Remote working - the future?

I wasn’t asking if you are in demand, or whether you could get a job elsewhere.

Surely that is relevant to the debate though.

salmocab

There’s obviously going to be tipping point for people on losing money for wfh. That’d be quite personal I think based on how far your commute is and how much your saving wfh. It’ll be different for everyone. Being down two grand a year but saving 4grand in travel would be a no brainier whereas if you can walk to work and they say 10k less to wfh you’d be back in the office like a light.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117975495#Comment_117975495

Yes its different for everyone. As i stated earlier in the thread, moving out of Dublin to a place i can really only WFH, has saved me in the region of 10k a year.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117975471#Comment_117975471

It does, thank you, you would happily accept a pay cut to continue to wfh.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117975575#Comment_117975575

Yes.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117975449#Comment_117975449

You asked about legislation, an answer was given.

As for Google, Facebook etc who are pushing for the lower pay for WFH, you'll note that none of that applies in Ireland. As the expression goes, a paper never refused ink.

If you have evidence that this has been done in Ireland for someone who switched from office to WFH and took a pay cut, please share as I would be most curious to see how it was done, legally speaking.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117975841#Comment_117975841

I understand completely, and hope you do also, that the decision of an employer to unilaterally reduce an employee's pay when they are forced/have no choice but to work from home, is problematic, even if their contract allows for it due to business needs/circumstances. What I'm not sure you understand is the distinction between a contract of employment which states an employee must attend a particular location, and the renegotiation of that contract which will occur should the employee choose not to attend the office. The employee is making the decision to alter the terms of their employment, is there therefore any legal impediment to their remuneration being altered as a result of that choice?

If you read the article I linked (there are lots of other recent articles which also discuss the same topic, in Ireland) the last paragraph on the Times article reads as follows:

"That logic, in reverse, presumably dictates that workers moving from a Dublin-based post to working from home down the country where living costs are lower – and the cost of commuting has disappeared – should see their pay fall to reflect this new cost base.

It’ll be interesting to see how many lobby for remote working if that proves to be the case."

Note, it does not state "That would be illegal"

Here is an article from 3 days ago, note the opinion given by Mary Connaughton, head of HR firm CIPD.

https://www.siliconrepublic.com/careers/remote-working-pay-cuts-experts-ireland

Starfire20

Penny pinching employers will see themselves not holding on to staff if that's how they carry on.

They want to reduce employees wages even though the profit they make off of that work hasnt dropped.

Mongfinder General

And Leo is now looking to incentivise wfh. So there’ll be tax breaks for those working remotely while employers look to lower salaries with new and existing staff. There must be a couple of hundred thousand more marginal rate tax payers ready to replace those whose incomes won’t be there to tax any longer.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976043#Comment_117976043

and their costs will have decreased

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117975971#Comment_117975971

Like I said, once you have some evidence this has occurred in Ireland I would be most interested in discussing the hows and whys of it but until then its hypothetical and is nothing more than some journos trying to fill space.

Note, I'm not saying it won't happen, I just don't see how its legally possible

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976139#Comment_117976139

Honestly, do you read posts?

I didn’t say it has happened, I asked if there was any legislative reason why it couldn’t if the employee chose to change the terms of their contract, and apparently given the article I linked which references the head of HR at CIPD (Professional Body for HR and people development apparently), there isn’t any or she would have stated it.

This is a new and developing situation, offices only reopened recently for people to have that choice, how could there be evidence? And you can bet your bile duct, if there are savings to be made, employers will do it if they can.

Starfire20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976282#Comment_117976282

Of course HR will take the company side as they exist solely to protect the company. No shock there tbh

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976345#Comment_117976345

Jesus wept.

Do you think the head of a HR professional body is going to make herself look stupid, on purpose?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976363#Comment_117976363

She wouldn't be the first head of such a body to do so

Starfire20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976363#Comment_117976363

Its all about framing the conversation and shifting the Overton wndow in respect to lowering wages if one chooses to work remote.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976417#Comment_117976417

Are you saying the Overton window which may or may not exist, confirms the existence of a legislative prohibition for reducing wages if contracts are renegotiated at an employees request, or are you saying that is the reason why the head of HR, at the professional HR body would purposely mislead anyone reading the article by omitting a legislative basis why wages cannot in fact be altered when an employee wants to make changes to their contract, in order to benefit employers?

Starfire20

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976456#Comment_117976456

you seem shocked and unable to fathom the idea that a person in authority would mislead others, whether purposely or not, on matters that would directly benefit them or those they represent.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976491#Comment_117976491

I would be shocked at the head of HR, at a HR professional body committing professional hari kari by purposely stating in the media, a position that runs contrary to law, knowing that it would be challenged by others.

Hers is not the only article, there are lots from various industry professionals and journalists on the topic of wage cuts/remote working, google is your friend.

Maybe it’s a conspiracy.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976549#Comment_117976549

Honestly baffled as to what your objective is here.

You are lording over folks with a hypothetical like its some kind of a gotcha to gloat with.

You love the phrase "google is your friend" yet seem unable to use it to answer your own questions.

As I said, until something of substance occurs in relation to this, its a moot point so I don't see why you are so worked up about this.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976590#Comment_117976590

My objective was/is, a poster said it would be illegal to reduce wages for an employee who wishes to voluntarily change their contract of employment by choosing remote working. So far, no one, including yourself (you linked to an article which quite rightly pointed out that unilaterally deciding to reduce wages because an employee had to work from home, would be challenging, and probably illegal) has shown how this would be illegal. I agree with you that if the employer forced the employee to work remotely, they would find it very difficult to do so, but numerous articles, some of which I linked, do not support the view that it would be illegal if the employee chooses it.

When I say “google is your friend” I am not, lording it, or gloating, merely pointing out that there are a lot of media articles relating to this subject in Ireland, and none of them that I have read state it is illegal, merely that it may be counter productive, which of course is not the same as illegal.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976720#Comment_117976720

Where did someone say "it would be illegal to reduce wages for an employee who wishes to voluntarily change their contract of employment"?

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117964544#Comment_117964544

“Regardless, its a moot point as it does not apply to remote working in the Irish context”

Hmmmm. 😏

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976788#Comment_117976788

Now now, I asked

Where did someone say "it would be illegal to reduce wages for an employee who wishes to voluntarily change their contract of employment"?

What you quoted from me is not what you stated above.

Because what I stated vs what you stated are 2 VERY different things

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117976850#Comment_117976850

Are you stating that an employer cannot reduce the wages of an employee who works remotely? The discussion prior to that between myself and denartha was about the choice between choosing to work in the office or at home, and would he/she accept a lower wage if he/she chose home, you said it was moot as the employer cannot cut pay if denartha chose home.

What are you saying now, that you didn’t read the thread before you commented and only meant if the employer forced denartha to work from home?

Or, are you sticking to your guns that an employer cannot cut pay if you chose to wfh? That is a fundamental change to the contract of employment which required denartha (presumably as that is what we were discussing) to attend the office for work prior to the pandemic. If you are, there are plenty of recent articles published online that state otherwise, and you have only linked an article relating to forced wfh during the pandemic.

Please clarify, otherwise we are going around in circles.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117977056#Comment_117977056

we are going around in circles.

Indeed.

You seem to be equating someone voluntarily changing their terms of employment, for example, moving shift, or job share etc, with a change in salary unilaterally imposed by the employer that the employee must accept. I feel this is where your confusion lies.

You are also assuming that a new contract of employment is required for WFH. What is this assumption based on? As this is the major premise of your whole argument, I'd love to know why you feel this is the case.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117977096#Comment_117977096

Seriously?

The work location is changed, the employer and employee have a whole new set of obligations relating to attendance, workspace, H&S, insurance, oversight, communications, GDPR, equipment etc, etc, of course there will be changes to contracts, all because the employee is choosing not to attend an office.

Up to now wfh has been a temporary arrangement imposed in line with pandemic guidance by the Government, contracts did not require change, but what denartha and I were discussing was permanent wfh when offices are open and employees can return.

Again, are you stating that it would be illegal for an employer to cut wages because an employee, in this case denartha is choosing to work from home? Yes or no.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117977139#Comment_117977139

The work location is changed, ........ of course there will be changes to contracts, all because the employee is choosing not to attend an office.

Why is a new contract required for WFH? What requirement is there that drives this?

Again, are you stating that it would be illegal for an employer to cut wages because an employee, in this case denartha is choosing to work from home? Yes or no.

Asked and answered

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117977245#Comment_117977245

You’ve worn me down DaCor, I’ve nothing more to add that hasn’t already been said.

Calahonda52

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117975307#Comment_117975307

It is, can, and will apply in Ireland as the location of employment is charging so its a new contract of employment.

The bizarre piece is that you don't see this.

Call ir reverse disturbance money😎

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117980488#Comment_117980488

Asking the following because I don't know the answers and I haven't found anything online to provide answers. If you or others do know the answers (some of you appear very knowledgeable on the topic) please feel free to take a crack at the following questions:

1. Why is a new contract required for WFH? What requirement is there that drives this? You and others have said "because the location is changing" but why does the location changing drive a new contract requirement? Is there a part of employment law this falls under?
2. Would the same requirement apply, for all new contracts of employment, with all onsite staff if a company moved 3 doors down the street? What about across the street? Or over to the next townland? Or the next county?
3. What part of requiring a new contract allows an employer to impose a salary reduction? Using the example above of moving a short distance, if they moved offices could they not just impose salary reductions across the board for everyone employed there?
4. In my personal experience, contracts of employment give a rough address, rather than a very specific one so if I my contract stated the place of business as Galway City, and I lived in Galway City, would a new contract still be required? If yes, why?
5. As contract law requires both employee and employer to consent to changes in the terms of the contract, if an employer tries to impose a paycut for WFH, what happens if an employee does not consent? Refusing to allow the employee to WFH at that point due to non-agreement will not fly as a reason to refuse WFH as it would be discriminatory would it not?
6. As per the Employment Equality Act, there is an "Entitlement to equal remuneration", specifically It shall be a term of the contract under which C is employed that, subject to this Act, C shall at any time be entitled to the same rate of remuneration for the work which C is employed to do as D who, at that or any other relevant time, is employed to do like work by the same or an associated employer. So, if John & Mary are doing the same job, and the only difference is Mary is WFH, how can an employer adhere to the Employment Equality Act and impose a salary reduction for WFH when the only difference is location?