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

Technocentral

A lot of 19th century thinking here, as people can surely see here that there are huge movements for change around the world especially with younger people, respect being the key, the model of people being treated like cattle and chained to their desks will not be tolerated when the younger generation are in positions of power, adapt or your company will die. Wake up ffs.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

That’s fine public services don’t need to make a profit they have a benefactor and it’s not their remit
....

I had other examples than just public services.The point is that profit isn't the sole metric to measure success. Hard as it is to believe but not everyone is motivated by money. Profit is only one metric and it's not always valid.

If the absence of profit does not guarantee good practise or efficiency then it's likely profit doesn't either. But it certainly creates a different dynamic and drive in most people.

However the point remains that micromanaging does not prove the WFH is unworkable. It's micromanaging that makes lots of things unworkable.

fret_wimp2

Cyrus wrote: »

You think the revenue is an example of a well run and efficient organisation?

I couldnt comment on how many people they have vs need or their operating costs, but every interaction I've had with revenue has been outstanding, not just for a public service department but for any company.

Never waiting long on the phone, the person on the other end always knows what they are talking about, explains stuff well, and they send on any information or forms ASAP.

So, from a customer perspective, they are nailing it.

limnam

Cyrus wrote: »

You think the revenue is an example of a well run and efficient organisation?

When it's taking my money.

Very much so

Cyrus

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

In normal day to day work so what if it takes 3 hours to get the info, Id have 10 others things to be working on in the mean time while waiting for the info back.

with respect i get the feeling you arent the CEO or CFO of your company, whats ok for you isnt necessarily ok for them.

Cyrus

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Doesn't sound like a great place to work though, I certainly couldn't hack such a strict regime when I'm used to so much flexibility all my working life.

it actually is, longest i have ever stayed anywhere, i cant stand large corporates with their mission statements and all the virtue signalling nonsense that goes with it.

We work well and get paid well, everyone senior has been with the company a long time.

[Deleted User]

salonfire wrote: »

PhilOssophy makes a valid case for this scenario and I agree.

If people treat WFH as coming and going as everyone pleases, how can it possibly work.

In his scenario, what if PhilOssophy stepped away for an hour while his colleague was? Then the CFO has to wait two hours. If the CFO happened to go away just as the data was gathered, it could be three hours before he looks at it.

A three hour delay for something that could be retrieved in a few minutes if people were at their desks like they are supposed to is acceptable ?

As I mentioned earlier you are as likely to not find someone at their desk when at the office as to not get them immediately by email or their desk phone. That's just not how it works anywhere I've worked. People work their own hours, take breaks when they want, will pop into town or go for a coffee when they feel like it etc. Any important meeting will be organised at least a week in advance to ensure it suits everyone etc. Last minute things only happen on the day or day leading up to a well known deadline and everyone is aware of these things so make sure to watch for it.

In normal day to day work so what if it takes 3 hours to get the info, Id have 10 others things to be working on in the mean time while waiting for the info back.

Cyrus wrote: »

i have worked in a lots of companies, large multinationals with 1000s of employees, large semi states with 1000s of employees, big accountancy firms, small plcs etc etc.

We get things done more quickly than anywhere else, if we want to go into a new jurisdiction we do it in weeks, some of the other places i worked in would take years.

We dont necessarily do it right and we encounter problems along the way and afterwards, but to do it properly would require more people, more functions, more specific skillsets.

And it doesnt appear to be an impediment to making money.

and what else is anyone in business for.

Doesn't sound like a great place to work though, I certainly couldn't hack such a strict regime when I'm used to so much flexibility all my working life where I work to my own schedule and get the work done.

Cyrus

limnam wrote: »

You don't have much experience with revenue then

You think the revenue is an example of a well run and efficient organisation?

fret_wimp2

Cyrus wrote: »

Most wouldn’t hold them up as well run organisations either , hse being one prime example

Running efficiently is not the primary remit of the public service. its remit is to be the cogs and wheels that turn and allow a country to function, while giving a huge amount of employment. Efficiency is unfortunately way down the list of priorities, along with accountability.

fret_wimp2

ELM327 wrote: »

They didnt (amazon etc) make profits for years. Were they a failure under your logic?

Amazon started out in 1995 and became profitable in 2000.
The story says that this was always the plan & behavior since then agrees with that, having Bezos continually reinvest in the company rather than pay out to shareholders.

I would say that having an initial 5 year plan and executing on it shows a successful business and great management.

If a company shows great promise, but to deliver on that will take time and reinvestment, then to say its not profitable in the first few years does not make it a failure.

limnam

Cyrus wrote: »

Most wouldn’t hold them up as well run organisations either , hse being one prime example

You don't have much experience with revenue then

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

I was referring also to public sector organisations. The police, charities, hospitals, grant authorities, etc. There are people not motivated by profit.

Even in a company a department might not be revenue generating. How do they measure success.

That aside even if you generate a profit. It might have been achieved at some terrible cost, not always financial. Sweat shops etc. Slave trade, criminality.

The main point is just because something works out doesn't mean it the right way, or the optimum way to do it.

Not that everyone cares.

That’s fine public services don’t need to make a profit they have a benefactor and it’s not their remit

Most wouldn’t hold them up as well run organisations either , hse being one prime example

Cyrus

ELM327 wrote: »

They didnt (amazon etc) make profits for years. Were they a failure under your logic?

They would have been yes !

But they aren’t because ultimately they were successful

By what logic would a company that made 100s of millions of losses and ended up bankrupt been successful?

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

they may never generate profit, lots of tech companies in that category down the years, when everyone ultimately realises the music has stopped (wework for example) are the previously identified metrics of success still valid or were they only valid when people assumed profits were to come

I was referring also to public sector organisations. The police, charities, hospitals, grant authorities, etc. There are people not motivated by profit.

Even in a company a department might not be revenue generating. How do they measure success.

That aside even if you generate a profit. It might have been achieved at some terrible cost, not always financial. Sweat shops etc. Slave trade, criminality.

The main point is just because something works out doesn't mean it the right way, or the optimum way to do it.

Not that everyone cares.

ELM327

Cyrus wrote: »

both amazon and netflix make money now though, if they never made money they would eventually cease to exist, so are they still considered a success under that logic? id argue not.

anyway thats a digression,

history is generally kind to the victor.

Wouldnt tesla fall into the category of company thats very badly run and lurches from one crisis to the next with a founder / ceo who would be the exact opposite most of you would like to work for?

im not sure tesla exists in 10 years time

They didnt (amazon etc) make profits for years. Were they a failure under your logic?

Cyrus

ELM327 wrote: »

Look at Amazon for instance. Or Netflix. Loss making for years
Same as tesla.

both amazon and netflix make money now though, if they never made money they would eventually cease to exist, so are they still considered a success under that logic? id argue not.

anyway thats a digression,

history is generally kind to the victor.

Wouldnt tesla fall into the category of company thats very badly run and lurches from one crisis to the next with a founder / ceo who would be the exact opposite most of you would like to work for?

im not sure tesla exists in 10 years time

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

There are lot of organisations which don't generate a profit. Even those that do they might be some years before they do generate a profit. So it's logical that there have to be other types of metric of success.

they may never generate profit, lots of tech companies in that category down the years, when everyone ultimately realises the music has stopped (wework for example) are the previously identified metrics of success still valid or were they only valid when people assumed profits were to come

storker

beauf wrote: »

Kinda defeats the purpose of industry wide statistics on it then doesn't it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

ELM327

beauf wrote: »

There are lot of organisations which don't generate a profit. Even those that do they might be some years before they do generate a profit. So it's logical that there have to be other types of metric of success.

Look at Amazon for instance. Or Netflix. Loss making for years
Same as tesla.

Kevhog1988

Back to the office 2 days a week next week. Happy with that as im in a startup and welcome it to build a rapport

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

curious to hear what your other measures of success are?

There are lot of organisations which don't generate a profit. Even those that do they might be some years before they do generate a profit. So it's logical that there have to be other types of metric of success.

[Deleted User]

Cyrus wrote: »

curious to hear what your other measures of success are?

It depends on the industry............. a large (or small for that matter) construction company could be tremendously profitable but if they had a number of lost working time accidents than that would taint the success graph quite badly as they might struggle to get future projects, that's ignoring the human element as there's no such thing as an accident really, someone's always done something wrong these days the experts claim.

In the likes of medical device manufacturing there might be great profit but if a large percentage of the customer base (hospitals who have patients as customers) are waiting on devices and backorder etc is frequent, the company itself would look at the back order metric as well as the overall profit.

Companies can also be considered to be acting unethically if they are making more than what's considered a fair and reasonable profit..... Along other lines, would a profitable company be considered successful if folk weren't comfortable working there, if there was a bullying culture, a high turnover of staff, lots of folk on sick leave due to stress/burn out.

It's all quite subjective........... the bottom line ultimately is crucial but it can't be the only important/crucial metric

beauf

storker wrote: »

True but I wouldn't just put that down to the restrictions. ...

Kinda defeats the purpose of industry wide statistics on it then doesn't it.

Cyrus

storker wrote: »

True but I wouldn't just put that down to the restrictions. There's low pay for a start, and a workforce that tends to be quite young and will move on to something else quickly enough.

I might be biased, though be cause it was 20 years ago and the centre I worked in was quite well-run.

i worked in one one summer when in university, the main issue is the people calling in you get dogs abuse, work enviroment was fine for what it is. the majority of my colleages at the time were studends as well tho, so a pretty transient work force.

storker

beauf wrote: »

There's a flip side to that....

True but I wouldn't just put that down to the restrictions. There's low pay for a start, and a workforce that tends to be quite young and will move on to something else quickly enough.

I might be biased, though be cause it was 20 years ago and the centre I worked in was quite well-run.

Cyrus

seamus wrote: »

Many very profitable companies are poorly run. Profits are really only one measure of success. Many very profitable companies also go to the wall when times get difficult. Or they get really quickly beaten in their core market by a new competitor, because they cannot get their sh1t together quick enough to adapt.

There are people in all companies who pull of heroics. Who deal with interruptions and still get their work done. That doesn't mean the company is doing OK. Heroes burn out very quickly, they move to a new company. Eventually all your heroes will be gone

It's a sentiment that one person cannot implement on their own. Otherwise they become the jobsworth who refuses to step when it's necessary.

But as a company attitude; as a goal to strive for - "do not make your poor planning someone else's emergency" - it's the kind of thing that can make a work environment great. Rather than being dragged off your nromal work and having orders barked at you because of an emergency, instead the instigator is contrite for their failure, appreciative of your fast help, and as a result will make efforts to prevent this emergency occurring in future.

curious to hear what your other measures of success are?

beauf

Augeo wrote: »

It sounds like many folk work in places where a call centre esque culture is both present and seemingly bought into by the employees. Mental.

A lot of people don't have experience of alternative ways of doing things. Some are unable to learn new things. They will literally do the same thing every day for years. Same route to work regardless how long it takes. Same lunch etc. They do the same with work.

seamus

Cyrus wrote: »

sounds exactly like my company, we made a 9 figure profit last year,

not a bad problem to have it seems

Many very profitable companies are poorly run. Profits are really only one measure of success. Many very profitable companies also go to the wall when times get difficult. Or they get really quickly beaten in their core market by a new competitor, because they cannot get their sh1t together quick enough to adapt.

There are people in all companies who pull of heroics. Who deal with interruptions and still get their work done. That doesn't mean the company is doing OK. Heroes burn out very quickly, they move to a new company. Eventually all your heroes will be gone

Lumen wrote: »

Much as I sympathise and to some extent agree, in my experience the kind of people who would elevate that sentiment to a wall plaque are a right pain in the hole to deal with.

It's a sentiment that one person cannot implement on their own. Otherwise they become the jobsworth who refuses to step when it's necessary.

But as a company attitude; as a goal to strive for - "do not make your poor planning someone else's emergency" - it's the kind of thing that can make a work environment great. Rather than being dragged off your nromal work and having orders barked at you because of an emergency, instead the instigator is contrite for their failure, appreciative of your fast help, and as a result will make efforts to prevent this emergency occurring in future.

[Deleted User]

storker wrote: »

I did once - in a call centre. It wasn't that bad, since the restrictions make sense in such an environment. In many other environments, of course, they wouldn't.

It sounds like many folk work in places where a call centre esque culture is both present and seemingly bought into by the employees. Mental.

beauf

storker wrote: »

I did one - in a call centre. It wasn't that bad, since the restrictions make sense in such an environment. In many other environments, of course, they wouldn't.

There's a flip side to that....

Contact centers also have some of the highest turnover rates in the industry, ranging between 30-45%, more than double the average for all other occupations. And the average call center agent lifespan is just two years.