Absolute rubbish, most people posting here have been wfh for the past 2 years or whatever it has been so know exactly how it works.
Personally i think a hybrid scenario is great, 3 days in and 2 days wfh, that way you maintain a central physical location where people can physically meet, can instill some sort of company culture and allow more junior people progress at an appropriate pace by learned from those around them.
I am not in favour of fully remote working and i think that most of those that are, are in only favour of it because it suits their own particular set of circumstances. Personally i would never take a job in a company that is fully remote working but i accept there are people posting here that would only consider that kind of arrangement.
Wfh home in lockdown or a pandemic is not true reflection of wfh works. Normally you'd be able to go into the office for meetings or training. Even of you were full time wfh.
We've had virtual training, e-learning for decades many places now have virtual onboarding. If
I'd wonder how many who claim to train new staff actually have formal training and mentoring programs internally. Staff development plans and progression planning.
Many places complaining about been unable to recruit skilled staff. Actually do no training. Most give it lip service. They just expect people to train themselves.
I suspect a much more basic cause: Younger workers are less likely to have the space for a decent home-office.
That's true but all the older workers were also in this position themselves, they also did not have a house of their own, they also did not have any knowledge of their job. They benefited from learning it all from their older peers at work.
It's interesting that the big facilitators of WFH the big tech companies do not want it in their own companies ,the majority of their staff are now back working on site since the restrictions were lifted a few weeks ago. In my own company the car parks are now full again. The only place WFH might persist for a while is in public sector land
the big tech companies are all doing WFH and hybrid permanently now. Google in Ireland is allowing 20% of its staff to wfh and the rest have hybrid options. Im in data & tech and we are hybrid permanently with some WFH permanently (and hardly anyone is coming in at all yet). And all large professional services firms will be a mix.
Where are you getting the idea that the big companies dont want it? Want it or no, they are offering flexible working ow long term
I suppose maybe because I work in an "essential service" but we did have blended options for training and meetings all throughout the last 2 years. Nobody had to attend in person if they didnt want to. So we had no interruption for any training etc
Personally I thought that even if training etc could only be done in person that would have proceeded anyway - people could always attend offices for essential work.
civil and public sector land -yes it is being rolled out but can vary widely dependent on individual managers. Hopefully once a more defined policy is in plan by the end of 2022 (locally in my own workplace and across civil and public sector).
Even before Covid almost every programmer we interviewed was looking for some WFH options.
But that was the only sector that was traditionally regarded as actually suited to WFH but even in that case younger workers would require several years of onsite training before they were suitable for this.
Software guys were also the first victims of offshoring aswell remember back in the tech crash of 2001. Because they didn't need to be in the office there jobs could also be easily outsourced to low cost locations like India. Although this is no longer the case because of the shortage of tech skills globally anyway. However other people looking to break the link with the office would want to watch their backs
Tech crash in 2001 was a stock market bubble and crash. Nothing to do with outsourcing.
Most "juniors" find it hard to break into IT because generally it only hires people with experience. They don't want to train.
Can we have one thread for the WFH people and one thread for the back to the office people.
Then once a week/month we can visit each others thread to catch up?
Jokes about WFH aren't remotely funny.
Can I spend two days posting in one and three days posting in the other?
That was actually quite funny….:.
On the days he's meant to be posting in wfh he'll actually be in after hours.
And this is just the financial cost, which pales in comparison to the time and stress costs
headline is a litte disingenuous if you read the article.
I did read the article. How is the headline disingenuous?
The headlines says it will cost workers (some, based on their calculations) 100 a week to return to the office.
Seems a lot, however when you read the article (based on their calculations also) wfh would cost the same worker 81 a week, the incremental cost then is 19 euro, not the headline 100 euro:
A worker in Dublin who travels to work by Luas over five to eight zones will spend an average of €101 on public transport, coffee, lunches and clothing.
In contrast, a worker able to operate remotely from home faces an average cost of €81, even allowing for three lunches each week eaten out, home heating costs and an allowance for clothing.
But that €81 is if you go out for lunch when wfh, which I don't think people generally do?
whereas the €100 spend is guaranteed.
not all of it is guaranteed, they are including clothing allowances etc, someone travelling to work could bring their lunch if they want, i didnt quote the article nor frame the calculations, i just said the headline is disingenuous , which it is.
I don't agree tbh, but that's okay.
Also, time and stress savings are not included.
What dont you agree with, that the headline is disingenuous? so do you think someone reading the headline would think:
a) wow itll cost an extra 100 a week to go back to the office or
b) i bet that the actual figure contained in the article is 80% lower than that
We had a subsidized canteen and parking. Both are mostly gone.
Have to rethink the transport option. Might end up on an illegal eScooter yet. :)
Time & stress are hard to quantify and could apply equally to both scenarios. People WFH might find working with small children in the house just as stressful as others find working with the children in their offices 😊 People with a short commute might not find going back to the office is as stressful as others find their arduous commute.
Would be interested to know, is anyone here who employs people having an issue with remote work? Our productivity is up quite a bit, tasks are definitely completed much quicker, and I put it down to people being more focused when they're alone.
Oh of course, but clearly *on average*, the time and cost of commuting time is much greater than that of WFH.
sorry meant to quote this: Oh of course, but clearly *on average*, the time and cost of commuting is much greater than that of WFH.
Well in my own circumstances we have been informed that from next month it is 2 days a week in the office so my outgoings will increase by 45 euro a week when I factor in commuting costs (public transport). As it is only 2 days a week I wont get the benefit of a taxsaver pass unless a new scheme is brought out or even something like a 10 journey ticket that can be used over a month (rather then the current 7 days). Its not a massive amount in the scheme of things but if we are asked to do 3 days in the office later in the year those costs will obviously raise. Definitely putting my name down to transfer offices to nearer where I live.
sure and everyone will have their own story, i was just commenting on that particular article that was quoted.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/07abd39dc4f0afde3c391afc78cc920e.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e050b53be62f0ae2404c620976170938.svg)
