nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

If Work From Home becomes a thing...

bilbot79

I'd be tempted to buy a little apartment in the Canaries and spend my winters there, in fact I'd probably

1/ Sell my Dublin gaff

2/ By a cheaper Irish gaff in the countryside

3/ Buy a place in the Canaries

4/ Buy another place somewhere in Europe, Hvar or somewhere like that

And just spend weeks and months in each place.

How would the rest of you exploit work from home if you had it permanently?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

jrosen

It has the potential to offer people a better work life balance. The thousands of people commuting every day could be halved. Just the impact of that alone, more people shopping locally because they are around more. It could be really beneficial to smaller communities.

Companies could reduce their overheads by needing less office space. Again a plus for the business itself.

I cant wfh, my husband has always had the option, he does maybe a day a week. He said he might do a second day. He enjoys the office space.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

anyone who cant manage their own time, unless they have founded the company, is unlikely to find themselves with an assistant to manage their schedule.

Can't say thats been my experience.

One of the problems with working in the cloud and remote working, is those, especially managers, who do not know how to use a computer, are now helpless. They can't turn around and ask someone to send an email for them etc. Work a calendar, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyV0IVItlM4

[Deleted User]

jester77 wrote: »

My office just posted their list of rules for when returning. Have to register when you will be in the office, cannot be at the same time as the person beside you and opposite you, company will provide a mask and it must me worn when not at desk, now required to log in when arriving at work, no meetings unless super urgent, and then only 2 people allowed with distance, meeting room must be aired for 1 hour afterwards, no beer deliveries allowed, not allowed to move around building unless urgent and it must be logged, no more than 2 people in common areas at a time.

Which kinda takes a lot of the social interaction out of working in an office - not much point in going back for that.

krissovo

I have been based at home for nearly 9 years now and it really is great for a work / life balance. After a couple of years we sold up in Dublin and bought the old family farm in North Cork and also bought an apartment in southern Spain. It was fantastic before kids started school as we could move between the two homes out of season fairly cheaply and rent the apartment in season. Once kids started school we spent most their holidays in Spain but the last few years its getting expensive to fly to Marbella during the holidays. Work did not care as long as I was near an airport with easy travel to my European customer base. Based in Spain made my corporate travel at least 1/3 cheaper due to access to cheap flights.

The challenges I found were:
Unreliable broadband, I had to have multiple providers and 3g mobile options to remain productive.
Income tax residency can be an issue, it was also a positive one year when I did not qualify for tax residency anywhere so did not pay income tax.
Home maintenance is a pain and double bills
Airfares have been increasing significantly especially for families
After a while the novelty wears off and kids want to stay with friends

gnf_ireland

Cyrus wrote: »

what kind of career will someone have if they cant be responsible for themselves and their own time

You would be absolutely amazed. So many people and company cultures have little respect for time management. 90% of the meetings I attend fail to start or end on time, and trying to get people to vacate a meeting room on time can be close to impossible. Its all time management, or lack there of !

This can be an issue for people when they get 'engrossed' in something and forget the world about them. It can be both a positive and negative trait, depending on the role and company !

gnf_ireland

beauf wrote: »

Another problem is a lot of managers and places don't measure productivity or keep metrics.
They don't have "tools" to manage. They literally have to see people in the office, or talk to them face to face to manage things. So they are unable to function if they can't do those things.

100% agree with this. I think project managers in particular struggle with remote working as they don't have their metrics to quantify progress. I thought it was PMI 101 that effort does not always equal results.

Ultimately it is down to trust, control and metrics and when those are lost, some people feel powerless and want the status quo to return. The longer it goes on, the further away the status quo will become

gnf_ireland

gladerunner wrote: »

Where i work in the civil service, they have opened up the systems to allow us to work over a 7 day period ( to enable childcare responsibilities and other arrangements outside of work)
This flexibility would allow me to work more hours, no commute ( which was an hour each way ), I could work early in the morning and during school time, and work even an additional 2/3 hours in the evening if required. Thus fulfilling my work and childcare requirements.

Also, the positive effects on the environment with less cars on the road. I see it as a win win.

A good manager doesnt need to see you in the office to know you are doing a good job

I think it does really depend on the role and the level of collaborative versus independent work that someone does. If the level of collaboration is high, that level of flexibility can be tough to achieve - but if its independent working then its pretty easy to be flexible with schedules.

If someone is customer facing (internal or external customers), for example a support type role, this flexible is difficult to accommodate, whereas if someone needs to have task x done by date y, its a different matter.

gnf_ireland

beauf wrote: »

Not everyone works well in a 9-5 environment.
They work in bursts, and often at night. Especially creative people.

There is a different between that and slacking off.

I am not saying that everyone is suited to the 9-5 environment, but most office environments are aligned to this model. If the person has 'conformed' to this model in the office, it will be a big jump for some to accommodate remote working and full schedule flexibility. For some, it would be a step too far.

I would argue that creative people are never suited to an office environment in the first place. That said, if you consider journalists as creative, they have to work off deadlines the same way the rest of us do, whereas a book author is a different matter.

The one thing I have learned over the years of working remotely, its not about you think or the effort you put in, its about the perception as to what you do and when you do it. As long as those around you, including your boss, believe you are doing a better job remotely than in the office, questions are rarely asked. If their perception is the opposite, that's when the issues arise.

gnf_ireland

krissovo wrote: »

I have been based at home for nearly 9 years now and it really is great for a work / life balance. After a couple of years we sold up in Dublin and bought the old family farm in North Cork and also bought an apartment in southern Spain. It was fantastic before kids started school as we could move between the two homes out of season fairly cheaply and rent the apartment in season. Once kids started school we spent most their holidays in Spain but the last few years its getting expensive to fly to Marbella during the holidays. Work did not care as long as I was near an airport with easy travel to my European customer base. Based in Spain made my corporate travel at least 1/3 cheaper due to access to cheap flights.

The challenges I found were:
Unreliable broadband, I had to have multiple providers and 3g mobile options to remain productive.
Income tax residency can be an issue, it was also a positive one year when I did not qualify for tax residency anywhere so did not pay income tax.
Home maintenance is a pain and double bills
Airfares have been increasing significantly especially for families
After a while the novelty wears off and kids want to stay with friends

I think you hit the nail on the head there, with the idea of remote working has to suit the stage of life you are in and your personal circumstances. This is also very much were flexibility comes into the equation as well.

When I was in my 20's I spent the guts of a decade travelling the world, both as an employee of a multi-national company and then as an independent consultant for longer spells. It was fantastic and there is very little I would change about that time, even the post 9-11 airport experiences. Now I am in my early 40's, I really could not think of anything worse getting on flights every second week and living out of suitcases. Give me another decade until the girls are in their teenage years and I might welcome the break again

The biggest problem with something new is it becomes the norm and is no longer the attraction it once was and you want something different. That said, I firmly believe that remote working (with reliable broadband) will be a major catalyst to improve work/life balance, assist tackling climate change and also the housing crises in our urban centres, as well as the saviour of rural Ireland.

jrosen

Having the work from home option will be hugely beneficial for a lot of people. Less commute, more time at home. Could even be better for local business in smaller communities.

Cost of travel.

My husbands company did a survey for who would come back to the office when they can re-open. It was less than 10%.

DSN

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

That's not a "neat little plan" it is quite the juggling act if you d bothered to read it. And I haven't said it could be done full time with no child care.
And no where have I generalised and said there is free child care on tap from grand parents.

Of course it wouldn't work for everyone.

The question was how would wfh reduce child care costs and I outlined a particularly difficult situation to start with. Parents with three kids in 2nd class upwards would find it far easier as they will have them in school 5 1/2 hours .

You re the one who took my EXAMPLES as a result for everyone.
Nurses teachers gardai retail staff, plumbers, electricians, lab technicians, painters, cannot work from home in a practical way.. I didn't state that originally as I assumed most people could understand what an example was.
You obviously don't .
It's not fantasy at all.

For a lot of people it won't be easy and will require juggling and people are making those sacrifices as it is saving them money and hassle of getting childcare .

Most of the situation s I'm aware of its one of the couple who work from home.

People make all sorts of sacrifices, garda couples who barely see each other because they work opposite shifts to all them to care for their children- try doing something like that when your on a 24 hour roster shift work .

Then juggling a 9-5 job with childcare becomes a doddle

Sorry it's a fantasy work would allow you wfm & juggling kids/homework/kids bickering/full days when school shut under normal circumstances. I wfm all the time but still need childcare til 5th/6th. It will become more accepted though & it has its flexibility benefits long as people don't take advantage & double job. (Which is what it is & people have tried it it doesn't bode well for either party!)

beauf

gnf_ireland wrote: »

I am not saying that everyone is suited to the 9-5 environment, but most office environments are aligned to this model. If the person has 'conformed' to this model in the office, it will be a big jump for some to accommodate remote working and full schedule flexibility. For some, it would be a step too far.

I would argue that creative people are never suited to an office environment in the first place. That said, if you consider journalists as creative, they have to work off deadlines the same way the rest of us do, whereas a book author is a different matter.

The one thing I have learned over the years of working remotely, its not about you think or the effort you put in, its about the perception as to what you do and when you do it. As long as those around you, including your boss, believe you are doing a better job remotely than in the office, questions are rarely asked. If their perception is the opposite, that's when the issues arise.

I know you weren't, and I agree with all of that.

But we were verging on a booted and suited 9-5 good, everything else bad route.

snotboogie

beauf wrote: »

I don't agree with your prism.

But as services and opportunities are stripped from the rural locations and concentrated on urban centers as a short sighted cost cutting strategy and economic policy it causes urbanization. However this will cause stress, and bottlenecks in concentrated areas.

It causes stresses but there are massive economies of scale too. Vital services like universities, hospitals and airports need a large population base to make them viable. Services like broadband, gas, electricity, post and transport are all far cheaper as you up population density. The social benefits are huge too, you can have concerts, sports teams, good restaurants, shopping and large communities for diverse and unique interests. These are not possible on any scale outside of large urban areas. In rural areas these services tend to be far more generic, that's if they are available at all. Also, cities are robust. If we are all working from our McMansions with little to no physical contact with our employers, what's stopping the replacment of roles to Manila or Mexico or Nigeria?

beauf

All these things were already viable, they've been there for decades.

snotboogie

beauf wrote: »

All these things were already viable, they've been there for decades.

Yes, in cities and as we have urbanised the quality and variety of these services has increased. Look at Dublin Airport in 1970 compared to today, or the hospital offering in Cork City in 1970 vs today. If we deurbanize these services will suffer or cease to exist.

beauf

snotboogie wrote: »

Yes, in cities and as we have urbanised the quality and variety of these services has increased. Look at Dublin Airport in 1970 compared to today, or the hospital offering in Cork City in 1970 vs today. If we deurbanize these services will suffer or cease to exist.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/emergency-talks-tomorrow-as-overcrowding-in-two-cork-hospitals-reaches-crisis-levels-973597.html

https://fora.ie/air-traffic-ireland-3345169-Apr2017/

You realize this means we should centralize all services in Dublin obviously.

The third of the population there are obviously more important than the two thirds in the rest of the country. Economy of scale and all that.

snotboogie

beauf wrote: »

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/emergency-talks-tomorrow-as-overcrowding-in-two-cork-hospitals-reaches-crisis-levels-973597.html

https://fora.ie/air-traffic-ireland-3345169-Apr2017/

You realize this means we should centralize all services in Dublin obviously.

The third of the population there are obviously more important than the two thirds in the rest of the country. Economy of scale and all that.

I don't know how those links are relivant? Are you saying that hospitals were better in 1970? Or that Cork Airport doesn't offer a vital service?

1/3 don't live in Dublin, 1/3 of the country live within a commutable distance of Dublin, a huge number of these people live in rural areas. We should invest in all of our cities and towns of scale. Sleeking off to one off country houses will kill us in the long run, as their prevalence has killed small cities and towns all over the country. I'm bearish on a swift recovery but the recovery will eventually come and urbanisation will resume with it.

tastyt

Who will have the final call on the possibility of working from home IF it is a viable option for the type of work being done?

Obviously it will be left up to individual companies but do people envisage the government encouraging such a move?

it would put a lot less pressure on public transport, traffic, may even inject some life into the regions long term.

Personally I think the government should push wfh strongly, could be a huge benefit to the absolute joke that is the Dublin commute and congestion, might even give the opportunity to pedestrianise some of the city streets and make the city a much more pleasurable experience

beauf

snotboogie wrote: »

I don't know how those links are relivant? Are you saying that hospitals were better in 1970? Or that Cork Airport doesn't offer a vital service?

1/3 don't live in Dublin, 1/3 of the country live within a commutable distance of Dublin, a huge number of these people live in rural areas. We should invest in all of our cities and towns of scale. Sleeking off to one off country houses will kill us in the long run, as their prevalence has killed small cities and towns all over the country. I'm bearish on a swift recovery but the recovery will eventually come and urbanisation will resume with it.

Those numbers do not need explaining.

Electric Sheep

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The nature of my own job in normal times means I need to be on-site at least twice a week generally, so moving away from the office won't be an option.

I'm fully expecting WFH to take off big time in our workplace one we return fully. The biggest change will be the reduction in childcare costs.

How old are your kids?

gnf_ireland

jrosen wrote: »

Having the work from home option will be hugely beneficial for a lot of people. Less commute, more time at home. Could even be better for local business in smaller communities.

Cost of travel.

My husbands company did a survey for who would come back to the office when they can re-open. It was less than 10%.

I am absolutely not saying that working from home has benefits, especially in normal life rather than the current environment. There are lots of benefits to it, both from personal and environmental/infrastructure levels.

However, the key to remember is this is not always the employee/workers decision - it is mostly up to the company to decide what its arrangements will be. As someone else stated, if the job can be done fully remote, what is stopping that job being outsourced to a location with cheaper labour?

I believe in the short term, the amount of roles that will go 100% remote will be small enough, but there will be a move towards more remote working (say 40%-60%) and over an extended period this may change. It is a very different working model when done right, and companies will need time to adapt to it. Some will do it faster than others.

gnf_ireland

tastyt wrote: »

Personally I think the government should push wfh strongly, could be a huge benefit to the absolute joke that is the Dublin commute and congestion, might even give the opportunity to pedestrianise some of the city streets and make the city a much more pleasurable experience

Companies absolutely will have the final call. The person who pays the piper decides the tune !!

But I can see incentives being put in place around hitting environmental targets for companies, as well as agriculture, and the cost of commuting may be included in those calculations, as well as building footprint (energy costs etc). Companies will then be financially incentivised to act, and you are likely to see some real engagement then.

The problem the government have is they need to be careful what they wish for. Remote working is bad for urban areas - a chunk of jobs will be lost in the food service industry if the number of workers fall by 30%. Similarly, the footfall in urban shopping areas will drop etc. Duty on fuel drops, and wages are likely to stagnate a bit as employers might see it as an opportunity not to give wage increases (employees are saving in other ways). Like so many things, its a double edged sword for the government

gnf_ireland

beauf wrote: »

But we were verging on a booted and suited 9-5 good, everything else bad route.

I would think we are at the opposite and say that 9-5 is bad and flexibility is good, but there are boundaries to that flexibility. People are still expected to work a 'normal day' and they are expected to be available to colleagues when they need access to them. Again, it really depends on how collaborative the environment they work in is.

I am not sure many companies I know would be heavily in favour of someone starting at noon, disappearing for 3 hours from 3-6pm and then working until midnight, unless they do a lot of work with the west coast USA, or their role is better suited to being done when people are offline. But I tend to work in a pretty collaborative environment generally

JustAThought

It will be interesting come performance review time how many of the office passive floaters will survive - or be able to justify their role/time - the kind that attend every meeting but say nothing, have no contribution or research done, who silently sit through everyhing but deliver nothing and make no active contribution. I think many will be culled if the WFH become normalised.

Nobody so far has spoken about the pressures - or costs - of having to heat and llght an additional room, or two rooms in a house for a WFH setup nor of two adults now sharing a home and an office together for an additional 8 hours a day bringing work to home and to your relationahip long term is not necessarily a positive dynamic.

As regards younger people who may be appartment living and sharing an open plan sitting/living area and kitchen as the open space I can easily see how this could be total non runner - one wants to relax and cook/wtch tv - the other has a conference call or needs to work late - and its not as though Irish appartments have the wide open spaces to install a home office set up with desk and folders and printers for two or more people in them.

The merits of seperating your study (insert work) environment from your relaxing or sleep environment are well documented - yet everyone is jumping in with both feet to embrace it or applaud it. Personally I see many relationship breakups and mental health issues on the horizon.

As for the elephant in the room of people ‘working’ to the ame quality and professional level in their houses with children hanging out of them and being a total distraction - I can’t see the long term lowering of standards, quality or productivity being accepted - particularly as Imagine a good manager will be looking to scrutinise work outputs and quality and not just a clockin logbook for hours worked.

krissovo

gnf_ireland wrote: »

I would think we are at the opposite and say that 9-5 is bad and flexibility is good, but there are boundaries to that flexibility. People are still expected to work a 'normal day' and they are expected to be available to colleagues when they need access to them. Again, it really depends on how collaborative the environment they work in is.

I am not sure many companies I know would be heavily in favour of someone starting at noon, disappearing for 3 hours from 3-6pm and then working until midnight, unless they do a lot of work with the west coast USA, or their role is better suited to being done when people are offline. But I tend to work in a pretty collaborative environment generally

US companies especially any in the West Coast have been working like this for at least 5 years. Having teams based in Ireland is a good choice due to the time zones. I have flexible hours generally, I often start meetings when I am not travelling at 7 am with Engineering teams in Asia and finish at 08:30. I then get kids ready for school and drop them off. I start again at 10>10:30 and work to 12:30. Start again at 13:15 and work until 3pm have another break to collect kids and then start again at 6pm or 8pm after the kids are in bed and have meetings with California based teams.

I plan my weekly schedule and block book slots in dairy, if colleagues need to get me they will book a slot and I am available For them. I have never had an issue with being available as we all work in a similar way. The company trusts us to get the job done. If we struggle to book a meeting slot with the whole team for an important meeting we indicate it in the invite and most will make alternate arrangements for the kids. If they cannot make arrangements then often they will have a child on their lap for the meeting.

anndub

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

And I m saying that example is not in any way ideal. 20 minutes work then 35 minutes getting kids out of work maybe grabbing a cup of tea yourself and a slice of toast because you have. To be ready for a morning meeting at 930 and only getting back to the house before that. Then work like a demon as you have to get our by 1245 as any later than that and there are delays at the playschool . Back to desk at 115 having driven nine minutes each way and having to prep lunch.then 30 minutes intensive work again as you have another meeting at 330 and you've to spend another 40 minutes collecting and prepping lunch before then..
Not until after that meeting that you can begin the wind down as you know that that any interruption s after that won't interfere with your work as you can always work late. The next batch of tasks font really have to be ready before midnight when the team in another time zone starts their day. But you do like to try and maintain some normality so try to get all done by 6pm so you can have some family time before bed time. Hardly ideal is it

Trust me that's a hell of a lot more hectic than driving 40minutes to your office for 830working till 5 and coming home leaving it all in the office.

The parts of the day when the kids, in particular the preschooler, are home? Can you clarify are we locking them a padded, soundproof room somewhere or how exactly are they entertaining themselves? Because my experience small children have a non exhaustive list of demands and they have a tendency to direct them at their parents, constantly.

gladerunner

Working from home absolutely won't suit everyone, but for the people it does, wouldn't it be amazing.
Even on a 2/3 day a week roll out.

In our place, they have been talking about e-working for years, but were so reluctant to move in that direction.
So you have 900 people crushed into a building designed for 500. Many travelling over an hour and half each way.
No parking, fighting for seats, filthy toilets, lack of productivity ( due to the sheer volume of people chatting ) and the added cost associated with housing so many staff.
If the office could be halved, it would result in a better performance both at work and at home.

Since the lockdown, staff moved very quickly to facilitate their roles. Borrowing laptops, getting broadband in, generally getting on board. In some areas people are fighting over work now.. productivity is gone up and everyone's performance is easily recognised.
It will have to be looked at favourably later in the year.

beauf

Couldn't agree more. Our place is muttering about a 2 or 3 day in the office. Not 3 or 4 months ago they veto the idea of working from home on an ongoing basis.

It might be that managers having been forced to experience it themselves have a light bulb moment. Since previously they couldn't get their heads around the idea.

Kintarō Hattori

Permanent remote working looks like it'll become a thing in our place. Up to this point only one person was never in the office except for the day where everyone had to be in for the weekly meeting. I think that will become more the norm now for the rest of the staff. If that's the case then it'll certainly open up the possibilities for my partner and daughter. We'd very seriously consider moving further afield than we are at the moment. I wouldn't mind a longer commute to the office if it was just once a week that I had to be there.

Currently living in North County Dublin and working on the southside, so I'd consider a move out to Meath/Louth or the likes of Carlow/South Kildare/Laois.

[Deleted User]

gnf_ireland wrote: »

The problem the government have is they need to be careful what they wish for. Remote working is bad for urban areas - a chunk of jobs will be lost in the food service industry if the number of workers fall by 30%. Similarly, the footfall in urban shopping areas will drop etc. Duty on fuel drops, and wages are likely to stagnate a bit as employers might see it as an opportunity not to give wage increases (employees are saving in other ways). Like so many things, its a double edged sword for the government

The money not spent in urban areas won't be stuffed in the mattress. It will get spent, just in a different location. Money saved on fuel will get spent on other basics, maybe on products with more local economic value than an imported product like petrol.

I'm a Dub, but Dublin is overloaded. If more shops outside of Dublin get a bigger slice of consumer spending, that's probably a good thing all round. Dublin rents might drop a bit eventually, rents in rural towns might come up a bit.