WFH is dead and buried. Right to WFH bill is pointless

daheff

So there was a recent case in WRC about right to remote working. Its basically said that the law only facilitates a procedure to request to wfh but confers zero rights to anybody. So quite frankly another pointless law on the statute books.

Don't be surprised to see wfh disappear in the next recession.

Below is the article from IT for those who cant access it.

WRC ruling is final nail in coffin of the right to remote working
Irishtimes-paywalled | January 8, 2025
On March 10th last year, Javier Osorio sent an email to the human resources department of his employer, Cognizant Technology Solutions Ireland, the Irish arm of a US information technology services and consulting group.

Javier was seeking “ ... a hybrid work model, where I can work remotely from home most days and come to the office a maximum of two days a week”. The reason for the request, according to Javier, was that he wanted to balance the responsibilities of his job with caring for his 10-year-old daughter.

Three days earlier, on March 7th, 2024, the Workplace Relations Commission (WRC) had published its code of practice setting out the framework for dealing with complaints related to the Work Life Balance and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2023. The code set out the procedures employers must follow when dealing with requests for remote work and how the WRC would deal with complaints. It was the last piece of the jigsaw puzzle that was meant to fulfil the promise by the Government parties to enshrine the right to remote and hybrid working in law.

Javier’s request was refused along with those of 72 other Irish employees out of Cognizant’s Irish workforce of 380 people.

Javier made a complaint under the new code to the WRC in June and its ruling, published before Christmas, will be seen by many as the final nail in the coffin of the promised right to remote working. The writing had been on the wall since the publication of the legislation in 2023 which did little more than require employers to treat requests in an “objective, fair and reasonable manner”.

We now have some idea of what objective, fair and reasonable means following the publication of the WRC decision on Javier’s compliant.

It looks like this:

On foot of his March email Javier met Cognizant’s human resources department on April 26th. He was asked a series of questions to determine his remote working requirements and completed a health and safety questionnaire related to home-working.

On May 9th he got a letter from the company’s HR business partner, Sunitha Gogineni, telling him that his request for remote working had been rejected.

[ Remote working: ‘We see younger workers in particular saying they don’t want to come back because of the expense involved’ ]

Javier appealed the decision – as allowed under the legislation – and attended an appeal with the company on June 6th. Five days later he was told the application was not accepted but that “some projects were suitable for remote working and that he could apply for other roles that matched his skills”.

One June 18th he submitted a complaint to the WRC. He had another meeting with HR on July 17th and was again told that there were projects that are suitable for remote working, and he was invited to apply for open roles on these projects. In his evidence at the WRC hearing, Javier said that he was reluctant to move off the project on which he was working in case his employment was terminated when another project finished.

In his complaint Javier claimed he was given a generic response, with little consideration for his individual situation which included how his wife’s job in hospitality along with his schedule and the distance he has to travel to work caused difficulties with childcare. He also said that the requirement for him to work in the evenings – from 4pm to 1am collaborating with colleagues in Latin America – had an impact on the time he spent with his family.

He said his appeal was postponed several times and that this demonstrated a lack of seriousness and commitment to his case on the part of the company.

Cognizant’s response was emphatic. It said that his contract specifically said that he is based on the site of the client on whose project he is working on and that it has considered the complainant’s request for remote working and given him the right to appeal.

According to the WRC ruling, Cognizant said it was constrained by what is described as the “client delivery model”, which means that the client has stipulated that employees working on its project must attend work in person in the office they have provided and fitted out.

It also pointed out that it had offered Javier an alternative solution even after the process had ended.

[ The days of remote working start to look increasingly numbered for Ireland’s workers ]

The WRC ruled that Javier’s application was properly considered and the company “recognised his [Javier’s] need to balance his work and childcare responsibilities”. The adjudication officer said she accepted the “the evidence of the respondent’s witnesses that they consulted with their client to explore the possibility of remote working but that the client was unwilling to permit the employees assigned to their project to work from home”.

The ruling will be no doubt be welcomed by the various bodies such as the American Chamber of Commerce and Ibec that lobbied hard to water down the legislation on behalf of employers both international and domestic.

The Government will presumably also be relieved. Its election promise of four years ago was starting to look a little rash as threats to foreign direct investment grow, not least with the election of Donald Trump as the next US president.

Javier, his wife and daughter along with everybody else trying to reconcile childcare, commuting and accommodation costs with the desire of a decent quality of life will have less to be pleased about.

Sam Hain

Javier wanted everything on his terms.

Kintarō Hattori

I can't see how it's dead and buried as it's been a thing now for the last 5 years. Sure, some companies might be rolling it back but there are plenty of companies who offer it still with no plans to discontinue it. If you are professional in what you do it can suit both parties. Not as big of an office is needed, you may be less fatigued by not having to commute etc.

There just needs to be a reasonable expectation from both parties.

ednwireland

As far as I read it there is no"right to remote working" there is a right to request remote working. He requested it, was refused, end of argument.

daheff

@Kintarō Hattori I don't disagree with your logic. I would agree 100% with you. Unfortunately I fear that companies now know that the wfh bill is toothless and can decide not to offer it anymore. And next chance they get i suspect they will withdraw that benefit.

i mean think back to the early 2000s. Lots of companies had beers in the office on a friday afternoon once a month/quarter etc. thats gone now. I heard of lots of companies scaling back on christmas/summer work parties last year. Benefits are being sliced away while they can. All it takes is for the bigger ones to set that standard and the rest will follow unless they cant keep staff.

daheff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033662#Comment_123033662

I don't think his request was that unreasonable. Surely they could have come to some compromise? But the company pointblank refused.

Cyrus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033715#Comment_123033715

everyone knew the bill was toothless, except Javier it seems.

The reason for the cutback on beers and parties is probably more to do with the chances of the company being held liable for work place incidents rather than cost cutting.

Allinall

A lot of companies will encourage WFH, and downsize office space, making significant savings.

Ted222

The “right” is to be able to make an application for wfh and to have that application evaluated by reference to certain criteria set out in the Act.

The company’s position in this case seemed reasonable to me but there will be other companies who fail to administer applications correctly. While workers in these companies may even be successful in their complaints to the WRC, it still doesn’t necessarily mean that they would be entitled to wfh. For some companies it’s simply not possible.

whippet

there is no one-sized fits all. In Javier's case he was working under a contract that stipulated the contractor was to be on the customer site. It looks like he wanted to unilaterally change this contract and the new legislation allowed for him to put his case forward. Just because he wasn't happy with the outcome of his request does not mean the end for WFH.

WFH is not a solution to childcare - I know from my workplace the amount of times i've come across people on calls (colleagues / clients etc) where the call is disturbed by a child in the background interrupting their parent. Since when did it become socially or professionally acceptable to be a childminder and employee at the same time?

ted1

Javier doesn't sound a great employee

Its work from home, not mind your child while getting paid, there's a big difference.

They also offered him a solution by changing projects, but he wasn't arsed.

His wife's employment is of no interest to his employer

His place of residence is of no interest to his employer. Its his duty to make his own way there.

eastie17

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033715#Comment_123033715

It was always impractical I think to try and enshrine in law the "right" to work from home, its not always practical from an employers point of view but good employers should consider requests on their merits and it sounds like they did. I think it would be more important to focus more on the Working Time Directive and the Right to Disconnect first

AnnieinDundrum

I am surprised that where they need him to work until 1am they weren’t prepared to be more flexible. Might be something else going on there.

lots of companies have downsized their office space so 100% back in the office isn’t an option. Hot desking kinda removes the ability to have everyone in at the same time.

I always figured the legislation was a requirement to have procedures more than anything else

Former Former Former

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033717#Comment_123033717

The key point is this:

It said that his contract specifically said that he is based on the site of the client on whose project he is working on

His employer could not grant him WFH as they were contractually obliged to have him on site with their client. They did not point blank refuse a hybrid arrangement.

The next key point is:

Javier said that he was reluctant to move off the project on which he was working in case his employment was terminated when another project finished.

He couldn't WFH in his original project but refused to consider any others. Javier was 100% the issue here.

Ben D Bus

If I read it correctly, his employer was contractually obliged to have project staff working on a client site. So Javier didn't just want his employer to budge, he wanted his employer's client to change the terms of their contract with Javier's employer?

Seems like an unreasonable ask. And his employer said he could apply for other projects that did offer WFH? I think his employer was perfectly reasonable.

Jim2007

WFH is most certainly not dead, but Javier Osorio sense of entitlement is well and truly dead and it should be because it has no basis in reality. If you have the same expectations, then I guess it is dead for you, but certainly not for many.

I have never worked for Cognizant, but I have had them work for me and worked along side them on some occasions over the years and it would simply be impossible for them to work in a manner that would suit Javier Osorio.

Ezeoul

Javier was straight up stupid to make caring for his daughter a reason for his application to WFH.

WFH is not supposed to be granted to facilitate childcare.

This is it

The issue here is Javier, and the OP. Most people understand WFH, and the right to request it, they obviously do not.

nachouser

Best of luck with your future endeavours, Javier.

irishgeo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123034383#Comment_123034383

In an office somewhere.

I want to WFH because it suits me. Never mind what my contract says.

Murt2024

Im in a permanent position although seconded to another company and the terms were I had to be onsite. It's a 10 minute walk for me so didnt mind.

My parent company is paying my salary while the company I'm seconded to is probably paying double my salary to the parent company I'm working for.

I could potentially work from home and my current employer allows people to work from home four days a week but definitely not when I'm seconded out to another company.

Javier is living in cloud cuckoo land.

A Dub in Glasgo

I would be more hacked off with the requirement to have your working day in the office as 16.00 to 01.00, some sort of weird back shift. For that reason alone, I would have moved to another project within the company

eusap

Knowing Cognizant they 100% offer working from home if it is acceptable to the client. They are a client facing org and they do and charge for want the client wants. Think they were fair to him, he really should have challenged the working hours rather than the WFH angle.

I don't buy that WFH is dead and buried, like all negotiations if you bring value to the employer and your job can and is done 100% they don't care where you do it, just it gets done

Gusser09

As a manager anytime i hear of people want to change WFH days or work ectra from home because the kids need to be brought to school etc i cringe.

Its not just Javier. Its more common than people think.

Its as if they think its ok and its part of the terms of WFH.

JobTalkBoards

That's a very valid reason to want to change WFH days. If a place offers flexible hours, you can drop your kids and then start work. It just makes life easier.

Jobs should never come first.

kippy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033767#Comment_123033767

I suppose it became socially and professionally acceptable to be a childminder and employee at the same time in March 2020. There was no option for many many people.

There are some idiots out there of course who still think it's ok to regularly let kids interrupt WFH sessions.

I suppose it's these people who are causing a lot of the RTO requests from employers.

The WFH bill was toothless from day 1 which isn't surprising.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033715#Comment_123033715

Everyone with any sense knows that legislation was a nonsense.

That example from WRC also had very little chance of success, for a whole list of reasons that should be obvious. Cloud cuckoo is right.

You need to read the room. There is a difference between Celtic Tiger Boom, and world economy on the edge of recession. Trump wants to invade Greenland and start a war with the EU. Its a mad time.

Zippy2010

I think it’s hilarious that Javier wanted to mind his children while being paid for by Cognizant! Hence the reason to work from home. As Murt2024 said Javier is living in cloud cuckoo land

CramCycle

Javier was deluded if the OPs quotes are correct and he was an absolute moron for saying out loud it was to care for his 10 year old. HR would never sign off on that as technically they would be giving the thumbs up to Javier not being 100% at work when he was being paid to be.

What Javier should have said was that his work was possible from home, that the client did not need him on site (and have said as much) and he would be better rested and not struggling with transport at 1am when tired.

Realistically, though, the client were paying for on site service so that is non negotiable. His company were incredibly decent to offer him the opportunity to switch to a more accommodating project but he refused, He has now went through the WRC and will, like it or not, not be as favourably looked at internally for dragging in the WRC for a nonsense case.

None of this makes WFH dead though, and it is silly to suggest so in my opinion.

Fletwick

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123034579#Comment_123034579

Rigid junior managers are such a pain.

spaceHopper

It's give and take, the client, wants him in their office and they want him logging on for meetings with Latina American collages in the evening. If they want him to be flexible they have to be flexible.

dmakc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123034579#Comment_123034579

Also a manager but this time with empathy. Once the job gets done it's done. I don't need my employees sat beside me to validate my position or tick a box.

MacDanger

It's a 10 year old child so it's not like he'd be actively babysitting her, just being in the house at the same time as her thereby not requiring childcare which is perfectly reasonable IMO.

The big thing though is that his employer offered him an alternative and he rejected it; he wanted everything on his own terms.

I'd presume he was getting a 15-20% shift allowance if 4pm-1am were his working hours so maybe that's why he was reluctant to change projects?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033768#Comment_123033768

The details given suggest the issue was not minding children while working. But pickup from childcare. Big difference..

Of course if the job no longer suits he should quit and leave them to find someone else..

Gusser09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036684#Comment_123036684

I agree and I'm the same as you regarding getting the work done. I just don't want to be hearing of multiple excuses regarding the personal lives when someone is due on a client site. it tends to snowball from there and more liberties are taken.

That will be the death of WFH.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123034655#Comment_123034655

More accurately it was companies preference to keep people working than they all quit because they had no childcare.

Sunny Disposition

I always thought the Right to Work thing would only be followed through on in the public sector.

Most private sector employers will offer it as well, but it'd be very hard to compel them.

But companies do need to not stick their head in the sands. Even if remote work is harder to manage it's still reality, people aren't going to spend large chunks of time commuting if another employer doesn't require them to do that. Denying remote work is kind of Luddite thinking, it's impossible to hold it off in the long term, the obvious thing to do is to embrace it and try to make it a success. As well as embracing the cost savings.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036663#Comment_123036663

I think it's more a case his partners hours changed which broke their drop off and pickup childcare arrangements. At which point the couple should have realised they both can't work antisocial hours and get to same from childcare.

event

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033715#Comment_123033715

But plenty of companies did WFH before COVID. This is not some thing that has only appeared in the last few years.

Good companies will continue to offer it

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123034579#Comment_123034579

The alternative is they take a leave day, or a sick day. If you prefer that you should make it policy.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036663#Comment_123036663

If he was hired job to do the anti social hours then he should just quit if it no longer suits.

On the flip side if the jobs flexible I'll be flexible back. If they aren't I won't either. Works both ways.

Where I am we have some fairly rigid rules that on occasion mean there has been no one available to do something because they are off the clock due to the rules.

I've gotten a few calls out of hours where I can't help because I'm on the commute and standing on a packed train, no access to a laptop. By the time I get home or into the office it will too late.

Sunny Disposition

It is very interesting how employee expectations have changed.

22 years ago it was reported in newspapers that some of the big tech companies in Dublin had things like football tables and computer games for employees to play during breaks. That doesn't cut much ice today, people want to be literally at home so they can pick up and drop off kids. The world has changed fairly dramatically since the pandemic.

It's well known that people in some sectors were giving huge portions of their lives to jobs. I think it's much harder to get people to do that nowadays.

Of course if you go back 50 years many households had only one person working. To an extent there is a bit of rebalancing going on, with few families able to exist on one income, but also fully aware that at least one parent needs to be at home or at least have flexibility to be at home at certain times.

All of my 'office' workers have been at home for years now, I would say they are at least as productive now as pre-pandemic, plus there has been a very large saving on hiring office space. I can honestly say that going fully remote has been the best thing that happened the companies in the last 20 years.

ledwithhedwith

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123033708#Comment_123033708

yeah that’s it , although it’s insanely pointless law , I mean everyone has a right really to request anything haha

Danzy

IF you want the good workers and the over achievers to stay you'll have some work from home wiggle room, else they'll just go somewhere else that does.

Work from home is being factored into house buying and life decisions now.

Sunny Disposition

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036278#Comment_123036278

You have to be careful about appointing people like that, especially younger ones who want to prove themselves. It is really on more senior management to make sure people like that are operating with commonsense around issues like remote work, employee pay, holidays etc.

griffin100

The child-minding piece is interesting. Up until around 2023 the HSE had a parenting safety guide on its website for parents re. supervision of infants that stated 'active supervision' of infants was required, i.e. supervision should be 'constant' and 'within reach'. I can't find that guide now, it seems to have been taken down, but it would seem to suggest that for younger children at least you can't care for them and work at the same time.

daheff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036908#Comment_123036908

I agree. You always could ask for flexible hours/remote work. the law just gives employers a framework on how to decline it.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123034292#Comment_123034292

I sure do understand WFH and how to request it. My point is this bill was sold by Leo as a way for people to WFH…but ifs anything but that.

witchgirl26

I don't think this shows that WFH is dead but rather that for this individual it is.

My contract has a part which specifies that I am not to be responsible for the care of any other individual during working hours. I.e. I can't use WFH as an alternative to childcare or looking after an elderly relative. Of course this was massively relaxed during Covid lockdowns when childcare wasn't open. And my manager will be understanding if I have to collect a sick child from school & keep an eye on them for the afternoon. But as a long term solution? Not a hope.

The bill is about ensuring that people have a right to request it, not so much that they have a right to it. And I do think that the bill is important as it gives people who may have felt uneasy asking for it, something to back them up. My workplace is happy with us all WFH 2 days a week as standard with others having arrangements with managers for more but that's on an individual basis.

If this guys role was that he was required to be on a client site for the whole time, then it's not really up to his company in the same way.

MrMusician18

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036950#Comment_123036950

The child in question wasn't an infant, it was 10 years old - an age where a child could be trusted to walk themselves to and from school. The parent in question just needs to be a presence i the house in the case of emergencies.

daheff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123037013#Comment_123037013

While I understand your point that your contract specifies that you are not responsible for the care of another person, that's a point in time declaration and life changes for people. Rigid responses from companies are not helpful for staff. As another poster pointed out, society has changed from 30+ years ago where 1 person in the family worked and the other looked after the children/home etc. That's not how society is these days. Companies need to realise that and reflect that in their relationships with workers. Otherwise as a society we'll end up having families with less children….children who grow up to be employees and customers.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036905#Comment_123036905

The reason for having extras on site (and even childcare) on site. Was so you'd have no reason to leave the site to get lunch, have a break etc. you'd more inclined to stay late work longer hours.

When you are young and single staying late and getting free food etc is a bonus. But if you are in relationship have a family or interests out side of work. It's of no interest to you.

WFH is a means to expand a workforce. Same way part-time or term time gets more people to work. Also attracts people otherwise hard to get.

Companies will struggle to hold people if they return to 1970 terms and conditions.