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 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

Working From Home Megathread

1151152153154156

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭Backstreet Moyes


    Yes it is interesting, I can imagine once they grant one person the right to stay fully remote then others will demand it.

    Even if it was for some medical reason they couldn't disclose that to anyone else looking for it.

    If the green party are so intent on saving the planet, pushing for wfh would seem like a very good thing to pursue.

    Although maybe they wouldn't have any authority to tell companies what to do.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,966 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Same here. I find key players are left alone to work fully remote (from wherever they want) or hybrid. My own wife's company has recalled a load of staff back to the office, but herself and a few others have just been quietly ignored and let carry on remote. Very handy during the summer with the kids where she can work from anywhere and extend the holidays by a few weeks.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 447 ✭✭SodiumCooled


    Unfortunately as you might have seen in some of my more recent posts this "policy" has changed and now it's only people who have remote or hybrid in their contract that are now being allowed continue to work from home regardless of how important/unimportant you are to the business. Its an absolutely terrible policy and the company is already losing people over this (both in Ireland and in other locations) and rumours of more looking at the exit also. Some are still flying under the radar and getting away with doing their day or two from home against the policy (comically mostly due to their managers being fully remote and not knowing). But the net is closing in.

    It is a massive stress for me (among others) as with family commitments like you mentioned it greatly increases the challenges in a fair management of things with the kids between my wife and I. Along with additional costs, time wasted commuting and less productivity if I am honest as I find the office a far more distracting place. I hold out hope that enough people leaving might force the hand of management (though its a worldwide policy so harder to see it changed) or I will be looking towards the door also.

    Post edited by SodiumCooled on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,966 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    Ah, I see. That's unfortunate. Some companies can't shake that factory floor attitude I'm afraid. OR… people are taking the piss. However, you mention line managers being fully remote, so maybe the shift has changed towards the key players and you're simply not one of them. Would you aspire to be a line manager or (like me) you're not interested in managing people.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 447 ✭✭SodiumCooled


    It wasn't or certainly not as far as I am aware anything to do with performance, from what we can tell it's a mix of perceived control and that stupid corporate mumbo jumbo about having the "team" together and other such clichés - despite the teams already being spread across various locations anyway so it makes little sense.

    Line manager wasn't really the correct term, I am in a relatively senior position and have a number of people reporting to me already, I should have said higher management (who are line managers to those in senior roles but also keep an eye on more junior staff when it comes to WFH) who are the ones enforcing this - some of whom happen to be remote so they do not have the same visibility. Seniority has little to do with remote we have higher management and more junior roles remote which came about for various reasons (and all hired post covid) - mostly people who wouldn't move to the South of the country or who where hired abroad in a place we don't have a presence. In most cases were filling an urgent gap (at the time) so were pandered to and now are contractually protected from a forced office return.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭Backstreet Moyes


    I cant understand how in this day and age that a manager needs staff in an office to make sure they are not slacking on the work.

    You are literally assigned work and your manager can see how you are performing.

    If you had new hires and you wanted team members to come in to help out at the start, then fair enough.

    If a manager is looking for people back in the office a few days a week, I can only assume it's because they need to make it look like they do something.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,980 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Only an incompetent fool of a manager would be looking at "who is in the office" rather than "are outputs/targets being achieved".

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Wfh policies are set by a companies board of directors lads. No "manager" that you interact with during your workday gets a say in whether you can work remotely or not.



  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Regional East Moderators, Regional North West Moderators Posts: 12,435 Mod ✭✭✭✭miamee


    That depends on the size of the company surely?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    True but replae board with owner etc. No middle manager is setting remote work policy.

    They're enforcing what they're told to enforce.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,980 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Well then the idiot is higher up the organisation 😉

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,186 ✭✭✭✭Mrs OBumble


    You are literally assigned work and your manager can see how you are performing.

    Managers have now had several years to observe whether meeting expected speed targets is the only measure that matters.

    It looks like they've concluded that it's not, and that there are other less quantifiable factors that influence overall rganisational performance.

    Who'd have every guessed!

    Post edited by Mrs OBumble on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    Yeah but its easier to spout nonsense about middle managers than actually consider why companies actually want people back in the office.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Where I've worked, it's often been the middle management in different private companies or agencies and public sector organisations who have been free (or had the responsibility) to make local arrangements with remote working. Years before lock down.

    Even now our policy is it has to be signed off by the line manager. They can nix it if they require it.

    Its not much different to organising shifts or holidays, or leave. Anything really.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Many places (and managers) do not track output. They might claim to but they don't. Lots of tick boxes, especially in meetings that have no connection to reality.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭Backstreet Moyes


    What are these other less quantifiable factors?

    It would be interesting to see how large multinationals might suffer compared to others.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,372 ✭✭✭✭Cyrus


    there arent that many jobs that can be distilled to task a,b and c and percentage completion to be fair.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    There's a whole industry devoted to putting check boxes and objectives , targets achieved, customer ratings, satisfaction, retention, staff culture surveys, on anything and everything.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,841 ✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    October 2023 I started a job and was told 1-2 days a month in the office.

    January 3rd 2024, we got a new CTO who said in his inauguration speech that he despises WFH and was now mandating 3+ days a week in the office. I wonder did he co-write the book "how to lose friends and alienate people".

    Of course then the predictable happened, lots of people showed up to the office and there werent enough desks for everyone. People who had travelled in from Portarlington, ended up sitting at one of the tables in the canteen, on a chair less comfortable than their home office at home.

    My line manager lives in Denmark and has told me she doesnt care if I go to the office or not.

    The point is, unless it is written into your contract, the employer can change their policy on remote working at any point.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭Backstreet Moyes




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 447 ✭✭SodiumCooled


    In the company I work for anyway it has nothing to do with performance of that I am certain. Some of the most productive and successful times for the company (worldwide) have been during the period with a lot of hybrid/remote working (we also still retain contractually protected remote workers many of whom are management themselves). If anything the policy has hit productivity as many are "working to rule" so to speak out of annoyance with the policy - leaving on the dot of finish time, taking holidays when it suits rather than working around deadlines etc.

    Yes and no, the mandates do come from the top, In our case I feel its similar to the other poster and its the CEO or certainly the very top rung of the company (though it was communicated as a board decision or something like that). Plenty of senior level managers have been forced back to the office also who were working hybrid for years and some have left so its hitting pretty much all levels.

    That being said managers do have a say to a degree in that they can choose to turn a blind eye to things. My manager was/is currently doing this in my case but there is such a push on now that they are sort of asking me to be in everyday for now until things die down at least. I was also allowing people who report to me do a day or two from home but they are more junior staff and are less willing to rock the boat so have been coming in even though I wasn't pushing it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,051 ✭✭✭Backstreet Moyes


    Ideally it would be done by your manager, but that probably wouldn't be fair.

    Everyone I work with is outside of Ireland, so I am forced into the office one day a week to do what I do at home.

    The only differences are it costs me money and I get less work done.

    My manager thinks I have no need to go in with how I currently work, if I end up moving to a new team with people in the office then fair enough, I can see why one or two days a week would be reasonable then, although I feel perform better from home anyway.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Everyone one has a boss and the optics of one team doing one thing and another doing something else won't last long.

    It'll be flagged and the manager pulled on it.

    I work for a large MNFC with a small team under me. But I really can't see how the politics of it would differ much regardless of the company size/makeup.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Different teams might have completely different roles, one might staffing a retail unit, another a support operation requiring 24/7 cover.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    I get the work to rule aspect. If flexibility given isn't reciprocated, then you find you've burnt that bridge when you need it again.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    But it's irrelevant for the discussion. If it's company policy your line manager doesn't get a say. They tow the line and if they don't they leave themselves open to reprimand.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Our managers have veto on quite a few aspects of remote working. There's been different arrangements on different teams even before lockdown.

    Its been the same almost everywhere I've worked my entire life. Because the hr policies have always had that wriggle room.

    One I remember before lockdown was one team having remote working and another not. Or remote with Flexi time or remote with no Flexi time. All sorts of local arrangements. Same now some teams have different days in the office, and some even have different anchor days.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,980 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    We get it, management are always right and the employee is always wrong 🙄

    Post edited by Hotblack Desiato on

    In Cavan there was a great fire / Judge McCarthy was sent to inquire / It would be a shame / If the nuns were to blame / So it had to be caused by a wire.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    But for the purpose of this thread which is discussing post covid wfh/rto setups.

    Most companies have mandated a set amount of days in office. Local nuances not with standing.

    This policy is being set from the very top of the food chain. Middle managers, Directors/MDs are not setting this policy.

    Its set by the board and the rest of the ponzi scheme have to adhere to it.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    The comment I replied to was....

    " No "manager" that you interact with during your workday gets a say in whether you can work remotely or not.."

    I'm simply saying that's not true anywhere I've worked. They might not have created the policy, but they certainly have veto on it for their team(s).



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    I've never worked anywhere that local managers can veto company policy.

    They can fail to follow policy much like you can fail/ignore anything you want to in work/life.

    But you're putting yourself in a position to be reprimanded/fired/arrested if caught.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,098 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Yes, please outline some of these less quantifiable factors for us…

    (We already know about the one where a company has a 20-year lease on expensive prime retail estate offices and it looks bad to shareholders when those offices are mostly empty, so any other ones apart from that…)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,098 ✭✭✭TaurenDruid


    Arrested, because you said Bob needn't commute to Dublin for Tullamore three days a week?

    Right…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭PokeHerKing


    Why would you have a company policy that could be veto'd?

    Or do you mean the policy in your place is local management decide?

    For post covid wfh/rto mandates I don't know of any company leaving the decision to local management.

    Altho both my own career and friends group is heavily skewed towards big financial/accounting firms.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,875 ✭✭✭✭Flinty997


    Its gives more flexibility if it's required.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,841 ✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    Thats exactly how it is in my company. Managers and directors could not care less so long as the work gets done. In my place, this directive came from the CTO. Which one could argue should not be in his remit to begin with, but thats how it is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭techdiver


    Am I the only one seeing the hypocrisy and irony in Musk whining about the below when he and his ilk have no concern for work/life/family balance?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,069 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    He's a birther, as far as he's concerned women should be too busy having as many children as possible to bother working. And work-life balance is generally of little concern to male birthers as they have zero interest in actually raising their many children, so why would they need it?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,841 ✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    In a trend that is almost global at this stage, people are settling down later because its getting more and more difficult to afford a home. So they are having less kids and having them later in life. It's not surprising that one of the richest men in the world does not have those concerns, and didn't think about that.

    Not defending him, I think he's a pr1ck, just saying little details like that are not on his radar.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭techdiver


    But my point is that massive employers like him can't jump up and down with concern when they actively contribute to the problem. He is also never challenged on this whenever talking to the media.

    Cost is a major factor for people having children but a lot of that can be offset with flexible working arrangements.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,841 ✭✭✭LambshankRedemption


    Again, one of the richest men in the world he can do anything he likes and has no concern for plebs like you and me.

    I really wouldn't put too much stock in what he's saying.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,682 ✭✭✭caviardreams


    Interesting precedent set here that shows that the new legislation doesn't really count for much at all and employers still get to call the shots



  • Registered Users Posts: 25 Mirafiori


    It was always clear that the legislation only required companies to fully consider the request. It struck me at the time as a way of the Government appearing to make provision for what would be a popular option for many workers, but deliberately stopping short of really doing so. To be clear, I don't believe the Government could have imposed a WFH right for workers - there are so many situations where it is impossible and impractical. I just think they could have skipped giving a misleading impression of the lie of the land.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭techdiver


    The legislation was always completely pointless. Greatest waste of tax payers money coming up with both versions of the legislation.

    Can anyone explain what exact benefits it brings to workers? Employers can still refuse for any number if reasons without providing evidence.

    The legislation basically "gives you the right to ask" and nothing more. The updated legislation added more bells and whistles which in practice add nothing. Employers can basically say no and give any vague reason for it. TikTok also claim productivity is higher in the office. This is demonstrably false but doesn't stop them from saying it uncontested.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,796 ✭✭✭✭AdamD


    Employers should be allowed to say no, the government has no place dictating where people should work



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭noodler


    Bear in mind there are fewer managers than employees.

    That will shroud the consensus on a thread like this.

    The work is not as good as it was pre COVID is my experience. As a manager, I find you have fewer tools to address this and end up having to do more work.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,282 ✭✭✭techdiver


    I disagree. The greater good for society should always be taken into account (environmental, societal, equality, etc). There are plenty of work places legal rules in place that have improved people's lives that would have been fought against by employers over the years and guess what? Corporate profits are higher than ever so it's done them no harm.

    If a job can be done just as good remotely then for the greater good employers should be forced to accept this new way if life. They have no issue working between geographically remote teams when it suits them.

    Edit: Just to add. In my place if work they want everyone in the office full time despite the fact that the team is spread across 4 different countries, so instead of saving people hours of commute you are expected to come into the office to then hold meetings at your desk over MS Teams that you could do the exact same at home. Return to office mandates serve two purposes.

    1. Companies basically want to reduce the work force without redundancy.
    2. Weak managers can't handle the fact that they are becoming obsolete so make up bullshit about innovation in person or productivity.



Advertisement