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

dubrov

Keenan Rhythmic Cab wrote:

An employer has no responsibly to insure you in youâ€™re own home or look at your workspace. I donâ€™t agree with this myself and I have a dedicated office at home but I know a few people working almost full time from home with a multinational who work on a laptop at their kitchen table.

They do have a responsibility but can get around it by getting you to state that you have assessed your work area and it is suitable for working from home. It exonerates then from subsequent claims.

If you don't make the statement, you don't get to work from home

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

I work for a large multinational, and even here, WFH is not a straightforward as some would believe it to be. There are substantial insurance implications. If WFH permanently, the organisation will need to assess the workspace being used and ensure that it is appropriately set up. If it cant be appropriately set up, then WFH could be declined. Working from home more than (I think) 40% of the time is even more complicated from an insurance perspective, as both locations need to be insured and tracked as to where you are. Large companies with sophisticated HR and facilities functions will be able to deal with this. Small companies are potentially running a substantial risk if they don't jump through all these hoops and do whatever is needed to ensure that their liability is reduced.

All that to say, its not as easy as an employer just saying "sure, work from home"

Sounds more like a company policy than anything. Never heard of this and I know quite a few working from home (some for multinationals) and I work from home lots myself (prior to covid).

An employer has no responsibly to insure you in you’re own home or look at your workspace. I don’t agree with this myself and I have a dedicated office at home but I know a few people working almost full time from home with a multinational who work on a laptop at their kitchen table.

Electric Sheep

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

Be interested to know if ye young people find working from home makes any difference to how much ye get done? One of my sons swears he is doing way more with no colleagues distracting him, a daughter says it is making no real difference.

It makes a big difference, I get much more done. On the downside I seem to find myself working longer hours.

[Deleted User]

Be interested to know if ye young people find working from home makes any difference to how much ye get done? One of my sons swears he is doing way more with no colleagues distracting him, a daughter says it is making no real difference.

beauf wrote: »

The horse bolted a long time ago on saving rural Ireland.

A way past a bit of WFH saving it.

There's a lot of infrastructure and houses that would not take much to put back in action if people wanted them. Excellent broadband being a prerequisite.

[Deleted User]

IvoryTower wrote: »

Thats pretty much what would happen where I work. They're itching for us back though, old school no trust vibes.

Would expect a lot of that. Are your employers partly right or a long way off the mark about their workers?
Another issue is how Councils will be funded, it’s been a while since I ran an office, but could never understand how the way your liability calculated was so crude. If company’s are doing business from their employees homes then the system will have to move with the times. In the short term there could be big enough savings for companies that downsize their offices. In my time in business I found the rates system absolutely stupid and as technology evolved it was becoming less and less for for purpose.

beauf

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

I think the huge drift to urbanisation all over the world is going to slow now. For economic reasons it made sense for a long time and now, for the
medium term at least, it makes sense to have workers in rural rather than urban areas.
Whether this is good or bad somewhat misses the point, it’s coming and people need to adapt.
It could help rural Ireland and make Dublin more affordable, but it could see more and more jobs going abroad.

The horse bolted a long time ago on saving rural Ireland.

A way past a bit of WFH saving it.

[Deleted User]

I think the huge drift to urbanisation all over the world is going to slow now. For economic reasons it made sense for a long time and now, for the
medium term at least, it makes sense to have workers in rural rather than urban areas.
Whether this is good or bad somewhat misses the point, it’s coming and people need to adapt.
It could help rural Ireland and make Dublin more affordable, but it could see more and more jobs going abroad.

IvoryTower

Deleted User wrote: »

All that to say, its not as easy as an employer just saying "sure, work from home"

Thats pretty much what would happen where I work. They're itching for us back though, old school no trust vibes.

[Deleted User]

I work for a large multinational, and even here, WFH is not a straightforward as some would believe it to be. There are substantial insurance implications. If WFH permanently, the organisation will need to assess the workspace being used and ensure that it is appropriately set up. If it cant be appropriately set up, then WFH could be declined. Working from home more than (I think) 40% of the time is even more complicated from an insurance perspective, as both locations need to be insured and tracked as to where you are. Large companies with sophisticated HR and facilities functions will be able to deal with this. Small companies are potentially running a substantial risk if they don't jump through all these hoops and do whatever is needed to ensure that their liability is reduced.

All that to say, its not as easy as an employer just saying "sure, work from home"

mojesius

I'm praying that my company will give us clearer guidance on long-term wfh options soon. They're still in the 'we're looking into it' phase when asked about it. Before coronavirus, wfh was more of an exception, once a week type allowance.

Most of my meetings are with colleagues in other countries and timezones, so my schedule is not typical 9-5 and it doesn't really matter if I'm on the office or not. I tend to get more done wfh as I don't have a 3hr round commute (living currently in se Meath).

We're buying a house this year and are in love with a village in South Wicklow but commuting there and back 4 days a week in traffic isn't sustainable, current commute is bad enough. If current policies remain, we'll have to buy in Dublin, bigger mortgage, less space etc. Would love for our kids to grow up a bit outside the city and to have space and peace.

KaneToad

Ultimanemo wrote: »

Don't worry about that, the greens will find a solution: build a bridge between Ireland and France wide enough for two cycle lanes and two pedestrian paths.

What!? No space for a grass media ??

2lazytogetup

if we start working from home, not sure why the 9-5pm will continue. some people esp with children at home will want to work early morning or when the kids have gone to bed. esp to save on childcare costs.

And to take it further, i can see new companies/employers deciding to pay per task/project. So say it was designing a website. they are going to just use a contractor a set amount based on how long it should take. so taking the zero contract hours worker to the next level. And if they bring in universal social payment that everybody gets regardless if they work or not, then i think the working world will be for darwins survival of the fittest. I would worry if i was middle management getting paid to do nothing all day in work.

[Deleted User]

No intentions on moving abroad, I just want to sell up my overpriced Dublin box and trade it for a mansion on a plot of land out in the sticks. There are very few places in Ireland that cannot be considered commutable when you only need to commute to the office now and again, maybe 1 day a week or occassionally 2 tops. Traffic is a non issue if you have meetings starting no earlier than 11am. Work from home for a couple of hours before heading on into the office.

Broadband is the big problem with this plan. Such a shame. With good rural broadband Ireland could become the country to live in when it comes to a modern office and work life balance.

Seamai

I've been working from home a couple of days a week for the last two years and while I'm not altogether sold on the idea, I loved it at first but when the novelty wore off I realised that it blurred the boundary between work and home life and I don't like that. I also have a boss you somehow doesn't quite get WFH which makes me feel like I'm constantly having to justify it.
These are only my personal issues but looking at the bigger picture if any glitches can be ironed out and there is no drop in productivity there are plenty of people for whom it will suit, maybe not every day.

M

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.