Working From Home Megathread

You (or your HR experts) are making one specific interpretation of H&S and employment legislation that has no basis in case law or WRC cases. It is bizarre to suggest that signing off on ergonomics in an office requires specialised skills whereas signing off on ergonomics in a home office can be done by anyone.

There is a very significant risk that cheaping out on home office setups will come back to bite employers in the ass, as suggested by Richard Grogan.

The holiday is over, you can always leave your job there is plenty willing and able to work in an office, you can get a wfh job somewhere else

And thats the most likely way it will play out, pay difference for fully remote v office based, they may be doing the same job but with that key distinction.

If you are fully remote then it makes sense to live in a lower cost area.

I agree this might be the case in 10 years, but it throws up serious issues. For example, thought and energy will be needed into how we continue to attract young people into certain professions like teaching, healthcare etc when those come with a level of certainty that you will be stuck in one spot. Ultimately, a young educated person today is going to look around and see the distinct advantage of career paths that will allow them flexibility — the ability to build your career while also working from different locations abroad. That’s an appealing prospect for your 20’s. Those who don’t have the flexibility will simply have to be physically present in one location and be restricted in terms of where they want to live. Suddenly you have a new large distinction in society between those who can work and live wherever they want and those who cannot.

That then throws up the question of people in physically-present jobs working and living in, say, Dublin while a large strata of society earning huge wages in tech, finance, law etc can avail of cheaper property outside of cities.

As you say, it seems clear what way the future is heading when it comes to remote working, but vision and thought are required to ensure that this future is fair.

What is the exact law please?

Unless you're discriminating on one of nine specific factors (age, gender, sex, motc, etc), or paying less to agency workers than direct employees, then you can pay whatever you want AFAIK.

We are going to start back in this month and our salary reviews are next month. Initially I would have been happy with a minimum 5% increase for the inflation experienced the last year, but now I'll have petrol costs and 3 lost hours per day (2 hours commuting and 1 hour for lunch where I'd be able to accomplish things around the house) so I am requesting a minimum of 10% - my LinkedIn inbox tells me that this is something which I will be able to achieve in any event without my current company meeting the demands.

What it means is that there is actually a premium payable for office-attending workers. They will expect more cash to cover commuting costs (both lost time and transport) as well as office rent to be paid for having someone in the office. So I disagree that reducing salaries for those living away from the office makes sense, the way it actually turns out is that it costs more to have someone physically attend an office.

As your quote says,

The legislation defines discrimination as treating one person in a less favourable way than another person. There are 9 grounds for discrimination, 

The lad sitting next to you can, and often is, paid more because he's a better negotiator, or better looking, ot taller. Anything except the naughty nine.

Once again, you're interpreting law there with no real basis. There is no distinction between 'forced' WFH or optional WFH in H&S and employment law.

Well said. There are so many costs involved in returning to an office. Monetary and non monetary. Employees are no longer willing to pay those costs and even old fashioned employers will recognise the benefits of WFH.

Ah now, Andrews reason is pretty clear. He has to give up space in his house for his employer, which is a perfectly fine argument towards Andrew not wanting to WFH.

That being said, considering no one else who WANTS to WFH ever brings that up as a point, Andrew should really lay off saying it.

The right to request remote work legislation is basically useless - it's almost comical how legislation that slimy Varadkar claims will encourage remote work, contains 13 reasons why it may be refused. With many of those reasons catch alls/open to interpretation. Music to the ears of an employer who doesn't want to offer remote work.

I don't believe that anyone who is refused WFH will go to the WRC based on that legislation as the employer will have up to 13 potential reasons in its favour and you can bet that they will take full advantage of them. The employee will lose, back to the office they go where they will be targeted/bullied or "managed out" for daring to challenge their employer.

Lots of talk in this forum about how people who are refused WFH will walk and have a new job straightaway. That may be the case in IT/software etc. But it's far from the case in every sector. Also, in the public sector, some employers will be delighted if staff leave even if those staff are high performers who are not replaced and service delivery suffers. Staff don't matter and the customer doesn't matter. What matters is the fat pensions of senior staff which they will get no matter what happens. This is probably part of an outsourcing agenda.

As for the labour market generally, when we hear of labour shortages and employers "crying out" for workers and blaming the PUP etc. there is always spin and manipulation involved i.e. there is a shortage of workers - experienced ones willing to work for peanuts.

from reading thread that would be an accurate reflection of a lot of the posters sentiments.

That is exactly what they want.

Along with not letting an employer force you to work from home ( which some employers, eg user Sunny Disposition) are doing already.