Mango Joe wrote: » I said I'd take your point at face value and read your posts on this thread. Shocked to then discover that you have an incredible 46 posts on this very thread!!! Just you delighting in expressing your opinion on this very deep and complex topic in 46 plus exciting new ways..... You really can't comment on the topic of 'working' from home if you spend all of your working day spamming threads with your no doubt sage thoughts and wondrous wisdom.
floorpie wrote: » I'm pretty sure that the suitability of my workspace is my company's business, and that what I eat is not my company's business. ? I already said that I'm happy to 100% WFH or 100% work from office. Before Covid I was WFH a lot (at my discretion) and travelled a lot, so I'm used to being flexible for work. Again, my issue is that it's now being demanded without much consideration. If you don't mind the costs then that's up to you.
dmigsy wrote: » The temperature you like to keep your house at, or the quality of your home insulation is surely also irrelevant as it's none of your companies business. So why would you include that cost in your calculations but exclude the savings of commuting costs/lunch/time?
Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it.
floorpie wrote: » Yes I asked if we'd be paid for our use of electricity and heating, or should we consider this a paycut. I did not say: I listed my work equipment above, go and work out the costs for running it all for 10 hours a day at the average price of kilowatt hour if you think I'm being petty. Just my desktop PC will cost up to €600 for the year if I'm running demanding jobs. Then work out the cost of having adequate heating through winter for 10 hours a day. At an average wage you're easily talking about 2-10% "pay cut" per year. Is that really a petty consideration?Whether this is offset by not having to commute or buy lunch out is irrelevant to me, because what I eat or how I travel are not my company's business. That's not even factoring in wear and tear on my toilet seat.
floorpie wrote: » I looked into the tax allowance and it seems to cover 10% of costs for the above, and 30% for the cost of broadband, am I incorrect? It'd be different if I were electing to work from home. My issue here is that it's being demanded of people for at least 3/5 the week.
ineedeuro wrote: » You get tax allowance for everything you listed.
I have worked from home since 2006 and got nothing. The saving on fuel/time made up for that. Last year I got a tax allowance and this year my company have provided money toward BB I also get a set fee every 3 months to buy home equipment for my office. But back to the main saving which is time and fuel for commute. Also I work in quite a fancy part of town, having lunch out each day cost a fortune:P
floorpie wrote: » Yes I asked if we'd be paid for our use of electricity and heating, or should we consider this a paycut. I did not say: I listed my work equipment above, go and work out the costs for running it all for 10 hours a day at the average price of kilowatt hour if you think I'm being petty. Just my desktop PC will cost up to €600 for the year if I'm running demanding jobs. Then work out the cost of having adequate heating through winter for 10 hours a day. At an average wage you could be talking about 2-10% "pay cut" per year. Is that really a petty consideration? Whether this is offset by my commute or buying lunch is irrelevant to me, because what I eat or how I travel are not my company's business. That's not even factoring in wear and tear on my toilet seat.
Mango Joe wrote: » Eh? You were? I think you should measure the pile depth and integrity of your carpets and charge your Company some reasonable wear and tear fee monthly for making you work from home.
Its so unfair - I'd like to know when my Employer is going to come into my home and compensate me for the extra wear and tear on my toilet seat and toaster because I'm being forced to be in my own house/rented accommodation.
Deleted User wrote: » Few people actually read posts these days. They just see what they want to see, make stupid assumptions and respond based on their broken interpretation.
floorpie wrote: » Nobody's saying any of those things, please read the thread properly
floorpie wrote: » I'm also hearing rumours of the same thing in my place.Will I be paid for the company's use of my facilities (room, equipment, electricity, heating etc)? Or is this essentially a permanent pay cut and worse conditions? I'm especially annoyed that it seems like they'll mandate a day or two in office a week. So not only will the employer get free use of my rented house, but I can't even move to a low cost area of the country. I'm very annoyed by the whole thing but it seems most people are in favour of WFH.
Flinty997 wrote: » Also life where I'm fromhttps://youtu.be/eS0ZBadNZ1I
Christy42 wrote: » The real question is why didn't they open office in India in the first place and do those reasons still apply. If they do there is little benefit to them exporting those jobs to India or elsewhere. As you say it was happening before and will likely to continue whether or not I work from home. Indeed modern wfh being mentioned here is largely hybrid which is hard to do from India.
missmelo wrote: » Not to scare you even more or anything but I heard, simply put if you can work from home why would they pay you a proper wage when they can outsource your work to India. So many are terrified of this happening.
floorpie wrote: » Funny, I would've assumed the same about Singapore :P It isn't a part of the office "uniform" in cities so essentially nobody wears them. Anyone can go to Google Images and type "salarymen Japan" or "Tokyo packed train", look at results pre-Covid, and see hundreds of people crammed into small spaces with zero masks. The norm in Japan for the non believers in the thread:https://img.kyodonews.net/english/public/images/posts/89486604bea564646800b306b36759ef/photo_l.jpghttps://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-9f83fbdd8eee1d5f222e7edf31160877.webp
oisinog wrote: » WFH is not making companies outsource to other countries the internet is, Its much easier to communicate now than it has ever been. Its been happening for years many companies had started to move their core contact centers back from Aisa to Ireland and the UK. I work for a company that outsources some of our work to India because our company lacked the skilled staff and we didnt have the skillsets in Ireland at that point. At the same time but we still have thousands of people working in Ireland.
Mango Joe wrote: » This thread is a very interesting example of people deciding on what suits them best & then throwing our any random nonsense at all to support and reinforce that view - no matter how ridiculous it may be.
Padre_Pio wrote: » Just got word today that work is downsizing their offices and the COVID work from home policy is going to be a near-permanent WHF policy. Basically, the new office will only have hot desks, maybe half as many as there are staff. Employees have to book a desk in advance if they need to come into the office, but your permanent desk is expected to be in your own home. There's uproar from certain people, but the response is basically put up and shut up. Personally, there's no mention of home working in my contract. I was looking forward to getting back into the office and I barely have the space for a desk where I'm living at the moment, never mind a full setup. Anyone have any experience of this? Places like Google and Facebook have said they're looking at similar policies. Any ideas how that went down with staff?
I love going to work because I have no friends, family or people who will listen to me endlessly ranting unless they're paid to sit essentially in captivity within earshot of my constant drivel.
Stark wrote: » Before covid there were laws that meant the employer had to ensure an employee had an ergonomic workspace at home before they were allowed WFH on a regular basis. Obviously all that got waived with pandemic emergency but I imagine that duty of care will return once the pandemic is over. I imagine for young employees living in shared rented accommodation, their at-home workspaces are far from meeting the ergonomic requirements. I imagine people will largely fall into two camps. Older workers with families living in the commuter belt who will probably appreciate the increased flexibility of WFH when it comes to school/creche runs, not having to commute etc. And the younger workers living in cramped accommodation closer to the city who will want to get out of the house and into an environment that's setup for working and opportunities to socialise.
Cyrus wrote: » yes and rightly or wrongly i would have assumed levels of mask wearing in japan would be higher than in other parts of asia but that could just be a bias that i picked up.
i think there is an element in more built up cities to wear them to protect from vehicle pollution as well.
KaneToad wrote: » My point (although cumbersome) was that those who want 100% WFH could be incentivised to not get vaccine. If the policy, suggested by a poster, was that if you are not vaccinated then you should stay WFH.
floorpie wrote: » I mirror what you're saying. Japan has a similar reputation for mask wearing but I've worked through Japan for extended periods and saw few masks in cities. Different surveys I see pre-COVID-19 show 10-30% wore them when not sick, mostly for fashion reasons or for pollen season. So, not as widespread as the rep and far from mandatory. Obviously I don't know about since the pandemic.
limnam wrote: » why would people WFH all the time not need a vaccine ? Can they not leave their house after work like everyone else?
Cyrus wrote: » yes but its not mandatory which is what the poster appeared to suggest. i am in singapore 2-3 times a year and you rarely see anyone in a mask.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/2ac2e9d82cba49584e6b3394d0993024.svg)
