If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello All, This is just a friendly reminder to read the Forum Charter where you wish to post before posting in it. :)
Hi all, The AutoSave Draft feature is now disabled across the site. The decision to disable the feature was made via a poll last year. The delay in putting it in place was due to a bug/update issue. This should serve as a reminder to manually save your drafts if you wish to keep them. Thanks, The Boards Team.
Hello all! This is just a quick reminder to ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere.

Being forced to move back to dublin to work from the office 4 out of 5 days.



  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 19,676 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Mr.S

    Disagree with that blanket statement unless you are gunning for a c-level role. It really depends on the company and their culture. If an employer is letting people work from home full time then they very likely have a strong remote working policy and culture set up.

    I agree most people are replaceable, but I certainly wouldn't promote the happy go lucky person who comes into the office just to be seen, versus the productive hard worker at home who still can be as sociable and energetic online.

    Working from home =/ being quiet, alone and unsociable.

  • Registered Users Posts: 647 ✭✭✭ CMA_DE

    I would disagree with this, WFH is here to stay in one form or another and no company is going to discriminate on the basis that someone has children. The role can either be done from home or not and the employer will determine how much of that will be done remotely.

    I have heard a few stories like the OP’s now, people packed up and headed down the country and thought they would wfh forever. It was always likely that most employers would want people back more and more as we got back to normality, if you get to work at home 2/3 days a week in general terms you’re probably doing ok overall

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 4,768 Mod ✭✭✭✭ GoldFour4

    I think this is the crux of it really.

    We have similar in my place where people have to come in a day a week and maybe 2 the odd week depending on needs. Some team members have not been coming in and think they’re getting away with it because there’s no formal roll call. It’s very much noticed though and there is talk of changes to the policy because of it.

    Could imagine Op is in a similar situation.

  • Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭ sunshine2018

    What awful policies ! Forgetting about the legal aspects this is just bad practice from a trust, culture and engagement perspective. Just because someone has kids doesn’t mean they need extra support from their employer - they might have parents or family who are happy to help out. The converse is true - those with no kids might have other commitments - caring for elderly relatives, volunteering, a hobby they love - having polices like the one you have mentioned just creates division and a sense of resentment towards those with families. Having to layout exactly why you need it and justify it via providing details seems bizarre to me also. Companies should have ‘people’ polices not just ones for particular groups.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭ sura28

    Can you raise a grievance and claim Working from home has become Custom and Practice? This may be an option.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    Happening in a lot of places certainly.

    Pity they don't spend as much time on productivity metrics as they do on presenteesim.

    But you have to work with the system you're given.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    Says it all when productivity and performance is seen as in last place to presenteesim and schmoozing.

    Certainly that's the way in many places.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    Have to agree though with others though that if the corporate will is to get people back on the office playing the discrimination card will not a be a good long term play.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,408 ✭✭✭ tinytobe

    Ultimately it's a contractual issue. If the contract states a work from home option, then that's what it is.

    Also even if this is not the case, I would try the approach that during the pandemic and during your period when you were working from home the cost of renting went through the rough in Dublin to a degree that a return to work from the Dublin office is no longer financially feasible. Also a daily commute is not financially feasible as petrol prices also went up due to the war in the Ukraine. You might also claim medical issues, a very weak immune system and Covid vaccines not responding to you personally thus you're still afraid of catching Covid and being more affected than your colleagues. This might all work in your favour if your annual performance reviews have been excellent as they might not want to part with a good employee.

    I'd give this at least a try.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 819 ✭✭✭ Citrus_8

    Positive discrimination is not illegal, only the negative discrimination is. Don't be jealous ;) In your case, it doesn't effect you that someone else in the company can work home more days. That's none of your business and just the heads up that you shouldn't discuss it with anyone within the company as it's unethical. Your work place is as stated in the contract. If you don't agree with that, you should consider changing the employer to something closer to your home place, or move closer to your work 😉

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,511 ✭✭✭✭ Mrs OBumble

    You don't know that the employers aren't measuring productivity.

    My workplace now has some very interesting statistics about how often cases are worked, and average gain from a days work in vs out of the office. You might be surprised and disappointed by the findings. They probably aren't going to insist on more WFO for now, due to hiring challenges. But it will be on the agenda at some point.

    Post edited by Mrs OBumble on

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    Obsessively focused on things that have nothing to do with productivity says all you need to know.

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,907 ✭✭✭✭ AndrewJRenko

    That's a very broad interpretation of the positive actions permitted under Irish law. The provisions in the Acts are very specific and wouldn't apply to this kind of scenario;

    In restricting WFH to those with kids, the employer would be on fairly dodgy ground. At a minimum, they would need to show that without this measure, they're having particular difficulties retaining staff with kids in these roles, over and above any broad market retention issues.

    The employer is on dodgy ground here. The employee should consult with their trade union first.

  • Registered Users Posts: 819 ✭✭✭ Citrus_8

    Trade unions are bad for our economy. Employees should work more and complain less. If an employer expects the employees to work in office, so that's what they should do, but instead they are being nosy and gossiping around about who has exceptions, even though it has nothing to do with them directly. If they don't like the request, it's time to look for another job.

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,907 ✭✭✭✭ AndrewJRenko

    Trade unions are bad for employers who like to throw their weight around in ignorance of the law. They are having a resurgence in the States, where even Starbucks are recognising unions and making agreements for staff.

    Any individual employee has very little opportunity to challenge a flawed policy like this. A trade union representing staff will carry much more weight in any discussions. The employer will realise that it's not going to end well for them, when the law isn't on their side.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    If the union gets the employees access to better terms and conditions it has everything to do with them.

  • Registered Users Posts: 9,685 ✭✭✭ Dodge

    Trade unions are essential for an economy. The economy isn’t based on profits for companies, it’s based on money spent by workers

    And trade unions have nothing to do with this issue fwiw. In fact employees who work with trade unions will have iron clad “back to office”’ policies so there can be no issues

  • Registered Users Posts: 819 ✭✭✭ Citrus_8

    That's true and appreciated. But it's way too often when I see unions being too greedy in regards to wanting more weight and power. It has to be a healthy balance. I have little respect to unions as they make feel employees immune from being let go, even if it would themselves at fault of something... This makes a company which should focus to making business, partly a social club trying to accommodate everyone and being way too cautious about everyone's feelings trying to keep relationships between the employees and the employer good. This makes employees lazy and too sensitive, instead of focusing to work, efficiency and improvement.

  • Registered Users Posts: 819 ✭✭✭ Citrus_8

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 23,907 ✭✭✭✭ AndrewJRenko

    Does this actually happen, or are we talking about 1980s stereotypes from UK sitcoms? I'm not aware of any situations were unions have developed an immunity for staff from being fired. What kinds of organisations do you this happening in?

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    The irony is it's usually a companies greed and abuse of it's own power (and bad habits) that attracts it's staff into unions.

    At this point any company that has remote workers should have a remote working policy in place, that will stand up to legal scrutiny.

  • Registered Users Posts: 24,511 ✭✭✭✭ Mrs OBumble

    Ha, ha. I've you'd ever done any actual productivity measurement you'd know that it's far from simple.

    The company has developed a KPI which gives credit for correctly working out leads/cases that will never show a profit and closing them fast, and credit for effectively resolving the very profitable ones, even though they can have some big legislative delays which look unproductive. They believe it's the best performance measure they've ever had . I don't really understand all the calculations behind it - and neither do the case-handlers, which is causing some problems in applying it.

    Ironically, they've also found that % of assigned cases with an update each day gives a close-enough proxy for the fancy KPI. This is absolutely activity, not productivity - but it's quick to calculate, and transparent Leads to some interesting discussions.

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    None of that has anything to do with the comment I replied to. Which was being in the office and being seen was more important than hitting all the performance metrics.

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,864 ✭✭✭ c.p.w.g.w

    I know a place that have enforced working from the office, a group of them got together and all of a sudden productivity took a nose dive, but on the odd days folks were permitted to work from home they were like 200% more now it's between 2-5 days a month in the office for the majority...

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    I think regardless of any productivity data it will come down to what management want and what's in your contact.

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,884 ✭✭✭ witchgirl26

    OP how often did you do the 1 day a week in the office or did you ignore it completely since it was brought in? We have a specific day they want everyone in on as it's easier to do any group meetings & to try to get some company culture back after so long with everyone remote. There's a recognition that that day isn't always possible for everyone (I do meetings in other offices for example so won't always be able to be in my home office), however they want you there more than not. At first it was only that day that you had to come in but now we have a 3 in the office, 2 at home policy. Some have negotiated other arrangements with their managers but that is on an ad hoc basis if their managers are willing.

    Look it was a gamble to move so far away from your office in the hope you could work permanent from home but realistically you should have maybe had that conversation with management before this came in. There's someone in my Dublin office who moved a good distance away during Covid (back to family area with their own family) but at the time of moving, had a discussion with their manager about what the setup would be when normal office work resumed. They do 2 days max in the office now but that was sorted long before everyone came back.

  • Registered Users Posts: 23,907 ✭✭✭✭ AndrewJRenko

    The reliability of the productivity data will depend hugely on the ability of staff to game the system.

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭ facehugger99

    Lots of us have retained WFH and I intend to keep it that way.

    There are plenty of companies offering hybrid or fully remote work. If my company tried to force us back into the office I'd leave and get work elsewhere - so would many of my colleagues.

    Maybe if you and your colleagues hadn't rolled over you might be enjoying a similar level of flexibility.

  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,539 ✭✭✭ Flinty997

    Many people had a certain amount of wfh before COVID. I first did it decades ago.