Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Being forced to move back to dublin to work from the office 4 out of 5 days.

2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭global23214124


    My job has quite good benefits so I'm trying to wriggle out of 4 days a week in the office as I thought it might be easier.

    I've been renting down the country and I'm in the 30-40 age range.



  • Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭global23214124


    They have continued to pay the salary though and I don't think its outrageous given that the goalposts have moved in terms of there is now a culture of working from home. I'm a fairly skilled worker and It would take a few months to train someone in to do what I do so I'm hoping I might get a bit of wiggle room if I put up a fuss. I know I'm not indispensable though so I'll keep looking elsewhere too.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,186 ✭✭✭Vestiapx


    Would you take a pay cut to be allowed wht days a week? the rent savings would make it possaible i imagine.



  • Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭global23214124




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,308 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    This nonsense again? Plenty of places have full WFH and more have majority WFH and lots of people get promoted from those availing of WFH. Productivity is easily enough measured for those working on site, in office or from home in most jobs

    This has nothing to do with the OP’s issue though. If your company is requesting you to be in an office, your choices are to be in the office, or leave the job.



  • Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭global23214124


    Can I ask what kind of industry this would be in? Just curious. I work in technology so it would be easy to higher people I guess. We've had a couple of layoffs in another country but its very minimal compared to the likes of facebook and stripe for example.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭kowloonkev


    If you're not going to the office and your colleagues are, then definitely, without a doubt you have less chance of advancement. You can call it nonsense to comfort yourself all you want, but being socially available and outgoing is more important when it comes to getting higher level positions. You can quietly do your job at home and hit all your targets, but ultimately unless you are irreplaceable (vast majority of people are replaceable) then they're not going to promote you if you opt to stay home because it just looks bad. They'll think you are good at the kind of job that doesn't require in-person interaction, which doesn't apply to high level positions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,308 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    That’s not what you said though. You said you’d be worried if your company told you you could WFH permanently. I’m saying plenty of people do, and it does not effect their status in the company

    Of course every company is different but a blanket “you won’t get promoted if you WFH” isn’t true. It may well be true in your place and in the OP’s place but it’s up to everyone to suss out their own company’s culture there

    It’s immaterial in this case as the company want them in office and, IMO, that’s that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,202 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack



    But who am I only a line manager and professional in a firm of specialist consultants, who have spent the last 18 months considering the implications of longer term 'working from home' and greater demand from our people for precisely that.


    There’s no need for that. For instance, I’m Batman, and this is the Internet, where anyone can claim to be whomever and whatever they want, it’s irrelevant and doesn’t make their argument.

    That being said…



    Family friendly policies have to be for everyone, no matter what there status is. Otherwise it is discrimination. The source who have suggested it is discrimination is the irish legislation, namely the Employment Equality Acts 1998-2015. A person is said to be discriminated against if they are treated less favourably than another is, has been or would be treated in a comparable situation on any of the nine grounds. Family status is one of the nine grounds.


    It’s not quite so clear cut as that either. Certainly it’s discrimination, but whether the policy amounts to unlawful discrimination (be it either direct or indirect discrimination), is what matters. The employer should be able to demonstrate the legitimate aim of the policy, and the Acts permit positive action. The OP is not at any disadvantage because of their family status, they are at a disadvantage because of their proximity to their workplace. They are not being treated unfairly as all employees are subject to the same conditions, and those employees with children are not being treated unfairly either. That’s notwithstanding the fact that the OP doesn’t have children who they are responsible for, and other employees do, so their circumstances aren’t similar on the family status grounds either.

    The last thing I’d recommend doing in the OP’s circumstances is to go claiming they are the victim of unlawful discrimination by their employer, and instead would suggest they sit down with their manager and try and work out a more reasonable and amicable solution. It’s a tough spot to be in, but there’s no need to make matters worse by being antagonistic towards their current employer.



  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I would disagree with this, WFH is here to stay in one form or another and no company is going to discriminate on the basis that someone has children. The role can either be done from home or not and the employer will determine how much of that will be done remotely.

    I have heard a few stories like the OP’s now, people packed up and headed down the country and thought they would wfh forever. It was always likely that most employers would want people back more and more as we got back to normality, if you get to work at home 2/3 days a week in general terms you’re probably doing ok overall



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 5,014 Mod ✭✭✭✭GoldFour4


    I think this is the crux of it really.

    We have similar in my place where people have to come in a day a week and maybe 2 the odd week depending on needs. Some team members have not been coming in and think they’re getting away with it because there’s no formal roll call. It’s very much noticed though and there is talk of changes to the policy because of it.

    Could imagine Op is in a similar situation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 69 ✭✭sunshine2018


    What awful policies ! Forgetting about the legal aspects this is just bad practice from a trust, culture and engagement perspective. Just because someone has kids doesn’t mean they need extra support from their employer - they might have parents or family who are happy to help out. The converse is true - those with no kids might have other commitments - caring for elderly relatives, volunteering, a hobby they love - having polices like the one you have mentioned just creates division and a sense of resentment towards those with families. Having to layout exactly why you need it and justify it via providing details seems bizarre to me also. Companies should have ‘people’ polices not just ones for particular groups.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,297 ✭✭✭walterking


    So the company wanted people to come in for at least one day a week.


    You and others ignored that extremely reasonable request.


    They are now taking a stricter line, most likely due to the non adhering to the previous policy.


    The issue seems to be in the mirror.



  • Registered Users Posts: 54 ✭✭sura28


    Can you raise a grievance and claim Working from home has become Custom and Practice? This may be an option.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Happening in a lot of places certainly.

    Pity they don't spend as much time on productivity metrics as they do on presenteesim.

    But you have to work with the system you're given.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Says it all when productivity and performance is seen as in last place to presenteesim and schmoozing.

    Certainly that's the way in many places.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Have to agree though with others though that if the corporate will is to get people back on the office playing the discrimination card will not a be a good long term play.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,570 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    Ultimately it's a contractual issue. If the contract states a work from home option, then that's what it is.

    Also even if this is not the case, I would try the approach that during the pandemic and during your period when you were working from home the cost of renting went through the rough in Dublin to a degree that a return to work from the Dublin office is no longer financially feasible. Also a daily commute is not financially feasible as petrol prices also went up due to the war in the Ukraine. You might also claim medical issues, a very weak immune system and Covid vaccines not responding to you personally thus you're still afraid of catching Covid and being more affected than your colleagues. This might all work in your favour if your annual performance reviews have been excellent as they might not want to part with a good employee.

    I'd give this at least a try.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭Citrus_8


    Positive discrimination is not illegal, only the negative discrimination is. Don't be jealous ;) In your case, it doesn't effect you that someone else in the company can work home more days. That's none of your business and just the heads up that you shouldn't discuss it with anyone within the company as it's unethical. Your work place is as stated in the contract. If you don't agree with that, you should consider changing the employer to something closer to your home place, or move closer to your work 😉



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,083 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    You don't know that the employers aren't measuring productivity.

    My workplace now has some very interesting statistics about how often cases are worked, and average gain from a days work in vs out of the office. You might be surprised and disappointed by the findings. They probably aren't going to insist on more WFO for now, due to hiring challenges. But it will be on the agenda at some point.

    Post edited by Mrs OBumble on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Obsessively focused on things that have nothing to do with productivity says all you need to know.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,434 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    That's a very broad interpretation of the positive actions permitted under Irish law. The provisions in the Acts are very specific and wouldn't apply to this kind of scenario;

    In restricting WFH to those with kids, the employer would be on fairly dodgy ground. At a minimum, they would need to show that without this measure, they're having particular difficulties retaining staff with kids in these roles, over and above any broad market retention issues.

    The employer is on dodgy ground here. The employee should consult with their trade union first.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭Citrus_8


    Trade unions are bad for our economy. Employees should work more and complain less. If an employer expects the employees to work in office, so that's what they should do, but instead they are being nosy and gossiping around about who has exceptions, even though it has nothing to do with them directly. If they don't like the request, it's time to look for another job.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,434 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Trade unions are bad for employers who like to throw their weight around in ignorance of the law. They are having a resurgence in the States, where even Starbucks are recognising unions and making agreements for staff.

    Any individual employee has very little opportunity to challenge a flawed policy like this. A trade union representing staff will carry much more weight in any discussions. The employer will realise that it's not going to end well for them, when the law isn't on their side.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    If the union gets the employees access to better terms and conditions it has everything to do with them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,308 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Trade unions are essential for an economy. The economy isn’t based on profits for companies, it’s based on money spent by workers

    And trade unions have nothing to do with this issue fwiw. In fact employees who work with trade unions will have iron clad “back to office”’ policies so there can be no issues



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭Citrus_8


    That's true and appreciated. But it's way too often when I see unions being too greedy in regards to wanting more weight and power. It has to be a healthy balance. I have little respect to unions as they make feel employees immune from being let go, even if it would themselves at fault of something... This makes a company which should focus to making business, partly a social club trying to accommodate everyone and being way too cautious about everyone's feelings trying to keep relationships between the employees and the employer good. This makes employees lazy and too sensitive, instead of focusing to work, efficiency and improvement.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,165 ✭✭✭Citrus_8




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,434 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Does this actually happen, or are we talking about 1980s stereotypes from UK sitcoms? I'm not aware of any situations were unions have developed an immunity for staff from being fired. What kinds of organisations do you this happening in?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    The irony is it's usually a companies greed and abuse of it's own power (and bad habits) that attracts it's staff into unions.

    At this point any company that has remote workers should have a remote working policy in place, that will stand up to legal scrutiny.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,083 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    Ha, ha. I've you'd ever done any actual productivity measurement you'd know that it's far from simple.

    The company has developed a KPI which gives credit for correctly working out leads/cases that will never show a profit and closing them fast, and credit for effectively resolving the very profitable ones, even though they can have some big legislative delays which look unproductive. They believe it's the best performance measure they've ever had . I don't really understand all the calculations behind it - and neither do the case-handlers, which is causing some problems in applying it.

    Ironically, they've also found that % of assigned cases with an update each day gives a close-enough proxy for the fancy KPI. This is absolutely activity, not productivity - but it's quick to calculate, and transparent Leads to some interesting discussions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    None of that has anything to do with the comment I replied to. Which was being in the office and being seen was more important than hitting all the performance metrics.




  • Registered Users Posts: 4,994 ✭✭✭c.p.w.g.w


    I know a place that have enforced working from the office, a group of them got together and all of a sudden productivity took a nose dive, but on the odd days folks were permitted to work from home they were like 200% more productive...so now it's between 2-5 days a month in the office for the majority...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    I think regardless of any productivity data it will come down to what management want and what's in your contact.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,206 ✭✭✭witchgirl26


    OP how often did you do the 1 day a week in the office or did you ignore it completely since it was brought in? We have a specific day they want everyone in on as it's easier to do any group meetings & to try to get some company culture back after so long with everyone remote. There's a recognition that that day isn't always possible for everyone (I do meetings in other offices for example so won't always be able to be in my home office), however they want you there more than not. At first it was only that day that you had to come in but now we have a 3 in the office, 2 at home policy. Some have negotiated other arrangements with their managers but that is on an ad hoc basis if their managers are willing.

    Look it was a gamble to move so far away from your office in the hope you could work permanent from home but realistically you should have maybe had that conversation with management before this came in. There's someone in my Dublin office who moved a good distance away during Covid (back to family area with their own family) but at the time of moving, had a discussion with their manager about what the setup would be when normal office work resumed. They do 2 days max in the office now but that was sorted long before everyone came back.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,434 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    The reliability of the productivity data will depend hugely on the ability of staff to game the system.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,376 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    Lots of us have retained WFH and I intend to keep it that way.

    There are plenty of companies offering hybrid or fully remote work. If my company tried to force us back into the office I'd leave and get work elsewhere - so would many of my colleagues.

    Maybe if you and your colleagues hadn't rolled over you might be enjoying a similar level of flexibility.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Many people had a certain amount of wfh before COVID. I first did it decades ago.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,513 ✭✭✭bb1234567


    Because..almost every job that it was ever possible with during the pandemic has accomodated the concept and allowed a blended approach. Nearly everyone assumed that this would happen, with full office time or wfh time most unlikely. Which is exactly what happened. So maybe that's why?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,587 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    For sure, especially if it's activity based. Hence people cherry picking fast and easy to complete work items out of a work list and leaving harder slower items for others.

    When they were working on cracking codes during the war they had to balance their resources between low value easy to crack codes and harder high value difficult to crack codes. They obviously had a system for accurately predicting difficultly as many places do now. I thought it interesting they had this all figured out back then.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,497 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    If I started a company in the morning, it would be a bit rich of I didn't have the right to choose whether or not my employees could work from home.

    I think OP should push a bit further in the first instance without the threat of resignations.

    Maybe (ignorantly) say you know of person x, y etc (in and email) who have the privilege and say there is a precedent. They might not be willing to put the "cos they've a family" bit in an email tho.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,036 ✭✭✭circadian


    A point could be made that Dublin is no longer affordable so WFH where cost of living is lower makes more sense, also the fact that you now have to try and find accommodation in a market that is both overpriced and understocked.


    Many of my colleagues moved away from Dublin during the pandemic, for many it made life easier as they aren't incurring the insane costs of living in or around Dublin.



  • Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭global23214124


    I think I'll go with the feeling singled out compared to say a father with a newborn or something that has full remote access in another department and see can I get can I get less days in the office. I'll try the housing crisis one after that maybe. Going to keep an eye out for remote positions as well. If I search remote positions in Ireland on linkedin there are nearly 5k results. Thanks everyone for the ideas.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,434 ✭✭✭✭AndrewJRenko


    Lots of people have caring responsibilities other than children - people are caring for elderly parents, siblings with disabilities.

    Limiting the policy to people with kids sounds like lads in the 30s and 40s writing policies that suit lads in their 30s and 40s.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,308 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    I guarantee you nobody has *written* that policy



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,028 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    I think I'd tell my manager it's a hard no I'm not going back to the office. No disrespect to them it's the company pushing for it and not them. I've been able to do my job to an excellent standard for the last few years remotely, you aren't going back x days as compromise you'll go in 4 days a month. If they don't like it they will have to start the process of firing you. If you go softly on them they will see it as a negotiation that they can win by saying its a hard no they have to either accept it or fire you.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,941 ✭✭✭dogbert27


    But they did ask him to go in 4 days a month. He was asked to do 1 day in the office a week and ignored the request.

    Why should his boss believe him that he'll definitely do 2 days a week?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,028 ✭✭✭spaceHopper


    "My company recently said we have to go back to the office for 4 out of the 5 days and can work from home 1 day a week. We were supposed to be coming in 1 day a week but I haven't really done that as it wasn't enforced."

    4 days a week so they would need to move back to Dublin



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,008 ✭✭✭skallywag


    I also think that working from home is now here to stay, and all in all it is a great thing, which I massively appreciate myself. That said, I think that some people really need to get a grip on themselves.

    OP, you were asked to come in to the office one day a week, which you refused. I do not mean any offence at all, but to speak bluntly you must be genuinely living in cloud cuckoo land if you think that was a reasonable thing to do.

    If it was the other way round, say they asked for four days out of five in the office, then I could somewhat see where you are coming from. The fact that you did not agree to even coming back in one day a week though could very well have set a tone which will not be agreeable to you in the future. Such as you seem to be seeing right now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,376 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    Maybe you should read the first post in the thread again.


    Or failing that even the thread title would suffice.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement