I thought it was begrudgery 101
Is this the thread for how you can make your cushy number even cushier?
The reason why I'm not calling for paltry tax relief to be improved is that I don't want to be getting 20% or 40% of my WFH costs back. That's how tax relief works. I want my employer to pay the additional out of pocket costs for me and other employees, specifically heating, power, broadband and furniture.
There's nothing wrong with businesses making profits. I'm not anti-business or anti-profit. I'm anti businesses exploiting their employees and making a land grab for space and utilities in their employee's property at zero cost, fuelling windfall profits at their employee's expense.
You know nothing about what I have or haven't done to get back my WFH costs from my employer, so anything you say on this topic is pure speculation.
They do. It's called your salary.
From my experience, those with kids are the ones mainly pushing to get back to the office, not the other way around.
If the civil service wants to give me an allowance for having to be in the office 5 days a week, I would be open to that :)
You don't give a toss about the employee's out of pocket WFH costs. If you were, you'd be calling for the paltry tax reliefs from Revenue to be vastly improved. Why are you not calling for the expenses to be reclaimable (in full, with receipts) through the tax system? Worried that the costs of this would have an impact on your own potential earnings in future?
What's wrong with business making a profit and making savings? Are you just as opposed to other measures helping business such as reductions in insurance claims? Business owners have a legal responsibility to ensure their business is run in a sustainable way. Making profits is what makes a business viable. Its speaks volume of our civil servants to see some are so anti-business.
So despite all your blow for the past year+ about having to pay WFH costs, you did not even ask to have yours reimbursed!! For the past 18 months, you subserviently paid your own WFH costs and for the years before that you paid all your own commuting costs. Seems you're not quite as persistent and bullish in real life as your posts here demanding this and demanding that suggest.
I'd have serious reservations about the motives of those with young children and their desire to work from home.
Creche cost gone.
Work effectiveness gone.
You've identified what I can see will be the biggest sticking point in forming a CS wide policy (due Q1 2022) and I can understand why, in fairness.
Depending on what department/office someone finds themselves assigned too could really impact on someone's opportunity to WFH or not. We already know that some locations are much less flexible then others, less work-sharing friendly, staff can't get SWYS approved, and so on. In those places, WFH will be the same. That will trickle down eventually to the numbers of staff who will want to transfer from, or take up appointments / transfers to, these less flexible departments. (Particularly amongst new recruits or current staff awaiting mobility for whom WFH is a consideration).
In my own Department, (which is very flexi / WS / SWYS / WFH friendly) we've been asked to go back in 1 day a week from the 27th. WFO days will be strictly managed so only one section or team will be in at the same time, which will allow the staff to distance themselves widely over the open plan spaces. We already have department issued laptops and no one will have an assigned desk going forward (we've already been told that). Single occupancy offices will also no longer be guaranteed (which is going to piss some people off big time!)
Having said that, I still believe a full unrestricted 5 day return to offices won't happen until sometime next year - not with the unavoidable surge we all know is going to happen arrives this winter.
If anything, I can see an announcement at the end Sept/Oct maybe it's not such a good idea after all. (But TPTB have to be seen to be trying).
I've no idea which bits you are struggling to understand. Let me repeat again:
I don't expect my employer to pay my commuting costs. My employer has NEVER paid my commuting costs or anyone else's commuting costs. Commuting costs are the responsibility of the employee, and therefore savings in commuting costs are ALSO the benefit of the employee.
It's a preposterous idea that you could have three employees working on a team, one of whom is getting zero towards their out-of-pocket WFH costs because they used to walk or cycle to work, one of whom is getting €4 a day towards their out-of-pocket WFH costs because they used to get the Luas to work, and one of whom is getting €40 per day towards their out-of-pocket WFH costs because they used to drive from Roscommon to Dublin every day.
Commuting costs are the responsibility of the employee. Savings in commuting costs are the responsibility of the employee.
Out-of-pocket WFH costs like heating, power, broadband, furniture absolutely should be the responsibility of the employer, just like any other out of pocket costs necessarily during employment. Employment starts when you get to the door of your workplace. It doesn't include your commute.
Employees and trade unions have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that savings in office accommodation costs aren't entirely snapped up by employers as additional profits, while employees are left carrying the can for providing extra space, power, heat, networking and furniture.
Oh, so you were happy enough to pay your costs of getting to work. Then those employees who are making substantial savings in not commuting can afford to pay for the extra light and heat.
That way both the employees and the employer can benefit if wfh becomes the normal.
I still find it strange that you are not as persistent in real life that your employer pay your commuting costs.
What did they say when you persistently asked them to cover your wfh costs?
Do you need someone to explain to the difference between commuting costs and basic office provision costs for you? Employees were always responsible for their own commute - employer didn't care whether you were walking five minutes round the corner or driving for 2.5 hours from Roscommon. It was the employee's problem. Employer was always responsible for providing a safe work environment, appropriate furniture, heating the environment and powering the environment. That's the difference with WFH.
Employees have one chance to make sure that they're not lumbered with the basic costs of providing a safe place to work.
Which department is that.
The opw got a lot wrong with Miesian but they weren't the only ones who got thing wrong.
I assume by @AndrewJRenko's refusal to answer this means he is not getting reimbursed for his commuting costs. In fact, I'd say he did not even ask for his years of commuting expenses to be reimbursed. So for the past year, he has been posting like the Internet hard man stating the employer should cover the employee costs WFH. But of course in real life, he will not ask his own costs of getting to work be covered.
I think the issue with Miesian Plaza was that OPW mis-measured the floor space and have ended up overpaying rent as a result. In light of that I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in the "experts" at the OPW to save us money in the long term.
Health was at capacity when they moved in and were still 150 under resourced
wow
AFAIK departments in Miesian have hired far beyond the capacity of Miesian since lockdown, so they're already saving money regardless of long term contracts
Would imagine this would apply - if you voluntarily choose WFH, I don't see how you can complain about extra home expenses, as you could work from the office instead and avoid them. Can't have it both ways.
It's a different story if you are asked/required to WFH though imo.
This seems like a real bone of contention to you. I can only assume you were just as persistent in asking your own employer to cover the costs of your commute. You'll have expenses with the purchase of your bicycle, lock, maintence, chain oil, tyres, brakes, lights, batteries, clothing, bag, repairs, etc.
Do let us know how much your employer had reimbursed you for these costs.
What was their response when you asked?
A large employer in the west has said they are going to have office space available and you can come to office or wfh, but if you choose wfh it will be a defined agreement, it won't be a case you can just decide to come in whenever you want, but if you make the choice to wfh its your choice and you are responsible for all related expenses, I would assume many more would do the same.
Exactly, I think we will be disappointed if we expect the OPW to save us some money on office space.
Miesian Plaza spring's to mind.
I would be amazed if there is any cost savings in the public sector when everything is taken into account. There will be increased hardware costs, claims from employees such as yourself that heating/electricity/broadband should be paid for, probably also additional payment for those who due to the nature of their work can't work from home etc etc.
I didn't say it would be easy, and I didn't say it would be quick - but it will happen. Large employers, like the public service, will have a wide range of lease agreements, some of which will be expiring imminently. As soon as a policy decision for remote working is made for the public service, OPW will start to wind down capacity. The full impact of this will take years to be seen, but benefits will start accruing reasonably quickly. For smaller employers, it may be a more bumpy road, with benefits arising in a small number of large transactions or changes - but benefits will absolutely arise for any employer that currently has large office spaces leased.
They may have a 10 year lease on the office though. It isn't as easy as you think.
They're not to keep the same level of office space when there is a formal scheme for WFH, they will be reducing it significantly. My current office is about 20% oversubscribed at present, as a result of recruitment and reallocations since Covid hit.
They aren't making savings though are they? They have office space and it costs the same to run it regardless of whether 20% of people are WFH or not.
It won't be 'down the line'. If employees are expected to pay for heating and power costs, employers (public and private) need to be prepared to allocate a small part of the substantial savings they will make on office accommodation costs to pay for these utilities.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/7a1d0f49d56f52d3cfb2145c5b8cbe5a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d5a8197d7274f92eab37915a6d9f12a1.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0e54e8024b002427df3ce2953d22b721.svg)
