miles away from their office and customer base. Ireland is full of people who thought it would be a great idea to buy a house in Longford when they work in Dublin. Senior, vital people in businesses are well paid and live near where they work. Again, Im amazed that flexible working is an entirely new concept to some people and these things have never come up before.

jakiah

If Ive a meeting with a customer or in the office I wander in, otherwise I dont usually bother. This is an advantage of living centrally, near where my office and customers are. Relationships are built face to face usually. I dont see this changing much and I cant see businesses refactoring to cater for miserable lads who want to live in isolation in the midlands.

newuser99999

newuser99999 wrote: »

Sorry I can’t interview every graduate in Ireland for you.

That’s such a bold claim.

and yet......

newuser99999 wrote: »

I can guarantee no graduate is enjoying WFH.

jakiah

jakiah wrote: »

If Ive a meeting with a customer or in the office I wander in, otherwise I dont usually bother. This is an advantage of living centrally, near where my office and customers are. Relationships are built face to face usually. I dont see this changing much and I cant see businesses refactoring to cater for miserable lads who want to live in isolation in the midlands.

But it is happening. Almost my entire company's back office is non client facing. It's all going hybrid.

Most or many office roles are probably non client facing, at a guess. I think there's plenty of scope for businesses to reduce costs by adopting a hybrid model.

Businesses who aren't interested in their bottom line won't see the need, I guess.

jakiah

Deleted User wrote: »

But it is happening. Almost my entire company's back office is non client facing. It's all going hybrid.

Most or many office roles are probably non client facing, at a guess. I think there's plenty of scope for businesses to reduce costs by adopting a hybrid model.

Businesses who aren't interested in their bottom line won't see the need, I guess.

I agree hybrid is happening, I though it already happened tbh.

I dont see how all companies could operate entirely remotely though, which is what some posters seem to be suggesting. Business is social by its very nature, especially stuff like the sales function. Hard to see how an entirely remote business could complete with a rival who can go onsite when required, or host a customer in their office.

ineedeuro

jakiah wrote: »

If Ive a meeting with a customer or in the office I wander in, otherwise I dont usually bother. This is an advantage of living centrally, near where my office and customers are. Relationships are built face to face usually. I dont see this changing much and I cant see businesses refactoring to cater for miserable lads who want to live in isolation in the midlands.

If you can manage your calendar correctly it shouldn't matter if you live in the middle of no where. Arranging 1-2 days a week to commute into a city and spend the day meeting customers will have the exact same impression as walking down the road.

floorpie

jakiah wrote: »

Again, Im amazed that flexible working is an entirely new concept to some people and these things have never come up before.

The nature of my job means I may have to work anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat and I travel a lot, so it's not a new concept to me and probably not to anybody really. However my workplace facilitates this because, as I say, it's the nature of the job. I'm never expected in office and I just move to wherever suits me at a given time.

What IS a new concept to everybody are workplaces saying your permanent desk must be in your home, we aren't going to pay for your heating or electricity even though you'll use them 100s% more, creating an ergonomic space is not our responsibility, we can't ever guarantee you a desk because we're far over capacity, and you must remain near because you'll need to come into office 2 days a week. This has not been standard anywhere. So remain being amazed if you like but this is a new practice.

jakiah

jakiah wrote: »

I agree hybrid is happening, I though it already happened tbh.

I dont see how all companies could operate entirely remotely though, which is what some posters seem to be suggesting.

100% WFH is overkill, I agree. It's worked out ok for the last year, but it's not sustainable.

floorpie

floorpie wrote: »

The nature of my job means I may have to work anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat and I travel a lot, so it's not a new concept to me and probably not to anybody really. However my workplace facilitates this because, as I say, it's the nature of the job. I'm never expected in office and I just move to wherever suits me at a given time.

What IS a new concept to everybody are workplaces saying your permanent desk must be in your home, we aren't going to pay for your heating or electricity even though you'll use them 100s% more, creating an ergonomic space is not our responsibility, we can't ever guarantee you a desk because we're far over capacity, and you must remain near because you'll need to come into office 2 days a week. This has not been standard anywhere. So remain being amazed if you like but this is a new practice.

There's definitely a need for new legislation for WFH regarding things like ergonomics, etc. My place has actually been really good, for that kind of stuff. Plenty of equipment provided, more if I want it.

Cyrus

KaneToad wrote: »

Depends on how much you value your time & abilities.

very highly, im fortunate in that the people who employ me value it highly aswell, so win win .

Christy42

jakiah wrote: »

I agree hybrid is happening, I though it already happened tbh.

I dont see how all companies could operate entirely remotely though, which is what some posters seem to be suggesting. Business is social by its very nature, especially stuff like the sales function. Hard to see how an entirely remote business could complete with a rival who can go onsite when required, or host a customer in their office.

honestly it seems like the only ones suggesting 100% wfh are those who are using it as a stick to beat wfh with. I may have missed a post and there will likely be a few exceptions with some people 100% WFH. Most seem to accept hybrid.

Cyrus

floorpie wrote: »

Not my problem. I can't afford to subsidise my company's expenditure on office space, so either let me WFH from anywhere I please or give me an office to work from (I know this wont happen however).

of course its your problem, your contract of employment will most likely forbid it for one.

floorpie

floorpie wrote: »

The nature of my job means I may have to work anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat and I travel a lot, so it's not a new concept to me and probably not to anybody really. However my workplace facilitates this because, as I say, it's the nature of the job. I'm never expected in office and I just move to wherever suits me at a given time.

What IS a new concept to everybody are workplaces saying your permanent desk must be in your home, we aren't going to pay for your heating or electricity even though you'll use them 100s% more, creating an ergonomic space is not our responsibility, we can't ever guarantee you a desk because we're far over capacity, and you must remain near because you'll need to come into office 2 days a week. This has not been standard anywhere. So remain being amazed if you like but this is a new practice.

It’s a new concept to some. But also standard practice for many. It’s been the setup for nearly a decade for me, across three companies (albeit two of them big UK banks in London)

floorpie

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s a new concept to some. But also standard practice for many. It’s been the setup for nearly a decade for me, across three companies (albeit two of them big UK banks in London)

So your coworkers rent in London to go into an office perhaps a day a week? Seems ridiculous.

Responder XY

Christy42 wrote: »

honestly it seems like the only ones suggesting 100% wfh are those who are using it as a stick to beat wfh with. I may have missed a post and there will likely be a few exceptions with some people 100% WFH. Most seem to accept hybrid.

I don't think many expect 100% WFH (although some clearly want it!)

I think many people's issue (certainly my issue) is that there might be a requirement to WFH for at least a few days a week after the pandemic. I accept it now because there is a pandemic, but that won't continue and once it does I want to work 100% of my time in an office.

My kitchen table is for eating dinner from, not for working. I don't have anywhere else to work from in my house. I expect my employer to provide me a place to work from that isn't home.

floorpie

Cyrus wrote: »

of course its your problem, your contract of employment will most likely forbid it for one.

My contract just says that my employer will designate my headquarters. I didn't agree to my gaff being HQ, so I assume this will all need to be agreed to contractually (?).

I'm going to conduct a poll. I'll keep count.

Who wants 100% work from home?

Hit "thanks" on my post for YES.

Sono

Make no mistake about it companies are saving a fortune on their staff working from home.

I am at home myself like many others in this thread. I have young children and I enjoy it for the most part.

I will never ever miss the commute that’s for sure, I do miss the social interaction with colleagues for but not enough to go back 4 days a week in the office which I was doing pre Covid.

It looks like we will be 3/4 days at home going forward which I am happy enough with, the time at home allows me to do errands I wouldn’t normally be able to get done were I in the office, I also get to spend more time with my kids which may not be everyone’s cup of tea but I enjoy it.

Our company has been very poor in rolling out equipment to staff, use of personal phone work is something I would rather not have too but what can ya do.

I am currently making an office out in my shed and it’s nearly finished and has cost me a few grand to get done, I did think my employer may contribute something to the works as I was doing it for work purposes but that never worked out.

All in all I am quite happy at home, great for family time and to be able to get some exercise in which I would not have been able to do in the office.

Christy42

Responder XY wrote: »

I don't think many expect 100% WFH (although some clearly want it!)

I think many people's issue (certainly my issue) is that there might be a requirement to WFH for at least a few days a week after the pandemic. I accept it now because there is a pandemic, but that won't continue and once it does I want to work 100% of my time in an office.

My kitchen table is for eating dinner from, not for working. I don't have anywhere else to work from in my house. I expect my employer to provide me a place to work from that isn't home.

Indeed. That will be an issue for many who do not have suitable working arrangements. I personally have no issue working from my kitchen table but I can see why others would.

I suspect many companies will drag employees who don't want to be in and force others to stay out who want to go back in. Hopefully the flexible employers will win out in the end and we can have the best choice available. If you can it might be best to find an employer willing to allow that.
It depends on if your employer still has the office space and if the people who want to be in balance out those who don't.

I can fully understand that working from home isn't suitable for everybody. But lets get real here, daily life was miserable for so many of us before Covid.

I personally spent 3 hours on the road every day. The cost of diesel, tolls and car servicing was insane. And that's without even mentioning the frustration of traffic on the N3 and then the car park that is the M50.

And all to do a job that I can easily do at home. I don't love working from home. But its a million times better than the above.

Saved a fortune working from home, between lunches and fuel.

Plus spent tons of quality family time with the kids. Tbh, this has been brilliant. Being around watching your small kids grow up is priceless. You'll never get that time again. Rather than 10 mins in the morning, and maybe half an hour in the evening if lucky, it's many hours of quality time. Kids have benefited hugely too.

Far more energy.
Excercising way more.
Far more productive at work.

Could go on and on.

WFH is without question being the biggest positive outcome of Covid imo.

Doubt I'll ever do a 9-5 Mon-Fri again. A day or two a fortnight. Even less would be better.

Responder XY

Responder XY wrote: »

I don't think many expect 100% WFH (although some clearly want it!)

I think many people's issue (certainly my issue) is that there might be a requirement to WFH for at least a few days a week after the pandemic. I accept it now because there is a pandemic, but that won't continue and once it does I want to work 100% of my time in an office.

My kitchen table is for eating dinner from, not for working. I don't have anywhere else to work from in my house. I expect my employer to provide me a place to work from that isn't home.

I suspect you may be left behind, looking for something that most employers won't want to accommodate.