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

PokeHerKing

Cyrus wrote: »

So there are graduate middle managers? What industry is this ?

Employee merry go round is the employers issue they might change things if enough people vote with their feet !

I work for a large financial MNC, believe me they don't give a fiddlers about the constant exodus.

Plenty of graduates lining up to slot into the front lines on reduced salaries and between pensions and payouts the firm are quids up everytime. Place doesn't miss a beat because some poor soul will carry the load untill the newbies are up to speed.

I doubt they're the only MNC with this business model, in fact I dare say its the business model of most MNCs.

Cyrus

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I work for a large financial MNC, believe me they don't give a fiddlers about the constant exodus.

Plenty of graduates lining up to slot into the front lines on reduced salaries and between pensions and payouts the firm are quids up everytime. Place doesn't miss a beat because some poor soul will carry the load untill the newbies are up to speed.

I doubt they're the only MNC with this business model, in fact I dare say its the business model of most MNCs.

good for them, clearly it works,

but the poor soul needs to man, or woman, up and get out.

Strumms

beauf wrote: »

Flexibility is a two edged sword.

Sometimes it works against you. Sometimes you have to push back against it.

You have to put value on yourself and your colleagues.

If my employer shows a degree of flexibility from time to time with me... I facilitate the same back. A one way street and no, not happening.

PokeHerKing

Cyrus wrote: »

good for them, clearly it works,

but the poor soul needs to man, or woman, up and get out.

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Point being the employer doesn't give a toss because the wheels of globalism churn on unabated.

Cyrus

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Point being the employer doesn't give a toss because the wheels of globalism churn on unabated.

i dont get the point though, why would someone stay in that scenario, just move on.

PokeHerKing

Cyrus wrote: »

i dont get the point though, why would someone stay in that scenario, just move on.

I was replying to your original comment of the employer will act if people vote with their feet. This is untrue for the simple reason of a conveyor belt of graduates to choose from.

I also think your mantra of 'Just leave' is far too black and white. It's your opinion though so I'm not looking to change it.

I know the real world is not black and white.

Cyrus

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I know the real world is not black and white.

depends on your world, personally i would move.

[Deleted User]

beauf wrote: »

Flexibility is a two edged sword.

Sometimes it works against you. Sometimes you have to push back against it.

Flexibility is always a positive imo. I couldn’t imagine working in a strict 9 to 5 type job where there is someone watching the time you come in and leave, having to actually take a half day out of your holidays if finishing early or clear it with someone if you have to disappear for an hour into town in the middle of the day. No thanks, give me working late for deadlines, keeping an eye on emails outside normal hours and working the odd weekend but keeping all the flexibility.

Just to give you the idea of flexibility and left to my own devices I’m used to. In my last job a few years ago I did a course completely unrelated to work that required two full midweek days per month attendance on site at the place delivering the course for almost 2 years. I did this without telling anything where I was working and didn’t take a single day of holidays on any of the days, there was just no notice taken as there was no expectation to be found at your desk in the very unlikely event someone looked for you and I always kept an eye on emails and responded throughout the day enough to keep people happy and go unnoticed.

Edit: I should add I work in the evening or weekend etc if there was work to be caught up on that I put off while out of the office.

beauf

Being flexible is fine if it works both ways.. equally. But it can creep in where it becomes expected and you're not get close to the same return back for what your putting in. You can end up working the equivalent of a 6 or 7 day week for 5 day money. Or a variation on that theme.

Strumms

Flexibility is a positive if it can work both ways.

I was in a scenario once where it did and we were the most flexible, productive team in the European region... a new manager came in, wanted all the flexibility that their predecessors had been accustomed to from us but in reply doing anything FOR us all of a sudden was was a NO....

Within a week there were emails going around...

- half days are no longer going to be approved for annual leave. Reason - it’s too difficult and complex to maintain counts. BS because the software did this automatically. Hours instead of days were debited from your allowance and recalculated automatically. So any of us basically with a hospital or doctors appointment, driving test etc lost a days holidays.

- staff are not permitted to use customer entrance to access the building. The rear staff entrance was in a poorly lit area with defective cctv that was overdue a service and repair, for about 3 years. It was an old system, part was no longer made and they wouldn’t spring for a new camera. Shifts started at 1am on certain weekend days with no on site security and now no camera, d15 you could have been left in a heap.

- staff were never allowed to be rostered working solo in any department. Even those of us office based had about 5% work that could be physical in a warehouse, using a forklift, pallet truck and so on, so H&S said a minimum of two per shift was required... which lasted about six months.

So employees can be flexible, go over and above but when some employers like the above can’t even bother to cover the basics and your wellbeing... fûck em.

The Spider

fret_wimp2 wrote: »

Some managers just like bums on seats in the office, they feel if they can see employees, they can make sure they work.

As i see it, the people who are productive from home are the people who were always productive. The people who are slacking off now always did, its just more visible.

For that cohort the question is not about having them in the office to ensure productivity, its would you rather they slack off at home or have them slack off in the office.

Actually a lot of it is managers for want of a better term feeling naked without their team in front of them and terrified that their boss may twig that the manager doesn’t actually do anything of consequence but is the highest paid member of the team.

Also in the world of office politics it’s very hard to know if a managers direct reports are being courted by a competitor who wants to get their hands on their team or the highest performers on that team within the office. A manager can’t see what’s going on qfter they finish a Skype call, in the office you can more or less see who’s at who’s desk.

Cyrus

The Spider wrote: »

Actually a lot of it is managers for want of a better term feeling naked without their team in front of them and terrified that their boss may twig that the manager doesn’t actually do anything of consequence but is the highest paid member of the team.

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

I can't speak for all managers. But you get good ones and bad ones as in all walks of life.

[Deleted User]

Cyrus wrote: »

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

Was going to post the same, the amount of comments in the thread about managers “getting found out” or “doing nothing” is quite bizarre. Are people totally clueless to the need for management? And I don’t even mean directly managing people but all the stuff that has to get done that I would have thought is obvious to people but maybe not. Also maybe it’s different in some places but where I’ve worked and the type of work I’m in people at all levels, even senior management are involved in technical work (in the sense of directing the areas work should go, what type of developments we should be focusing on etc) and managers of teams etc would be heavily involved in the hands on work in the project but just also be responsible for the overall management of it too.

This idea of managers doing nothing couldn’t be further from the truth in my experience and also managers are as happy working from time as anyone why wouldn’t they?

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

I can't speak for all managers. But you get good ones and bad ones as in all walks of life.

same as any staff, but the narrative here seems to be that they arent needed and are worried they will get 'found out'

its nonsense.

Jim2007

Cyrus wrote: »

are people that naive that they think managers dont do anything?

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.

Cyrus

Jim2007 wrote: »

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

Jim2007

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

Was going to post the same, the amount of comments in the thread about managers “getting found out” or “doing nothing” is quite bizarre. Are people totally clueless to the need for management?

Ah but don’t confuse the need for management with the for managers. When it comes to cost cutting, responsibility gets pushed up, tasks get pushed down to the next potential generation of management and managers get pushed out.

[Deleted User]

Jim2007 wrote: »

But it is not a question of doing something, it a question of if it is necessary and if it cannot be done at another level. Middle management is always at risk in a financial crisis because tasks and responsibilities can be pushed upwards or downwards to cut costs and even more so as WFH becomes the adapted model.

If your in middle management right now, you need to ensure you are adding significant value and don’t make waves, because in most cases there are alternatives to you being around and WFH will make it a bit more obvious in some cases.

The type of setup really doesn't make sense to me, it almost looks like you are suggesting managers are there to just be managers and got to their position via a different route to the people below them. Its not a concept I have ever come acrosss.

A manager to me is someone who is more experienced (both technically and in management) than those in their team and has more responsibility and is responsible for guiding, directing and also working on aspects of projects along with a massive amount of reporting etc both internal and external that takes a lot of time and then there is approvals etc which need a more experienced person to give an ok to.

To be honest places I've worked we wouldn't even use terms like "manager" people have more senior job titles and this would by default make them a manager as some would see it but the reality is very little of this hierarchy stuff is really evident day to day. That being said we have a quite a flat hierarchy anyway with not many levels between the least senior and most senior people.

Jim2007 wrote: »

Ah but don’t confuse the need for management with the for managers. When it comes to cost cutting, responsibility gets pushed up, tasks get pushed down to the next potential generation of management and managers get pushed out.

This just wouldn't be possible to do in the area of tech I work in as you would be losing vital experience in doing this and often experts in the area their team.

Jim2007

Cyrus wrote: »

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

And why would You then need the management? Have them do the tasks the staff did? Replace a cheap resource with a more expensive one... when a company has got its back to the wall the only thing the owner/shareholder wants to hear about is cost. I spent some time in corporate restructuring back in the 80s and I cannot remember a single case where quality won over cost.

[Deleted User]

Jim2007 wrote: »

And why would You then need the management?

and who is going to have overall vision of the projects, the developments, how everything fits together from different staff, solve issues that arise that needs the experience a more senior person has etc etc.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

i suppose it depends on the structures and size of organisations, but if i was cutting staff it wouldnt be the layer of middle management who are my best people, it would be staff below them.

Not every place is structured the same.

In ours about 30-40% of the managers manage people with a specialized skillset that the managers don't have. If you cut the staff below them, half the projects would grind to a half. Even where they do have the skill set they may not be current. Since many skill sets have to actively maintained.

Cyrus

Jim2007 wrote: »

And why would You then need the management? Have them do the tasks the staff did? Replace a cheap resource with a more expensive one... when a company has got its back to the wall the only thing the owner/shareholder wants to hear about is cost. I spent some time in corporate restructuring back in the 80s and I cannot remember a single case where quality won over cost.

i have spent time in restructuring aswell, and it was about creating a leaner more efficient organisation, which normally means fewer higher calibre people with systems and processes or offshoring. the 80s was a long time ago.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Not every place is structured the same.

yes agreed, from what you are saying then you believe some of the managers in your organisation are expendable?

beauf

Jaziel Unkempt Photographer wrote: »

and who is going to have overall vision of the projects, the developments, how everything fits together from different staff, solve issues that arise that needs the experience a more senior person has etc etc.

In some places this vision is shared with the whole team.

In others its data silo'd within management layers. Everyone effectively works with blinkers on.

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

In some places this vision is shared with the whole team.

In others its data silo'd within management layers. Everyone effectively works with blinkers on.

you can share a vision all you want, not everyone will grasp it, or want to grasp it or care about it.

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

yes agreed, from what you are saying then you believe some of the managers in your organisation are expendable?

I don't believe that most organisations or processes are 100% efficient.

Do I believe that every manager I've worked with was a good manager. No.
Some were excellent, some were bad, some were ok.

I could give loads of anecdotal examples. But you shouldn't need any. Most people have run into to people who were bad at their job and causes more problems than they solve. They exist at all levels.

jonnny68

couldnt be dealing with wfh from all full time, half and half suits me fine

beauf

Cyrus wrote: »

you can share a vision all you want, not everyone will grasp it, or want to grasp it or care about it.

Not sure where you are going with this. I have one guy on the team who never listens, therefore I should never share anything with the entire team. This is useful how?

Cyrus

beauf wrote: »

Not sure where you are going with this. I have one guy on the team who never listens, therefore I should never share anything with the entire team. This is useful how?

i didnt say that at all, what i am saying is you can share a vision all you want, that doesnt mean you dont need a manager to drive a team towards that vision, the chances of them full understanding it without management or leadership, or even caring, is small.