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

beauf

Whats wrong with balance? Lots of different variables at at play.

Childcare issues are only for a few years. Once they are older like 5th and 6th class they mostly need minimal baby sitting.
Then again that depends on the kids. There is no one size fits all.

So it might be worth struggling through it to maintain your career.

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

Crikey, its a tough crowd this morning.
By all means, lets go back to the amazing work life balance we had before Covid. Lets not look to amend the ways we work or how are children are cared for.

That’s a euphemistic way of saying why not rope in some free labour where available.

If you are happy going that way good for you but don’t present it as a solution for balance , it’s specific to you .

My wife is going to take a few years off work to look after the kids and we will see how it goes , should I present that as a solution to all for balance ?

SeeMoreBut

So people think working in office will be more benefit to have meetings and team collaboration etc.

How do you envisage that will work?

Not like people can all go into a meeting room or sit down beside someone for 30/60 minutes and talk through masks?

Have Skype/Zoom/Teams meeting in an office?

[Deleted User]

gladerunner wrote: »

That's none of your business.
I was simply outlining my situation for balance

You were sh1tting on about how " all people have different workable solutions given the choice." ..................... your situation relies on utilising non elderly grandparents ........ it turns out they are likely on the scratch.

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

Balance ? Right

Crikey, its a tough crowd this morning.
By all means, lets go back to the amazing work life balance we had before Covid. Lets not look to amend the ways we work or how are children are cared for.

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

That's none of your business.
I was simply outlining my situation for balance

Balance ? Right

gladerunner

Augeo wrote: »

Unemployed? On sick benefits? Early retirement?

That's none of your business.
I was simply outlining my situation for balance

[Deleted User]

gladerunner wrote: »

No

Unemployed? On sick benefits? Early retirement?

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

You assume my parents are elderly, which they are not.

But regardless, come summer i will do what i usually do.
Take unpaid Shorter Working year and use my annual leave for mid-term/easter etc.
WFH means i can take far less unpaid leave, such as parental during the year.
Removing the commute time would open up so much more possibilities.
Not everyone is the same.

Well they are elderly in comparison to you obviously !

So you need grandparents help , an employer that allows unpaid leave / shorter working week,

You are right not everyone is the same .

gladerunner

Augeo wrote: »

Don't they work so?

[Deleted User]

gladerunner wrote: »

You assume my parents are elderly, which they are not.............

Don't they work so?

gladerunner wrote: »

........

Sorry, didn't mean to rant, I just want people to see the positives and that all people have different workable solutions given the choice.

Loads of folk live no where near theor parents, loads of folk also have elderly or deceased parents so I'm not so sure where your "ALL..... " spiel comes from. A significant proportion, if not a majority require paid for childcare.

gladerunner

Cyrus wrote: »

What will you do all summer , Christmas , Easter , mid term ? What if your parents can’t help for free any more ?

There’s workarounds but they aren’t ideal either especially if you are relying on the elderly to provide free child care

You assume my parents are elderly, which they are not.

But regardless, come summer i will do what i usually do.
Take unpaid Shorter Working year and use my annual leave for mid-term/easter etc.
WFH means i can take far less unpaid leave, such as parental during the year.
Removing the commute time would open up so much more possibilities.
Not everyone is the same.

Cyrus

gladerunner wrote: »

I just wish that some people could remember that we don't all work the same jobs.
When you mention childcare costs not reducing, you can only talk about yourself. You don't know how that system of play could work for others.
For me, I could work 7 - 2.30 ( 7hrs 30mins which is a full day for me.
School finishes at 2.30 and is local, so i could get even my parents to collect them and bring them home. Id be home for dinners, homework and all the usual madness.
In exchange my husband could do the get ready out the door breakfast madness. so yes, a much more reduced childcare situation.
Smaller children too could be minded by grandparents - say dropped up later and collected earlier. At least allowing people to make choices.

We have been caught in a form of madness prior to this pandemic.
Its time to get rid of the old way of thinking.
I see parents using breakfast clubs for children and tired children entering another creche facility after a tiring day at school.
All for what ? huge commutes, huge childcare costs and less time with children.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant, I just want people to see the positives and that all people have different workable solutions given the choice.

What will you do all summer , Christmas , Easter , mid term ? What if your parents can’t help for free any more ?

There’s workarounds but they aren’t ideal either especially if you are relying on the elderly to provide free child care

gladerunner

shesty wrote: »

I'd actually tighten that to once a month, maybe even once a fortnight.

If you walk fresh into a job, meeting people for an hour every 6 months or so isn't really that beneficial.

My own place is very flexible, and I can do my job from home, but my preference would be 1-2 days in the office each week, I think.Just to move things along more smoothly (the nature of my work).Some people I am better to speak to in the flesh, it's more productive.

As for people who think childcare costs will decrease due to WFH...eh, no.Young kids have the heaviest childcare costs and it is no easy job to work with kids around, and impossible when they are young. (I can testify to this particularly after the last 4 months).If they were school-going you would likely get work done while they are in school (4/5 hours ) and then end up logging in at night or something to make up hours, depending on what your employer requires, and most people don't like that.It might help a small bit in terms of your commuting time meaning kids spend less time in childcare but overall I reckon the decrease in childcare costs would be minimal if you were WFH full/most of the time.

I just wish that some people could remember that we don't all work the same jobs.
When you mention childcare costs not reducing, you can only talk about yourself. You don't know how that system of play could work for others.
For me, I could work 7 - 2.30 ( 7hrs 30mins which is a full day for me.
School finishes at 2.30 and is local, so i could get even my parents to collect them and bring them home. Id be home for dinners, homework and all the usual madness.
In exchange my husband could do the get ready out the door breakfast madness. so yes, a much more reduced childcare situation.
Smaller children too could be minded by grandparents - say dropped up later and collected earlier. At least allowing people to make choices.

We have been caught in a form of madness prior to this pandemic.
Its time to get rid of the old way of thinking.
I see parents using breakfast clubs for children and tired children entering another creche facility after a tiring day at school.
All for what ? huge commutes, huge childcare costs and less time with children.

Sorry, didn't mean to rant, I just want people to see the positives and that all people have different workable solutions given the choice.

seamus

Mr.S wrote: »

I presume it’s easier to deepclean the office when everyone is hot-desking? But then, wouldn’t it make more sense to keep everyone in an assigned seat so you don’t pick up something from the previous person, that cleaning might have missed?

That's what I'd be thinking; if everyone has an assigned seat, then you don't even really *have* to clean daily, even though you should.
Another option would be colour-coded hot desk; use Green desks one day, Blue desks the next, and Green the next, etc. Means that even if cleaning is missed, you're leaving a desk empty for 24 hours to be sure.

Hot desking is my idea of hell, but then I'm in a role where using a laptop all of the time is a non-runner. I mean, I do use a laptop, but plugged into three screens and with a proper keyboard and mouse.

krissovo

quokula wrote: »

Working remotely is one thing, but working remotely and moving around different countries creates all kinds of legal and tax related headaches for your employer so it’s only really realistic if you’re a contractor rather than an employee.

It can get a bit messy but perfectly achievable. Its not difficult to set up as a PAYE employee as long as you get the right advise and know what you are getting into. The main issue is not so much tax but PRSI contributions but with a A1 Certificate (Multi state worker) you can overcome this.

Technocentral

mvl wrote: »

Wonder how many ppl who are keen to go back to work in the office also have hot desk-ing policies in place, or do they have nominated desk ? Anything expected to change for such work arrangements after going back ?

- Assume the collocation needed for some teams doesn't work when hot desk-ing by default (e.g. if ppl reserve desks via some tools then it is not true hot desking).

So called "hot desking" is American Capitalist bs that only **** subscribe to.

jester77

quokula wrote: »

Working remotely is one thing, but working remotely and moving around different countries creates all kinds of legal and tax related headaches for your employer so it’s only really realistic if you’re a contractor rather than an employee.

Where I work we cannot spend more than half the working year working outside Germany for tax reasons. There is probably something similar in the Irish tax system.

mvl

Wonder how many ppl who are keen to go back to work in the office also have hot desk-ing policies in place, or do they have nominated desk ? Anything expected to change for such work arrangements after going back ?

- Assume the collocation needed for some teams doesn't work when hot desk-ing by default (e.g. if ppl reserve desks via some tools then it is not true hot desking).

shesty

seamus wrote: »

This. We're starting to look at making all new hires remote hires by default. But a key requirement will be the ability (or at least willingness) to get to the office one or twice a month. Whether it's for planning meetings or just a pissup, there is always decent value in a certain amount of face-to-face interaction.

I know plenty of people will say they've worked remote for years and never see colleagues from one side of the year to the next. However at our core we are social animals and we gain value out of in-person encounters.

My experience of nearly a decade now of working in companies with dispersed or fully remote teams is that team cohesion is always improved by the odd in-person meeting, even if it's every six months or even once a year. It's probably a trick of the brain, but there's some weird trust/respect switch that goes in your brain when the person is standing in front of you.

It's doesn't make any logical sense, but that's human nature.

The problem with the idea of spending a few months a year somewhere else is that your employer needs to be onboard. Even if you work 100% remote in Lifford, that doesn't mean your employer will be comfortable with you heading off to the Canaries for four months. What if a pandemic hits? What if a volcano goes off? Will your connectivity over there be good enough for work? Will there be a time difference, etc?

Of course you have the personal logistical issues too. Do you earn enough money to go live in the Canaries for 4 months of the year (i.e. keeping your Irish house and your Spanish one)? Will you be able to rent a property with the connectivity / reliability you need? Will you have all of the equipment you need?

It sounds like a nice idea, but whether it's realistic is the question.

I'd actually tighten that to once a month, maybe even once a fortnight.

If you walk fresh into a job, meeting people for an hour every 6 months or so isn't really that beneficial.

My own place is very flexible, and I can do my job from home, but my preference would be 1-2 days in the office each week, I think.Just to move things along more smoothly (the nature of my work).Some people I am better to speak to in the flesh, it's more productive.

As for people who think childcare costs will decrease due to WFH...eh, no.Young kids have the heaviest childcare costs and it is no easy job to work with kids around, and impossible when they are young. (I can testify to this particularly after the last 4 months).If they were school-going you would likely get work done while they are in school (4/5 hours ) and then end up logging in at night or something to make up hours, depending on what your employer requires, and most people don't like that.It might help a small bit in terms of your commuting time meaning kids spend less time in childcare but overall I reckon the decrease in childcare costs would be minimal if you were WFH full/most of the time.

strandroad

quokula wrote: »

Working remotely is one thing, but working remotely and moving around different countries creates all kinds of legal and tax related headaches for your employer so it’s only really realistic if you’re a contractor rather than an employee.

That's correct. Now you could do extended or frequent trips to your Portugal villa if you wish but you need to stay under certain limits to avoid local employment and revenue laws kicking in.

quokula

Working remotely is one thing, but working remotely and moving around different countries creates all kinds of legal and tax related headaches for your employer so it’s only really realistic if you’re a contractor rather than an employee.

kippy

cloudatlas wrote: »

What ya got?

You're not fit to work from home long term if you cannot answer a simple question tbh.
No point giving you any advice or pointers if you've not defined your parameters.

cloudatlas

Mr.S wrote: »

Most office based jobs at the moment (that are hiring) are starting people off fully remote, with the intention to return to an office at some point in the near future (probably Septemberish on a phased basis for many offices).

If you want fully remote work, tech support @ home from the likes of eBay and Apple usually have hiring sprints every year. It's a call centre type job, but at home.

What do you mean by "I'd like to move countries"?

Yes I know, my own job is currently work from home until September.

Remote working that would enable you to work anywhere, I only know a few people who work from home, one is a romance writer, the other writes legal documents....

Yes I've read the apple remote working thread.

cloudatlas

kippy wrote: »

Define "Decent"?

What ya got?

kippy

cloudatlas wrote: »

Are there any decent jobs that currently allow working from home?

I would also like this to continue... and I'd love to move countries.

Define "Decent"?

cloudatlas

Are there any decent jobs that currently allow working from home?

I would also like this to continue... and I'd love to move countries.

[Deleted User]

ELM327 wrote: »

Not to mention, they could already do that.

They could have already reduced office space to save costs and have people WFH. They didn't. Until now.

"They could have already done that" is not a guarantee that they won't, same as now allowing full-time WFH.

Mike3287

Fann Linn wrote: »

For a lot of employers perhaps now they can see that it can actually work from wfh.

This!

WFH and a high cost workforce, makes alotta sense that:pac:

Fann Linn

ELM327 wrote: »

There are tax implications to changing worker location.
Not to mention, they could already do that.

Didn't know about the tax thanks. As for your other point although they could always have done it, for a lot of employers perhaps now they can see that it can actually work from wfh.