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; } } }

Remote working - the future?

Young_gunner

Hello everybody

Just wondering what everyone's employer is doing now in relation to future working arrangements (assuming you can wfh).

the Whitaker poll from NUI Galway showed almost one third of all time want to work remotely 100% of the time.

Personally, having wfh'd since March 2020, I have seen the huge benefits of no stressful commutes - more productive, more time with family, just happier!
That said, I am a home owner with a small office space (but does the trick) and have reliable broadband.

I am not sure I can ever see myself commuting again.

What are people's general thoughts on this? I believe many offices may have pressure from Senior Execs to get people back in the office.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

C3PO

I think most office workers will return to the office on some sort of hybrid model - 3 and 2 most likely. Some workers will be allowed to work remotely full time but my guess is that will be the minority

dashoonage

Mrs O Bumble......assemble!!!!!

Jim2007

C3PO wrote: »

I think most office workers will return to the office on some sort of hybrid model - 3 and 2 most likely. Some workers will be allowed to work remotely full time but my guess is that will be the minority

Hybrid models don't provide sufficient savings, they are just a transition stage.

fits

Remote working doesn’t work for younger people in house shares who need to learn from more senior people

That said I would be happy to work remotely three to four days a week. It suits me and my family well.

Young_gunner

I don't even see the logic of a forced hybrid model. I think anyone who is able to carry their role out competently at home, without any impact on productivity, should be allowed to continue to do so. that's perfectly fair!

timmyntc

Hybrids are probably intended for training purposes. Much easier to train new hires in person - also newer staff will work better in an office with others in general. Easier to ask for help or get demonstrations with small things.

It's the mid to senior staff who would benefit most and indeed want most to work from home.

C3PO

Jim2007 wrote: »

Hybrid models don't provide sufficient savings, they are just a transition stage.

I don’t agree - we will be implementing a hybrid model to facilitate employees rather than as a money saving initiative. However there is a strong belief that office attendance on a regular basis is also optimal for most roles. Thus we will be implementing a hybrid model.

C3PO

Young_gunner wrote: »

I don't even see the logic of a forced hybrid model. I think anyone who is able to carry their role out competently at home, without any impact on productivity, should be allowed to continue to do so. that's perfectly fair!

Frankly I think that’s wishful thinking, my guess is that most companies will insist that people attend the office at least a couple of days a week.

Young_gunner

C3PO wrote: »

Frankly I think that’s wishful thinking, my guess is that most companies will insist that people attend the office at least a couple of days a week.

but why insist when it is unnecessary? if productivity has decreased when working at home, then fine. but, in general, it hasn't.

what's the rationale for forcing people who would rather spend time working than commuting to commute?

Jim2007

C3PO wrote: »

Frankly I think that’s wishful thinking, my guess is that most companies will insist that people attend the office at least a couple of days a week.

Why, how will you justify the costs of bring people into the office for no good reason?

It will be gone in one of the first cost cutting exercises.

Young_gunner

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why, how will you justify the costs of bring people into the office for no good reason?

It will be gone in one of the first cost cutting exercises.

Exactly, how can you justify to employees that sitting in traffic for 2 hours a day is a good use of their time? you would have a very disgruntled workforce on your hands very soon.

C3PO

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why, how will you justify the costs of bring people into the office for no good reason?

It will be gone in one of the first cost cutting exercises.

Don’t shoot the messenger!
I am the Facilities Manager for a Financial Institution and the senior and middle managers strongly believe that people working permanently remotely has serious issues for the company. But they also understand that staff members appreciate the choice and therefore we will be introducing a hybrid model. Over the last couple of weeks there have been many similar announcements from other much bigger companies than ours - JP Morgan and Google to name just two.
In terms of costs, currently we don’t envisage immediately cutting space but a “hot-desk” solution is possible eventually!

Young_gunner

C3PO wrote: »

Don’t shoot the messenger!
I am the Facilities Manager for a Financial Institution and the senior and middle managers strongly believe that people working permanently remotely has serious issues for the company. But they also understand that staff members appreciate the choice and therefore we will be introducing a hybrid model. Over the last couple of weeks there have been many similar announcements from other much bigger companies than ours - JP Morgan and Google to name just two.
In terms of costs, currently we don’t envisage immediately cutting space but a “hot-desk” solution is possible eventually!

This “strong belief” of middle managers is entirely without foundation!

C3PO

Young_gunner wrote: »

This “strong belief” of middle managers is entirely without foundation!

Tell that to Google and JP Morgan!

Sonic the Shaghog

Jim2007 wrote: »

Why, how will you justify the costs of bring people into the office for no good reason?

It will be gone in one of the first cost cutting exercises.

How will you justify paying Irish wages for a role that has no good reason to be in an office therefore being cheaper to outsource to Eastern Europe if it can be now be seen to be done remotely?

SeaFields

I just want to go back into the office full time. The novelty has worn off and I find it hard to switch off when work is also home. I've a short commute tho and some colleagues have said a few days without their long commute would be very welcome

C3PO

SeaFields wrote: »

I just want to go back into the office full time. The novelty has worn off and I find it hard to switch off when work is also home. I've a short commute tho and some colleagues have said a few days without their long commute would be very welcome

We are having a similar reaction from many of our staff, particularly the younger ones who tend to live in house shares and apartments.

Young_gunner

C3PO wrote: »

Tell that to Google and JP Morgan!

Their staff will tell them! Or they’ll move to Twitter / Salesforce!

[Deleted User]

Sonic the Shaghog wrote: »

How will you justify paying Irish wages for a role that has no good reason to be in an office therefore being cheaper to outsource to Eastern Europe if it can be now be seen to be done remotely?

If your presence at a desk in an office is the only protecting your role, it was never safe in the first place

C3PO

Young_gunner wrote: »

Their staff will tell them! Or they’ll move to Twitter / Salesforce!

I think you’re wrong - I believe that most people will want to work a hybrid model. This is certainly the result of an anonymous survey we ran this week. But time will tell I guess.

hello2020

Young_gunner wrote: »

This “strong belief” of middle managers is entirely without foundation!

Managers are afraid of losing their jobs in remote work environment as everyone can see they hardly produce anything but consume lots of project cost..
In office setup , managers feel superior but on Team's seniority feel is lost..

Antares35

Company confirmed yesterday that we will be able to choose between 0-5 days in office, subject to requirement to be physically present for e.g. meetings with externals etc. Delighted, because we'd been stalling our house hunting until we knew for sure what kind of commute/ model we'd be looking at. Fiance's company committed to a 60:40 hybrid a while ago.

For us, there have been so many benefits.

1. As soon as the office closed in March 2020, I was up about 500 a month on petrol and pet sitter savings alone.
2. Then there's the removal of the commute - pre covid I was sitting in traffic for the equivalent of 1.5 working days per week. This has improved my mood, energy levels and general output.
3. In terms of childcare, we can arrange this for core hours that we are unavailable, as opposed to having to bookend either end of our day with a run to and from the crèche with a tired and grumpy child (soon to be two) in the back of the car.
4. My productivity has increased because I have time and space to focus on my work and I'm not constantly interrupted by the office chatterbox who talks at me for hours on end. Interestingly, she is the one most interested in getting us all back in full time!
5. The general flexibility that WFH has meant for me - if I need to go for an appointment etc. I just go. Similarly, if I have a deadline for Monday I don't mind slicing off a few hours of my Sunday to get it over the line. Though I appreciate this requires a flexible boss and depends on the nature of the job, but for us it has worked very well both ways.

Edit to say I have some friends in the office that I miss dearly, and as soon as we are vaccinated and the baby arrives safe, I'll be meeting up with them again for lunch etc. This has probably been one of the few downsides for me, but in itself wouldn't be reason enough to go back.

Also find sometimes things take a little longer to chase, because you can't just ask someone to their face for a document, and there are some people who seem to be slower to provide stuff when it's requested on email. But overall not a big deal breaker for me.

Young_gunner

C3PO wrote: »

I think you’re wrong - I believe that most people will want to work a hybrid model. This is certainly the result of an anonymous survey we ran this week. But time will tell I guess.

The study carried out by the Whitaker institute in NUI Galway showed 32% of staff want to work full time remotely - if anyone wants to be hybrid fire away but people who want to wfh shouldn’t be forced to o come back in

Young_gunner

Antares35 wrote: »

Company confirmed yesterday that we will be able to choose between 0-5 days in office, subject to requirement to be physically present for e.g. meetings with externals etc. Delighted, because we'd been stalling our house hunting until we knew for sure what kind of commute/ model we'd be looking at. Fiance's company committed to a 60:40 hybrid a while ago.

For us, there have been so many benefits.

1. As soon as the office closed in March 2020, I was up about 500 a month on petrol and pet sitter savings alone.
2. Then there's the removal of the commute - pre covid I was sitting in traffic for the equivalent of 1.5 working days per week. This has improved my mood, energy levels and general output.
3. In terms of childcare, we can arrange this for core hours that we are unavailable, as opposed to having to bookend either end of our day with a run to and from the crèche with a tired and grumpy child (soon to be two) in the back of the car.
4. My productivity has increased because I have time and space to focus on my work and I'm not constantly interrupted by the office chatterbox who talks at me for hours on end. Interestingly, she is the one most interested in getting us all back in full time!
5. The general flexibility that WFH has meant for me - if I need to go for an appointment etc. I just go. Similarly, if I have a deadline for Monday I don't mind slicing off a few hours of my Sunday to get it over the line. Though I appreciate this requires a flexible boss and depends on the nature of the job, but for us it has worked very well both ways.

1000% agree with all of this

C3PO

Young_gunner wrote: »

The study carried out by the Whitaker institute in NUI Galway showed 32% of staff want to work full time remotely - if anyone wants to be hybrid fire away but people who want to wfh shouldn’t be forced to o come back in

People will be free to choose for whom they work and vice versa!

Young_gunner

C3PO wrote: »

People will be free to choose for whom they work and vice versa!

Yes fair enough but still, nobody can say what the benefit of forcing staff to commute again is when there’s been no drop in productivity??

[Deleted User]

Young_gunner wrote: »

Yes fair enough but still, nobody can say what the benefit of forcing staff to commute again is when there’s been no drop in productivity??

There is none, but there is a "belief" or "perception" that its better, especially among middle mgmt

Of course, some will trot out buzz words to justify a full-time return to the office like "collaboration & culture" but its been shown over the last year that collaboration can be done just as well online (its been done that way for nearly a decade for a lot of companies) and as for culture, I'll get mine at the local arts festival

caviardreams

Young_gunner wrote: »

Yes fair enough but still, nobody can say what the benefit of forcing staff to commute again is when there’s been no drop in productivity??

One individual's productivity can't be looked at in isolation - somebody WFH full time may result in less knowledge transfer and reduce productivity of other colleagues for example. It could have knock on effects in terms of culture and values and team spirit which may affect some colleagues more than others.

Also, how do you measure productivity when there is a significant relationship building component - meeting a client every month virtually may not build the same trust as face to face though in terms of contact time they may be recorded as the same, and productivity therefore measured as the same, but the impact may not be.

I really think 1-2 days on-site working brings benefits that some may not want to admit.

[Deleted User]

Only took one post for the buzz words to appear :pac::pac::pac:

Young_gunner

caviardreams wrote: »

One individual's productivity can't be looked at in isolation - somebody WFH full time may result in less knowledge transfer and reduce productivity of other colleagues for example. It could have knock on effects in terms of culture and values and team spirit which may affect some colleagues more than others.

Also, how do you measure productivity when there is a significant relationship building component - meeting a client every month virtually may not build the same trust as face to face though in terms of contact time they may be recorded as the same, and productivity therefore measured as the same, but the impact may not be.

I really think 1-2 days on-site working brings benefits that some may not want to admit.

all this is so spurious. relationships with work colleagues can be built perfectly fine online these days.

i'm far more concerned with building a relationship with my 1 year old daughter who i get to see every day now.

Work is work. and i'll work hard but i'm not gonna sit on a Dart for 2.5 hours a day for no reason.