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

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.

Sunny Disposition

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123036919#Comment_123036919

I'm not a historian, but I think this is a historic change. People can live anywhere they want now, they can get a well paid job in a rural location and be at home any time their children need them. It's not going to be possible to browbeat them into on-site office work and to retain them. It might be easier if there's a downturn, but it just won't happen in the long term.

The implications are simply enormous and haven't been fully grasped yet.

https://nypost.com/2024/10/24/us-news/heres-how-many-new-yorkers-fled-empire-state-in-2023-census-data/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/01/self-and-wellbeing-leaving-london-for-coventry-in-search-of-a-little-more-space

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-california-exodus-has-continued-here-s-where-most-people-leaving-the-golden-state-moved-to-and-why/ar-AA1t1l6j#:~:text=it%20%C2%A9Getty-,More%20than%20817%2C000%20people%20moved%20out%20of%20California%20from%202021,to%20move%20to%20and%20why.

We're going to see the same thing here. And we're also going to see people move away from careers that aren't flexible to families needs. Across the economy the employee holds more cards now that remote work is a reality, it might ebb and flow, but in the long term the worker will have far more options than pre 2019. Companies that don't grasp that will lose out. You may well have a situation very soon where there is more innovation coming from smaller businesses than larger, potentially more inflexible, ones.

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123037104#Comment_123037104

Workers certainly have more choices, options and flexibility than ever before, but chancers like the chap in the OP can ruin things for everyone (or at least make things more difficult, 'ruin' is probably too strong a word).

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123037184#Comment_123037184

The idea you'll punish your best staff and the majority of staff due to the actions of the minority is flawed mindset. You don't pay them all the same.

Besides they usually just withdraw it for everyone, indiscriminately, even though it's usually in a policy that it can be withdrawn individually. Which should rid everyone of any notions that they aren't just a number. Fact it's you are.

KaneToad

WFH is one of best tools we (Ireland) have in our arsenal to tackle:

• Regional balanced development
• Housing crisis
• Reducing environmental emissions
• Societal issues arising from parental absenteeism

But we're passing up the opportunity because some organisations can't manage their teams without having them physically in view.

There will always be careers that require on site working but there are huge swathes of the employment force that could easily (and successfully) WFH.

I agree with the thread title, the bill is largely pointless. The list of opt out conditions alone displayed that.

crusd

This lad is a bit like a blocklayer asking for work from home. His employer was contracted to have someone onsite yet somehow he asks us to finds them unreasonable when they offered him a different role which would have facilitated his request.

Flinty997

The OP story is a daft example.

Even more daft is saying it has implications for anything else.

witchgirl26

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123037039#Comment_123037039

But the basic of it is that an employer is essentially purchasing your time from you for your salary and expects you to devote that to them. Long term looking after a child (whatever age) is not what they're paying you to do. Like I said, I can understand where there's an illness & it's a short term thing but as an ongoing in lieu of afterschool, no that isn't ok. And I'm saying this as someone with a child. It's not fair on the employer or the child as neither is actually getting your attention at that point in time.

Oh & it's not a point in time declaration. My contract is the terms and conditions of my employment. One of them being that during my working hours I shall not be the sole carer or responsible for a dependent, either child or adult. It doesn't change just because I had a child. It's ongoing terms and conditions. The same as when it states your place of employment, your normal hours etc. Any update to those have to be agreed upon & resigned by both parties.

I agree around flexibility - being able to start earlier & finish earlier. Not being as rigid on working hours being strictly 9am-5pm as long as the work is getting done etc. However it is not the companies concern if you can't organise childcare, that's the individual. And it's up to the individual to sort that out, not bring a case against the employer because of it.

DoctorEdgeWild

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123037397#Comment_123037397

Do you think that companies evaluate every employee for suitability before accepting? In a perfect world, maybe. But in this real world, people like this guy who wanted to mind his kids (a difficult, time consuming, important job I think we all agree) while being paid to do another difficult, time consuming, important job WILL absolutely give employers a reason to think twice about granting WFH options to other employees.

The actions of a minority can ABSOLUTELY have effects on the majority. We are indeed numbers in the bigger picture. If one of those numbers abuses something, the other numbers can be denied that something.

Gerrymandering reborn

How about this

1. Employees who wish to WFH are allowed provided they take a pay cut to amount of the money they would save in commuting costs (to maintain cohesion amongst other employees who work in the office)

I think this would solve a lot of the conflict on both sides

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123038156#Comment_123038156

They tried this and there was an avalanche of people who applied. Lol.... Or left for competitors with WFH and no financial penalty.