If Work From Home becomes a thing...

BrianD3 · 19-06-2020 02:07PM

I've posted a few times about WFH in the public sector and the obstacles I envisaged with "managers" pressuring everyone to get back to the office fulltime. This has now started to happen (in at least some workplaces) in contravention of government guidelines and guidelines from other public service bodies and departments.

It is causing a huge amount of bad feeling and stress among those who have been working successfully from home but have ongoing difficulties with childcare or other caring responsibilities.

The problem I see is that managers are disengaged from what their staff do and therefore don't know that they have been working successfully from home. Performance issues are not tackled whether they are occurring at home or in office. Appraisals are a joke. Very few measurable targets are set. When you dispense with the above, what sort of management style are you left with? Seems to be a case of "Is she at her desk? No. Get her back. Ok she's back, my job is done now"

The unions need to be all over this but from what I've seen they aren't, in fact I think unions are anti working from home as they are fearful about outsourcing?

limnam · 19-06-2020 02:12PM

BrianD3 wrote: »

I've posted a few times about WFH in the public sector and the obstacles I envisaged with "managers" pressuring everyone to get back to the office fulltime. This has now started to happen (in at least some workplaces) in contravention of government guidelines and guidelines from other public service bodies and departments.

It is causing a huge amount of bad feeling and stress among those who have been working successfully from home but have ongoing difficulties with childcare or other caring responsibilities.

The problem I see is that managers are disengaged from what their staff do and therefore don't know that they have been working successfully from home. Performance issues are not tackled whether they are occurring at home or in office. Appraisals are a joke. Very few measurable targets are set. When you dispense with the above, what sort of management style are you left with? Seems to be a case of "Is she at her desk? No. Get her back. Ok she's back, my job is done now"

The unions need to be all over this but from what I've seen they aren't, in fact I think unions are anti working from home a they are fearful about outsourcing?

The issue I see it and might be slightly more prevalent in the public sector.

Is the lack of genuine or what I call "Real" managers.

Incompetent managers with a junior mentality that can't seem to cope if they can't "see" their team.

Working remotely seems to expose all the weaknesses of these managers and this country seems to be full of them. Although not exclusive to Ireland we just seem to be quiet immature in this regard

Good strong managers generally have no concerns with managing complex/remote teams

PhilOssophy · 19-06-2020 02:29PM

If a manager can't see who is working just as well remotely than they do in the office, I would strongly question their management ability. By now, I would expect any capable manager to have noted the reduction/increase in productivity, who is always there when you call them, who is "Oh I'm just out for 15 minutes I'll be back shortly", etc, etc.
If they need to have somebody within eyeshot, they are clearly a very bad manager to begin with. Just because they are within eyeshot, doesn't mean they are working any harder. If they have had a 2 hr commute, it is probably the opposite.

kippy · 19-06-2020 02:46PM

PhilOssophy wrote: »

If a manager can't see who is working just as well remotely than they do in the office, I would strongly question their management ability. By now, I would expect any capable manager to have noted the reduction/increase in productivity, who is always there when you call them, who is "Oh I'm just out for 15 minutes I'll be back shortly", etc, etc.
If they need to have somebody within eyeshot, they are clearly a very bad manager to begin with. Just because they are within eyeshot, doesn't mean they are working any harder. If they have had a 2 hr commute, it is probably the opposite.

To be fair, a new skillset may be required as well as different ways to do things. If the manager themselves has never been in a WFH scenario, or the employees haven't, it takes some time to learn and implement better ways of managing.

Mrs OBumble · 19-06-2020 03:14PM

jrosen wrote: »

They could attract new staff down the line who are looking for a better work life balance. .

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

PhilOssophy · 19-06-2020 03:32PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

Except the ones who realise the benefits to everybody. A person who hasn't just spent an hour crammed on a bus, or in traffic, is probably going to give more productive hours while they are working.

More hours in work does not mean a more productive employee.

limnam · 19-06-2020 03:36PM

PhilOssophy wrote: »

Except the ones who realise the benefits to everybody. A person who hasn't just spent an hour crammed on a bus, or in traffic, is probably going to give more productive hours while they are working.

More hours in work does not mean a better employee.

With so many companies aggressively advertising their work life balance philosophy. Would seem strange then they didn't actually want to hire people who would take advantage of it

PhilOssophy · 19-06-2020 04:28PM

limnam wrote: »

With so many companies aggressively advertising their work life balance philosophy. Would seem strange then they didn't actually want to hire people who would take advantage of it

There's plenty of firms (e.g. accountancy/law firms) where they still think pushing people to within an inch of their life is the way to get the best out of people.

Technocentral · 19-06-2020 04:31PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

Your thinking is completely outdated.

Blanco100 · 19-06-2020 04:35PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

This is so true. It should be the tagline of this thread in fairness. And its such a pity. I'm not saying that the view is correct, but its disgracefully true in 2020.

Companies will always sell themselves as being forward thinking "we promote a fair work/life balance", but its just a marketing tool.

American companies especially, you cannot be promoting work life balance when the average employed American takes damn all days off.

There is no law that requires US employers to offer paid holiday time to their staff. However, in reality, most US employers offer paid holiday to their workers. The number of days varies from employer to employer, but on average, US workers receive around 10 days of paid holiday each year.

And they would see that as ample time to spend with your family. No wonder they all get divorced

PhilOssophy · 19-06-2020 04:43PM

Blanco100 wrote: »

This is so true. It should be the tagline of this thread in fairness. And its such a pity. I'm not saying that the view is correct, but its disgracefully true in 2020.

Companies will always sell themselves as being forward thinking "we promote a fair work/life balance", but its just a marketing tool.

American companies especially, you cannot be promoting work life balance when the average employed American takes damn all days off.

There is no law that requires US employers to offer paid holiday time to their staff. However, in reality, most US employers offer paid holiday to their workers. The number of days varies from employer to employer, but on average, US workers receive around 10 days of paid holiday each year.

And they would see that as ample time to spend with your family. No wonder they all get divorced

Yeah, thankfully most of us don't live in the US.

lickalot · 19-06-2020 05:23PM

Reading this thread I really pity some of the people and the companies they work for.

They are stuck in the stone age with their thinking.

If you have a good skillset and jobs are in demand people won't be long moving on from these type of companies.

There are some horrific companies out there but most these days actually care about their employees, you do your 9-5, your asked if you want to go on an out of hours roster to take calls and be paid for it.

The days of scare tactics are long gone.

JimmyVik · 19-06-2020 05:33PM

limnam wrote: »

With so many companies aggressively advertising their work life balance philosophy. Would seem strange then they didn't actually want to hire people who would take advantage of it

I work for one for sure.

jrosen · 19-06-2020 05:36PM

There are lots of companies who have great flexi options.
In my personal experience valued employees tend to be able to negotiate better.

Mike3287 · 19-06-2020 05:41PM

Blanco100 wrote: »

Of course its different if you live 10 mins from you office

Why is it different?

Unfair to bring them into the office because they are sensible and don't do a crazy commute from Ballinasloe to Dublin

Crazy commuters shouldn't get preferential treatment

seamus · 19-06-2020 05:49PM

antimatterx wrote: »

I think it is. We were always told in college to include our address on CV's.

This is outdated advice at this stage. In times gone by it was advised to put down a "good" address, e.g. Blackrock instead of Tallaght, and to even use a relative's address if you can, to elevate your position.

HR departments will specifically try and exclude this information if at all possible, because it can in theory be used against the company on discrimination grounds, depending on the address.

Anecdotally from the CVs I get, I'd say it's 50/50 whether someone includes their address. Usually foreign workers do, Irish people generally don't.

The kind of address snobbery that went on in the 80s and 90s is mostly gone anyway, but I'd imagine still exists in small companies to some extent.

Electric Sheep · 19-06-2020 06:47PM

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No employer ever wants to attract staff who are looking for a better work life balance, unless they want to make savings on wages.

Employers who don't offer a good work life balance will find it hard to attract any staff of quality at all in the future.

Electric Sheep · 19-06-2020 07:07PM

seamus wrote: »

The kind of address snobbery that went on in the 80s and 90s is mostly gone anyway, but I'd imagine still exists in small companies to some extent.

In small companies and small minds.

Electric Sheep · 19-06-2020 07:11PM

JimmyVik wrote: »

Pretty sure a CV without an address would be thrown in the bin in my place.
If you were found to have lied about anything at all on your CV you can probably be fired.

Why would it be thrown in the bin? What do you learn about the applicant from the address on the CV?

limnam · 19-06-2020 07:24PM

JimmyVik wrote: »

I work for one for sure.

Me too.

Thankfully, I would be reluctant to work anywhere that had a reputation for not offering good work life balance

lickalot · 19-06-2020 07:27PM

This talk of putting your address down on a C.V is nonsense.

Ah sure we won't hire this grad in Dublin as he is living in Sligo.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Gael23 · 19-06-2020 07:28PM

House prices in Dublin would nosedive

limnam · 19-06-2020 07:32PM

Gael23 wrote: »

House prices in Dublin would nosedive

No more 750k matchboxes

Unearthly · 19-06-2020 07:33PM

Although I still prefer it, the novelty has kind of worn off for me. Definitely think now that I'd prefer 50% at home, 50% in office.

Companies that dig their heels in and refuse to offer any kind of WFH will be left behind though. It reminds me of the managers in the company that I work for a few years ago that insisted people kept to strict schedules of 8-4-30 despite the job not requiring to be time specific. They were quickly moved on with their stone age views

Blanco100 · 19-06-2020 07:51PM

There are people out there who embrace the lack of work/life balance as it allows them climb that ladder.

In these companies you can do your 9-5, the problem is the overspill of work is left for you the next day. People dont start afresh the following day.

Its breeding an environment that the work never stops, even when your not there, especially on global teams.

PhilOssophy · 19-06-2020 08:38PM

seamus wrote: »

This is outdated advice at this stage. In times gone by it was advised to put down a "good" address, e.g. Blackrock instead of Tallaght, and to even use a relative's address if you can, to elevate your position.

HR departments will specifically try and exclude this information if at all possible, because it can in theory be used against the company on discrimination grounds, depending on the address.

Anecdotally from the CVs I get, I'd say it's 50/50 whether someone includes their address. Usually foreign workers do, Irish people generally don't.

The kind of address snobbery that went on in the 80s and 90s is mostly gone anyway, but I'd imagine still exists in small companies to some extent.

They are probably the same people who'd look at a CV and decide to offer an interview/job based on what school the applicant went to!

antimatterx · 19-06-2020 11:34PM

My company installed barriers and we're down to less than half available desks. About 25.

If you want to come in you can, but you don't have to.

Technocentral · 22-06-2020 09:59AM

mayo londoner wrote: »

I'm really dreading going back the week after next, going to be extremely hard to re-adjust to the arse lickers, office melters and all the ****e that goes with it. Loving working from home and no decrease in productivity, been busier if anything. My company couldn't have less interest in offering any semblance of WFH once 29th June comes.

Old school management just never learn, really hope there's a mass exodus from the company once office reopens (they offer zero benefits/perks as is) and other companies start to offer WFH.

I've an interview coming up in the next few weeks where they will offer minimum of one day per week WFH, hell of a lot less money per week but would be relocating so saving on future house purchase costs/rent etc. I'd value the flexibility of being able to WFH at a good €50 per day. Can offer all the money in the world but if you aren't remotely happy in your job, know the company doesn't give a ****e about me or any other employee for that matter, then what's the point of having couple hundred extra quid in the bank every week, misery of it all wears you down eventually. The freedom of being able to work from home, extra time in the morning and evening, less noise around me during working hours, not listening to other people's nonsense has been heaven, job can be stressful and as I said up above I've been busier than ever, yet I don't feel half as stressed due to WFH if that makes any sense.

Best of luck with your interview, sounds like you need to get out of that toxic environment.

charlietheminxx · 22-06-2020 02:51PM

I really wish my employer was on board with continued work from home. I can split my time for the first month back (from 29 June) and then have to be back in the office full time. The annoying thing is that I've worked well at home and have been told as much. It's really made me re-evaluate what I want from my working life, so I'll be starting to look elsewhere.

22-06-2020 03:08PM

charlietheminxx wrote: »

I really wish my employer was on board with continued work from home. I can split my time for the first month back (from 29 June) and then have to be back in the office full time. The annoying thing is that I've worked well at home and have been told as much. It's really made me re-evaluate what I want from my working life, so I'll be starting to look elsewhere.

Can you not push them on it and highlight how much better it is for you, makes you more productive and request the reasons why they are still forcing you back to the office full time.

You should also be highlighting that you should not be returning to the office on the 29th if you can work from home, the 29th is not supposed to signify a mass return to offices it is only supposed to be for those who are unable to do their job from home (i.e. someone who needs to physically do things that is only possible onsite).

If Work From Home becomes a thing...

Comments